recruitment and retention in higher … · recruitment and retention in the uk higher education...

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 2005

FULL REPORT

The Institute of Employment Studies (IES) was commissioned by the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) to carry out the 6th research report of recruitment and retention in the UK higher education sector.

The Institute of Employment Studies is an independent, apolitical, international centre of research and consultancy in human resource issues. A catalogue of over 100 titles is available form IES, or on the IES Website, www.employment-studies.ac.uk UCEA would like to thank the authors of the report:

Marie Strebler

Emma Pollard

Linda Miller

Karen Aykroyd

This study was supported by the HEFCE (The Higher Education Funding Council for England), UUK (Universities UK) and SCOP (Standing Conference of Principals)

vi

Acknowledgements

UCEA would like to thank the ten institutions that participated in the survey as case studies.

vii

Contents

Contents vii

Executive Summary xi Key findings xi

The research project xiv Current recruitment and retention issues xv

Are there recruitment and retention issues? xv Specific areas of challenge xvi

Perceived causes and impact xix Which factors influence recruitment? xix Which factors influence retention? xxii Impact on service provision xxiv

Monitoring and measurement xxiv Monitoring xxv Vacancies monitoring xxv Numbers of leavers and turnover rates xxvi Destination of leavers xxvii

Strategies and solutions xxviii Recruitment strategies xxviii Actions to tackle issues xxx Non financial benefits xxxii

Next steps xxxiv Next steps xxxiv

1. Project Background 1 1.1 The survey 1

1.1.1 Survey methodology 1 1.1.2 Profile of responses 2

1.2 The case studies 3 1.2.1 Case study model 3 1.2.2 Selecting case studies 3

1.3 Measurement and monitoring 5

2. Survey Findings 6 2.1 Regularity of recruitment and retention difficulties 6

2.1.1 Recruitment difficulties 6 2.1.2 Retention difficulties 10 2.1.3 Specific recruitment and retention difficulties 12

viii

2.2 Have recruitment and retention difficulties eased or worsened in the past year? 16 2.2.1 Perceived change in recruitment patterns 16 2.2.2 Perceived change in retention patterns 18

2.3 Particular problems with specific groups of staff 21 2.4 Factors impacting on ability to recruit and retain

academic and support staff 23 2.4.1 Recruitment 23 2.4.2 Retention 24 2.4.3 Differences by types of institution 26 2.4.4 Variations by geographical region 33

2.5 Impact of recruitment and retention difficulties on service provision 35

2.6 Innovations to tackle recruitment or retention difficulties 36

2.7 Expectations for the coming year 37

3. Recruitment Issues 39 3.1 Recruitment process 39 3.2 Areas of recruitment challenge 40

3.2.1 Is there a problem overall? 40 3.2.2 Current areas experiencing some difficulties 41 3.2.3 Impact of difficulties 42

3.3 Exploring the factors affecting recruitment 43 3.3.1 Attraction factors 43 3.3.2 Institution-specific factors 46

3.4 Challenges to recruitment 48 3.4.1 Limited pool with right skill mix 48 3.4.2 Demand outgrowing supply 49 3.4.3 Perceived quality and quantity of applicants 49 3.4.4 Pay relative to other sectors 50 3.4.5 Limited career development 51 3.4.6 Unattractive or inaccessible location 51 3.4.7 Constraints of the recruitment process 52

4. Retention Issues 54 4.1 Identifying issues 54

4.1.1 Is there a problem? 54 4.1.2 Current areas of challenge 55 4.1.3 Impact 56

4.2 Reasons for leaving 56 4.2.1 Career development 56 4.2.2 Culture shock and workload 57 4.2.3 Better reward 58 4.2.4 Line management 59 4.2.5 Other reasons 59

4.3 Destination of leavers 60

5. Strategies and Solutions 61 5.1 Improving the recruitment process 61

5.1.1 Improved marketing and branding 61

ix

5.1.2 E-recruitment 62 5.1.3 Review of advertising strategy 63 5.1.4 Use of networks, agencies and headhunters 63 5.1.5 Looking overseas 64 5.1.6 Other changes to the recruitment process 64

5.2 Position and contract terms 65 5.2.1 Offering promotion 66 5.2.2 Changing working hours 66 5.2.3 Secondments, fractional posts and

traineeships 67 5.3 Financial incentives 68

5.3.1 Market supplements and golden hellos 68 5.3.2 Matching offers 69 5.3.3 Relocation allowance 69 5.3.4 Appointing at higher points on the salary

scale 70 5.3.5 Other payments 70

5.4 Non financial benefits 70 5.4.1 Time for research/reduced teaching load 70 5.4.2 Training and development opportunities 70 5.4.3 Recognition and support 71

6. Measuring and Monitoring 73 6.1 Identifying issues with recruitment 73

6.1.1 Degree of monitoring 73 6.1.2 Examples of monitoring 74

6.2 Analyses of vacancies 75 6.3 Identifying retention issues 77

6.3.1 Measuring turnover 77 6.3.2 Use of HR data gathering methods 77

6.4 Analysis of turnover rates 78

7. Conclusion and Next Steps 81 7.1 Key findings 81

7.1.1 Recruitment and retention issues 81 7.1.2 Perceived causes and impact 82 7.1.3 Measurement and monitoring 83 7.1.4 Actions and initiatives taken 84

7.2 Next steps 85

xi

Executive Summary

Key findings

The key findings emerging from the research include:

Recruitment and retention issues

The majority of institutions in the survey believed that the picture regarding recruitment and retention had largely remained the same over the past 12 months, although there do appear to have been some improvements since our last survey in 2002.

Most institutions report that they experience recruitment and retention difficulties ‘sometimes’ for academic staff, but fewer say this is the case for other staff groups. The group where shortages were experienced most commonly was among manual workers.

Subjects for which academic recruitment shortages occurred were the same as in previous surveys: law, business and management, economics, accounting, computing/IT and health subjects.

Specific problems were also highlighted by the case study institutions for recruiting staff in education specialities such as early years and educational psychology.

Interviewees believed that problems in recruiting academics arose in areas where there is strong demand for similar groups of professionals from outside HE (eg in business, health and education).

While over half of the institutions say they ‘sometimes’ have difficulties in retaining academic, administrative and professional staff, only a minority report difficulties in retaining technical, clerical or manual staff.

More severe recruitment and retention difficulties are reported for certain groups of support staff, particularly cleaning and catering staff. Some difficulties are also reported for recruiting personnel and maintenance staff.

The case study institutions also emphasised issues regarding recruitment for senior posts in the professional and administrative field and some groups of specialists, such as

xii

academic registrars, financial accountants, business development and human resources staff.

Most institutions are expecting the situation to remain the same over the next twelve months, but a quarter expect the situation to worsen with regard to academic staff.

The case study institutions saw further potential challenges for retention in the future arising from the end of the European project funding cycle affecting staff on fixed term contracts, and the age profile of academics in some fields.

Nearly a third of HEIs felt that low turnover of academic staff was a problem, while fewer than a fifth said the same for support staff turnover. In general, more pre-1992 universities experienced problems with high turnover of support staff than post-92 institutions. For colleges, low turnover seemed to be more of an issue than high turnover.

Perceived causes and impact

A third of institutions in the survey believed that both private and public sector pay levels are affecting their ability to recruit. Private sector pay, in particular, affects support staff recruitment.

Aside from pay, challenges were perceived by institutions to include: a limited pool of applicants with the right skills; a mismatch between demand and supply of individuals with certain skills or specialisms; quantity and quality of applications; and, for some institutions, inaccessible or unattractive locations.

The case study institutions cited a number of factors that served to attract applicants such as generous terms and conditions, pleasant locations (for some), being perceived as a fair employer, interesting jobs and, for research-rich institutions, their international research profile.

Location and workload are seen by a sizeable proportion of institutions in the survey to impact on retention. Location and cost of living are particularly issues for HEIs in London and in the South.

The run up to the forthcoming RAE has increased competition for research academics amongst HEIs. Interviewees referred to this as creating an active ‘transfer market’.

Areas of dissatisfaction cited by employee interviewees included lack of career progression, an increasing workload, difficulties in gaining access to their managers and lack of support from their line managers.

Increased workload and consequent burden on existing staff is perceived to be the main impact of recruitment and retention difficulties.

xiii

Measurement and monitoring

The absence of any consistent monitoring and evaluation, apart from equal opportunities monitoring, presents the case study HEIs with challenges in identifying and measuring the extent of difficulties.

Analyses of unfilled vacancies data provided by the survey respondents indicated that the highest proportions of posts remaining unfilled after three months are for academics and manual staff.

However, the turnover rates for permanent staff from the HESA statistics show rates to be lowest for technical, academic and administrative staff. Rates are slightly higher for manual and clerical staff.

Institutions adopt no consistent approach to calculating turnover rates. The types of leavers included in institutional calculations can include both involuntary (eg retirement) and voluntary (eg leaving to go to a new job). Three-quarters of institutions use exit surveys or interviews but few analyse the outcomes of these procedures.

The case study institutions felt that there was no real problem with retention from a sector-wide perspective in that those who leave are mostly moving to another HEI, rather than to another sector.

Actions and initiatives taken

There were few accounts in the survey of actions being taken to address recruitment or retention issues. Only a third of institutions reported upgrading posts for support staff and only a third had introduced market supplements (for both academic and support staff).

The case studies provided some more examples of strategies adopted by the case study institutions to address recruitment and retention difficulties. These included: attempting to be seen as an employer of choice; developing e-recruitment and websites; using informal networks and encouraging applications from overseas.

Actions reported by the case study institutions included the use of Rewarding and Developing Staff funding to increase promotion opportunities and offer improved relocation allowances to potential recruits, as well as the introduction of more flexible working patterns and the use of more fractional posts.

Non-financial rewards cited by the case study institutions in attempts to improve retention included increased time for research, the recognition of teaching contribution, better access to training and development (including induction), and improved communications.

xiv

The research project

As part of its continuing research into the Higher Education labour market, the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) commissioned the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) to undertake a research project to explore current patterns in the recruitment and retention of staff in HE. The research also examined the methods by which HE employers monitor and measure workforce changes and the solutions found by HEIs in dealing with any shortages. Previous surveys of recruitment and retention have been conducted on a regular basis by UCEA, the last being in 2002. The research was supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Universities UK (UUK) and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP). The research covered HEIs throughout the UK.

The research used both quantitative and qualitative methods to build on previous research and to provide an up-to-date picture of the challenges facing Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The first phase of the project was a survey of all HE institutions’ staff recruitment and retention difficulties via the HEFCE extranet. Conducted in early 2005, the survey asked institutions to provide information that related mainly to the calendar year 2004, with the exception of their number of vacancies, which related to the academic year 2003-04. One hundred and forty-five responses were received which is equivalent to a response rate of 87 per cent. This provides a very good representation of the sector. Survey respondents consist of 58 pre-1992 universities, 43 post-1992 universities and 44 colleges. Three replies were received from Northern Ireland, 15 from Scotland and 11 from Wales. This is a larger number of responses than was obtained in the previous survey, conducted in 2002, in which 126 returns were received.

The second phase of the research was a series of ten case studies to examine the experience of individual institutions. The ten universities and colleges visited represent a cross section of: geographic regions in the UK (one in Scotland, Wales, South West, East, Yorkshire and Humberside, West Midlands, and two each in the North West and in London); types of institutions (five pre-92 universities including a research intensive university, three post-92 institutions, one specialist college and one general college); and sizes, with student populations ranging from 2,000 to 30,000. Interviews were conducted with twenty one heads of academic departments, eight heads of support departments and fourteen representatives from the central HR/personnel function. Also, in six of the case studies, interviews or focus groups were held with newly-recruited staff (twenty-three in total).

The key messages emerging from the quantitative and qualitative phases of the research project were used as the basis for an assessment of the extent and nature of recruitment and retention challenges within HEIs. In addition, the factors that are

xv

contributing to these difficulties, the methods by which institutions measure and evaluate them, and possible solutions found by institutions, are reported.

Current recruitment and retention issues

The project set out to assess the extent and nature of recruitment and retention difficulties within HE institutions. Institutions were asked about the regularity with which they experience difficulties, and the academic areas and groups of staff most affected by recruitment and retention issues.

Are there recruitment and retention issues?

The majority of institutions in the survey believed that the picture regarding recruitment and retention had largely remained the same over the past 12 months, although there do appear to have been some improvements since 2002. As shown in Figure 1, only a minority of institutions reported that they ‘always’ or ‘usually’ had recruitment difficulties with any groups of staff. Most institutions experienced recruitment difficulties ‘sometimes’ for academic, administrative and professional staff, and manual staff. However, recruitment difficulties were ‘rarely’ reported for clerical and technical staff. The group with the highest incidence of employers experiencing problems ‘usually’ was manual workers.

Similar trends emerged for the retention of staff across the institutions responding to the survey. The exception was that more institutions reported ‘sometimes’ experiencing retention difficulties for clerical staff than they did for recruitment (see Figure 2). The majority of institutions felt that the situation with regard to recruitment and retention would remain the same over the coming twelve months for all groups of staff, except academics. With academic staff, a quarter of institutions (mainly pre-1992 HEIs) expected recruitment and retention to worsen.

In the case study institutions, while there were some areas in which persistent difficulties were experienced as discussed below, there was a general view that recruitment problems occasionally arose but that these were not really systematic or consistent. In most cases, the problems were felt not to be insurmountable: ‘we always manage in the end’ as one interviewee remarked.

Amongst HR representatives and heads of department, there was generally felt to be no real problem with retention in that either people were not leaving, or those who did leave were mostly moving within the sector, (hence HE as a whole was not losing individuals), or there was a pool of recruits to replace those who left.

xvi

Figure 1: Regularity of recruitment difficulties, by staff group*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Academic Administrative andprofessional

Technical Clerical Manual

Always Usually More often than not Sometimes Rarely Never

Source: UCEA survey of HEIs, 2005 (*Note: the survey does not include clinical academics)

Figure 2: Regularity of retention difficulties, by staff group*

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Academic Administrative andprofessional

Technical Clerical Manual

Always Usually More often than not Sometimes Rarely Never

Source: UCEA survey of HEIs, 2005 (*Note: the survey does not include clinical academics)

However, the case study institutions saw potential challenges for retention in the future. Amongst these were the ending of the European funding cycle, leading to the potential loss of staff on fixed-term contracts funded through the European Social Fund and other European funding streams, and the ageing profile of academics in some fields, particularly health sciences.

Specific areas of challenge

Academic staff

Some of the subject areas in which recruitment shortages were identified by the survey respondents was the same as in previous years: law, business and management, economics, accounting and

xvii

computing/IT. Health subjects again were areas of difficulty, in particular nursing and other health care professions. In general, these subjects appeared to be causing difficulties across all types of institution.

In terms of grade of staff, the majority of reports of staff recruitment difficulties concerned the recruitment of lecturing staff with slightly fewer difficulties reported for recruiting professors. While not reporting consistent problems with recruitment, some HEIs noted regular difficulties in recruiting certain grades of staff. For example, electrical and electronic engineering were subject areas in which institutions were encountering some difficulties recruiting lecturers and, to a lesser extent, professors. Recruitment of lecturers in sport science and biology also caused difficulties for some institutions.

Given concerns about the ageing profile of their workforce, institutions were asked if they had any difficulties in recruiting young academic staff. A larger proportion of post-1992 universities in the survey (27 per cent) reported this to be a problem than did colleges (ten per cent) or pre-1992 universities (nine per cent).

Similar problem areas for recruitment were reported by the case study institutions. Specific problems were highlighted in recruiting staff for education. Specialities such as Early Years, Childhood Studies and Educational Psychology, were proving a particular challenge. Attracting individuals from the secondary school sector was problematic too.

HR staff and heads of department felt that difficulties in recruiting academic staff tended to arise in areas where there are equivalent needs for professionals in the private sector or wider public sector, and in areas seeing above average growth within the sector. This leads to HEIs having to compete with other employers as well as with other HEIs. This was a problem across all of the HEIs visited. Problems arose at all levels but appeared to be greater when recruiting to senior posts.

With retention, the survey data showed that difficulties were reported for the same main groups as those for which difficulties in recruitment were found: law, economics, business, nursing etc... In other areas, however, low turnover rates of academic staff were viewed as a problem by nearly a third of institutions.

HR staff interviewed in the case studies believed retention was not a real issue. However, in some geographical regions HEIs (mostly those in the South East) were experiencing some retention difficulties. This was particularly the case for areas in which there was both local and national competition and competition from within HE and outside the sector. These included academic research and teaching staff in areas of social work, finance and sociology.

xviii

Support staff

The two groups of support staff in which the largest numbers of reports of difficulties were seen in both recruiting and retaining staff were cleaning and catering. Fifty nine institutions reported difficulties recruiting, and 55 institutions difficulties retaining, cleaning staff. For catering staff, 55 institutions reported recruitment and 42 retention difficulties. A sizeable proportion of institutions in the survey also reported having difficulties in recruiting personnel and maintenance staff (33 and 31 institutions respectively) but fewer — around half as many — reported difficulty retaining these staff groups. Almost one-fifth of survey respondents (19 per cent) indicated that they had problems retaining young support staff in 2004. More of the pre- and post-1992 universities reported this to be an issue (23 and 22 per cent respectively) than did colleges (11 per cent). In addition, more of the pre-1992 universities (32 per cent) experienced a problem with high turnover of support staff in general compared with post-1992 universities (27 per cent) and colleges (15 per cent); while for colleges low turnover of support staff seemed to be more of an issue.

The case study institutions confirmed the survey findings for cleaners and caterers. Some of the comments made by interviewees concerning cleaners clearly illustrate the challenge: ‘[We] couldn’t recruit cleaners at all, [it was] virtually impossible, as they can get more pay in the private sector’ (HR representative). Recruiting caterers is also a problem, particularly when there is a need to satisfy increased demand; ‘Catering is the main recruitment issue. It has always been difficult to recruit good general catering assistants and chefs and the department is growing so it is becoming more important to recruit a core of staff’ (head of department).

When compared with the survey findings, however, the case study institutions seemed to place more emphasis on issues experienced with the recruitment for senior support posts in the professional and administrative staff group. These included academic registrars and assistant registrars, financial accountants and finance staff in general, business development and project management, estates management, professional engineering staff and planning support. In addition, there were difficulties in recruiting HR staff, particularly project managers and consultants.

Similarly, HR staff reported difficulties in recruiting technical staff, particularly senior technical staff, IT technicians (eg web-designers and systems administrators), animal lab staff, and skilled trades such as electricians. While retention was not perceived to be a problem overall, HR staff in the South East reported some issues relating to the retention of support staff in secretarial posts, junior administrative roles, HR, web support and library clerical roles. Interviewees also reported there were

xix

difficulties retaining manual staff, particularly catering and cleaning staff.

But some improving areas

In the case study institutions, HR representatives also mentioned areas in which they had previously or traditionally experienced problems, but where those difficulties had largely been overcome, either due to changes in focus for the institution and/or wider market changes increasing the supply of suitably qualified individuals. These included computing (both in academic and support roles), and maths and physics academic staff. Interestingly, respondents in the survey still identified computing as an area where problems are encountered. On closer examination, this was mostly cited by pre-1992 universities (21 out of 58).

Perceived causes and impact

The factors that are contributing to these challenges and the impact of these difficulties on the institutions and the service they provide are discussed together for the survey and the case studies. Respondents in the survey were asked whether a set of suggested factors (private and public sector pay; workload; location; cost of living; and fixed-term contracts) impact on their ability to recruit and retain academic and support staff. Interviewees in the case study institutions generated a list of factors which served to attract recruits or challenged the institution’s ability to compete for staff.

Which factors influence recruitment?

As shown in Figure 3, a third of the institutions in the survey believed that both private and public sector pay levels were affecting their ability to recruit academic staff. This was particularly the case for post-1992 universities in the survey. Private sector pay was cited by over half of the institutions as impacting on their ability to recruit support staff.

There is regional variation in the extent to which these factors are viewed as being important. Private sector pay was seen as an issue affecting academic staff recruitment by a majority of institutions in the East and West Midlands, the North East, South West and East of England, and in Northern Ireland. A majority of institutions in the East and West Midlands, North West and South East also identified public sector pay as a factor impacting on their ability to recruit academic staff. Cost of living was cited by a greater proportion of institutions in the South East as a factor in recruiting both academic and support staff.

xx

Figure 3: Factors impacting on ability to recruit academic staff and support staff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Pay levels in private sector

Pay levels in the public sector

Workload

Location of your institution

Cost of living (housing etc) inyour area

Fixed term contracts

Academic Support Source: UCEA survey of HEIs, 2005

The list of factors that helped to attract applicants identified by interviewees in the case study institutions is shown in Box 1.

Box 1: Factors attracting applicants

offering generous terms and conditions

located in a pleasant environment

being a fair employer

interesting and fulfilling jobs

RAE profile

HEIs thought they could offer more generous terms and conditions than those in other industries and sectors (eg final salary pension, reasonable holidays, sick pay, subsidised refectories, sports facilities and parking). As one Head of Academic Services noted, people may be unaware of this aspect to working in HE: ‘perhaps we don’t make enough of these. Our salaries may not compete but we have other benefits’.

Those institutions based on campuses with green open spaces felt that a pleasant environment is an attraction. The sector is also building a reputation of being a fair employer offering good family friendly policies. The ability to offer interesting, fulfilling and worthwhile jobs together with institution-specific factors such as reputation (eg Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)) completed the list. These factors tended to be attractive to both academic and support staff.

The case study interviewees also identified challenges facing them in recruiting the right people as shown in Box 2.

xxi

Box 2: Challenges in recruitment

limited pool of applicants

finding the right skill mix

mismatch between supply and demand

quality and quantity of applications

pay in HE

unattractive and inaccessible location

For some senior academic posts and also some support posts, the institution is ‘fishing in a very small pool’. Across the UK and even internationally, there is a limited supply of suitably qualified and experienced individuals. The small size of the pool in some disciplines creates an intense competition amongst HEIs. This has recently been intensified in the run up to the forthcoming RAE in reducing the number of suitable candidates and inflating their value in the sector, creating what some interviewees referred to as an active ‘transfer market’.

Another issue identified was the mismatch between demand and supply in terms of the demand for subjects amongst students leading to increased demand for academic staff and the corresponding supply of these staff. In some disciplines, such as Psychology, the demand for academic staff is growing faster than supply. HR representatives and heads of department noted that, for some posts, the quality of applications they receive and the quality of applicants can be poor and quantity of applications small.

Pay in the HE sector is considered by some department heads to lag behind that offered in the public and the private sectors. Moving to work in HE from outside can sometimes result in a substantial drop in earnings. This is particularly an issue for education academics moving from senior level posts in the secondary school sector, due to recent improvements in school teachers’ pay. Some department heads also felt they could not afford to pay at the same rates as other more ‘research rich’ universities.

When recruiting support staff, an unattractive or inaccessible location was also a challenge: ‘we are slightly out of the way, in an inconvenient location for those on low incomes and working few hours. It is two bus rides…if you are working only 15 hours a week it can be a problem’. The recruitment process itself can be slow, which could mean that suitable candidates accepted other offers; alternatively, some institutions found their deadlines for applications too tight to allow time for people from overseas to apply.

xxii

Which factors influence retention?

Location and workload were seen by a sizeable proportion of institutions in the survey as impacting primarily on retention as seen in Figure 4. Institutions in the South West and Wales identified workload as an issue in retaining academic staff and Northern Ireland and the South West in retaining support staff. Location was primarily mentioned as an issue in retention for both groups of staff by institutions located in London and the South. Private sector pay levels are an important factor for support staff. Nearly half of institutions felt that private sector pay is a factor affecting their ability to retain support staff. Public sector pay levels were seen as more important for academic staff than support staff and short-term contracts were also seen as a more important factor for academic retention. Cost of living was the least important factor in retention.

Figure 4: Factors impacting on ability to retain academic staff and support staff

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Pay levels in private sector

Pay levels in the public sector

Workload

Location of your institution

Cost of living (housing etc) inyour area

Fixed term contracts

Academic Support Source: UCEA survey of HEIs, 2005

Given that only a few of the case study institutions closely monitor reasons for leaving, most of the information relating to reasons for staff departing are based on the perceptions of HR representatives and heads of departments. These are supplemented by the comments regarding areas of dissatisfaction made by newly recruited staff in the focus groups.

Areas of dissatisfaction cited by interviewees as shown in Box 3 can be classified as extrinsic factors (such as pay) or intrinsic factors (such as career development).

xxiii

Box 3: Areas of dissatisfaction*

career progression

increasing workload

work pressure

access to management

lack of line manager support

pay

* In no particular order

One of the key intrinsic factors identified by both HR representatives and heads of department as contributing to staff decisions to leave was to improve their careers. They felt that staff moved on to achieve higher responsibilities and more senior positions. Indeed one newly recruited staff member noted: ‘we can undertake further training and study for qualifications but this can mean that people become overqualified for their jobs and have no real opportunities to apply their skills, so good people leave’. A closely-related factor that increases the likelihood that individuals would need to move out to progress is low turnover in senior positions: ‘there is quite a big jump up from administrator to advisor grade, and they have to wait for a post to become vacant to apply for upgrading’.

Increasing workload, particularly amongst academic staff, is also regarded as a retention issue. Many staff reported dissatisfaction with this aspect of their jobs during the staff focus groups. One member of staff said that he felt he had had no real settling-in time: ‘it was just constant work. I had to come in hard and fast to get things done, there was no space available, it was just all hands on deck’. Increasing numbers of students, the amount of bureaucracy and paperwork and under-resourced departments are amongst other related reasons cited by newly recruited staff.

For some individuals, the move to HE from another sector can be something of a culture shock when HE, in reality, proves to be a challenging environment. Feedback from the staff focus groups indicated there were some issues with line management that were causing job dissatisfaction. These included the perceived poor management of under-performing colleagues and the lack of personal supervision and guidance. A participant noted ‘getting concrete help and support was really hard’, and another reported how difficult it was to see line managers.

Contrasted with this, some HR representatives acknowledged that a key reason for leaving is the better salaries to be obtained elsewhere, often outside of the HE sector. This is particularly the case in health sciences, as the pay in the NHS has recently become much more attractive. Competition within the sector was referred to by some heads of departments who feel unable to compete

xxiv

effectively in salary terms with those universities with a strong research profile and funding.

Impact on service provision

Few institutions in the survey reported that their inability to recruit staff, rapid turnover, or having to recruit lower quality staff than they ideally would like had had any impact on the provision of services to date. Around a quarter of institutions in the survey said that shortage of staff due to the inability to recruit had impacted on teaching and a similar number said there had been an impact on support services. This seems to be more of an issue for colleges and post-1992 universities than for pre-1992 universities.

The main impact of the difficulties in recruitment reported by the case study institutions was increased workload. The pressure is felt both above and below the vacant post and ripples can also be felt outside of the department directly affected: ‘there is a threshold below which people struggle to get the job done’. Other impacts were seen in the costs of re-advertising; the use of agency staff; and the increased use of visiting lecturers to cover teaching responsibilities. It is interesting to note, though, that both focus groups with newly recruited staff and the interviews with HR representatives also identified the latter as a potential route into a more permanent position.

The impact of high turnover and difficulties retaining staff in the case study institutions was felt in the loss of investment in terms of recruitment time and expense, and investment in staff development. As one head of HR noted: ‘We have invested in them …it is a ‘lead time’ issue in terms of the new person acquiring sufficient knowledge to ‘get up to speed’, plus there is the manager’s time in developing the new person’. When academic staff leave, it can also impact on the student: staff ratio. However, one of the key effects of retention problems was an increase in the workload burden on existing staff: ‘if someone leaves we rely on other people to cover and be flexible’ (Head of HR). This can lead to staff dissatisfaction and, in turn, encourage more staff to leave. Indeed HR representatives and heads of department noted the importance of communication and managing expectations to try to avoid a vicious circle developing.

Monitoring and measurement

In order to gauge where problems are the most highly felt and target interventions, institutions need to monitor, measure and evaluate their recruitment and retention difficulties. The HESA data were used to analyse the degree of staff turnover in HE and the institutions in the survey provided data on their long-term vacancies. The case study institutions discussed their degree of monitoring and perceived turnover and reasons for leaving.

xxv

Monitoring

One of the key variations in HR recruitment and retention activities across the case studies is the extent of, and sophistication in, monitoring initiatives undertaken. In most of the HEIs visited, discussions indicated that, apart from equal opportunities monitoring, there is no real consistent monitoring of the recruitment process and of its outcomes, either through a lack of resources, capacity or focus.

Some institutions rely on a paper based system which makes it difficult to analyse or monitor recruitment activities in any great detail. For others, when figures are captured they are limited, uninformative or not used. Often the data gathered were limited to the number of applications received, the background of applicants, the number of posts vacant and the number of vacancies filled, with no real monitoring of the quality of applicants. In other cases, the data were not broken down in a way that would enable managers to identify problems and causes.

With no regular monitoring, this presents the case study HEIs with challenges in identifying and measuring the extent of any difficulties. HR has to rely on departments to provide such information. To facilitate this, many of the case study institutions had aligned HR services to departments. Indeed, one institution spoke of working closely with departments: ‘we try to get schools to alert us to any problems in recruitment or retention so that we can trouble-shoot and work together to move forward’.

Vacancies monitoring

Another way of highlighting recruitment difficulties is to monitor the number of vacancies and to determine how many have remained unfilled over a period. Institutions in the survey were asked to provide these data. Their interpretation, however, may be limited by the issues concerning monitoring highlighted above. There are other reasons too that make such data unreliable. Indeed, there is no common definition of what constitutes a ‘vacancy’. There are many reasons why posts remain unfilled: it may be because vacancies are proving hard to fill; because agreement to fill a post has not been reached within this time period; or because a strategic decision has been taken to delay recruitment in order to save money.

Nonetheless, institutions that responded to the survey gave information about the number of vacancies that had occurred during the academic year 2003–04, and how many of these had remained unfilled for more than three months. Not surprisingly, the largest number of vacancies is recorded for the academic staff group, which is also the largest group in the survey. After this, clerical and administrative posts are those in which the next highest numbers of vacancies are seen.

xxvi

If posts unfilled after three months are considered as a proportion of all vacancies, the highest proportions of posts remaining unfilled after three months are seen for academic and manual staff (13 per cent respectively). Similar proportions of administrative and professional posts (12 per cent) and technical staff (10 per cent) remain unfilled after three months. The vacancies least likely to remain unfilled for long periods of time are those for clerical positions (six per cent).

Numbers of leavers and turnover rates

The turnover rate for permanent staff in the institutions participating in the survey is based on their HESA returns for the calendar year 20041. The turnover rate has been calculated as a percentage of the number of permanent staff on full-time, or full-time, term-time, contracts who leave from a particular staff group in the year. The groups for which the lowest proportion of leavers is seen are technical staff (six per cent) and academic staff (seven per cent) followed by administrative and professional staff (eight per cent). For manual and clerical staff, the rate is slightly higher, at 10 per cent. Colleges have the highest leaving rates for administrative and professional and technical staff. There is little difference in the leaving rates for academic, clerical staff and manual staff between the different types of institution.

A meaningful comparison with turnover rates in the wider economy is notoriously difficult to achieve, given different methods of calculations and varied definitions of leaver categories so the following comparison is tentative at best. From a comparison with the latest data available from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD)2, it can be seen that the median turnover rates for permanent staff in the universities generally fall below the median voluntary turnover rates in the wider economy. The highest median turnover rate, ten per cent for permanent manual staff, is considerably lower than the 26 per cent seen in the private sector services and the 15 per cent within the public sector services grouping.

Most of the HR representatives interviewed in the case study institutions were able to give turnover figures, but some have difficulties interpreting these in the most meaningful way. Although the research did not investigate the case study institution methods of calculating turnover rates in detail, discussions with HR staff suggest there to be no real consistent

1 Data taken from the HESA New Individualised Staff Record 2003/04

- amended by HEFCE following data provided on 1 April 2005. 2 CIPD (2005) Recruitment, retention and turnover. Annual Survey

Report 2005 (note: data relate to calendar year 2004). http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8A034D9F-B54E-44D1-B198-71026BB3DAAA/0/recruitretntsurv05.pdf.

xxvii

way in measuring turnover across the ten case studies. Indeed, one HR representative talked of the difficulties in removing the influence of retirement and of people finishing short term contracts in order to identify what he felt to be ‘true turnover or retention’.

Nonetheless, across the case studies, turnover is perceived to be low and falling year on year, with HR representatives quoting figures ranging from six to 12 per cent. As one HR representative noted: ‘Turnover is low, less than 12 per cent and has reduced from about 20 per cent in 2001. We must be doing something right’. Another noted how retention had been a problem in the past due to the institution suffering severe financial problems but turnover has improved: ‘we have turned things round and now turnover is low, we now have over retention as people tend to get too comfortable’.

The case study institutions tended to give a single turnover figure for the whole institution. One institution, however, was able to break down their turnover figures. This showed that although they had very low rates for permanent academic staff, clerical staff and technical staff, rates for manual staff were much higher.

Destination of leavers

Institutions in the survey were asked about their use of attitude and exit surveys. While only a third reported using attitude surveys, nearly three-quarters used some form of exit survey or interview.

Similarly, some of the universities participating in the case studies have moved beyond turnover figures to undertake exit surveys or interviews. They had done so with varying degrees of success. One reported low response rates to their exit survey but, as turnover is not perceived to be a real problem, the need to gather feedback on retention was not regarded as a priority. Another said that staff generally were willing to provide feedback on leaving and had found that exit interviews were more useful than surveys as ‘people say more than they write down’.

No real trends or patterns in leaver destinations emerged from the discussions with HR representatives. Indeed, interviewees typically could give examples of staff that have moved on to a range of various activities. However, heads of department felt that many of their leavers stayed within the HE sector. Possible destinations cited include retirement - causing some concerns for departments with ageing staff profiles (eg health sciences); other HEIs – there is movement within the sector, particularly for senior support posts and academic staff which has been referred to as a ‘transfer market’; outside of HE — staff can move into other public sector organisations (eg to local authorities, and the NHS) and those leaving from professional support (non-academic) roles

xxviii

can go into the private sector; and further study — some leavers return to education.

Strategies and solutions

The solutions and strategies used by HEIs to remedy these problems were investigated, including financial or non-financial incentives used to recruit and retain, and the efficacy of these methods in resolving the problems.

Recruitment strategies

First, there appears to be much that HEIs can, and do, utilise to improve their recruitment process — to improve the field of candidates for vacancies, improve the quality of applications and the ease of selection, and enhance monitoring to identify areas before they become problems as shown in Box 4.

Box 4: Improving recruitment strategies

become an employer of choice

make full use of technology

develop own recruitment website

advertise vacancies on external websites

introduce better HR systems

use informal networks

use recruitment agencies and head-hunters

create an internal pool of labour

widen the net overseas

align selection process to skill needs

Most HR representatives and heads of departments in the case study institutions highlighted the need to raise the profile and improve the branding of their institution as an employer of choice and to better ‘sell’ the institution and the vacancies they have. In particular they believed that highlighting the benefits of working in the sector and at the specific institution would assist recruitment: ‘we need to help people understand what university life is like and the advantages and rewards of a career in HE’.

Additionally, institutions felt that efforts should be made to overcome any negative perceptions, particularly those relating to image or location. Several case study institutions are working on this aspect, for example tightening up and standardising their recruitment literature, improving information about posts and the institution itself and making adverts more ‘dynamic’; improving links with industry; using high profile ‘champions’ such as VCs to

xxix

raise the institution’s image and profile; and working with their marketing departments to improve their profile in the region and across the UK.

Many HR representatives felt a need to make better use of technology in their recruitment activities, particularly in terms of enabling candidates to apply for jobs online, and to have their own recruitment website listing opportunities, providing information about the institution and giving guidance to individuals on how to apply (eg next steps). Some of the case study institutions had made progress in this respect. One HR representative noted how the institution’s recruitment website provides case study examples of real staff, giving an account of their careers, their progress, and what they like about working at the institution. Another site gives potential applicants hints and tips on applying. Others have successfully used external recruitment websites to advertise their vacancies. For example, one institution used a recruitment website for advertising a vacancy in their IT services department. They found it was very effective in that they received a good response and saved money on advertising in the trade press, such as Computer Weekly.

HR representatives also spoke of a need for better HR systems that would allow closer monitoring of recruitment and retention, in order to identify problems and provide more accurate information. Introducing a new Management Information system provides opportunities to obtain more meaningful data. Another aspect to improving the recruitment process described by a few HR representatives is to rethink advertising strategy – looking at the most cost effective means of attracting the best candidates. One head of HR spoke of his target to reduce spend on advertising, which is leading the institution to question the ethos of externally advertising all vacancies, regardless of the suitability of internal candidates. He noted that external advertising can send negative signals to existing staff but acknowledged that there may be equal opportunities issues in not advertising widely.

Most of the case study institutions were using formal networks ,and particularly the informal networks of heads of department and senior staff, when recruiting to senior support or academic posts. This is used mainly to encourage applications from particular individuals and strengthen the quality of the applicant field rather than to side-step the selection process: ‘to get the vacancy out there, pass the word about and share ideas for potential candidates’. HR representatives also reported using recruitment agencies and head-hunters but this appears to be a strategy that they are reluctant to adopt, using it only occasionally when they encounter particular difficulties and often only with key posts.

Operating its own agency for temporary staff had worked successfully for one institution where it provides an internal pool to cover secretarial and admin posts, using returnees to work, re-

xxx

deployed staff, people looking for work experience, and students on gap years. However, for another institution this had not been a successful venture, being too costly and raising concerns over quality.

The case study HEIs reported receiving an increasing number of applications from overseas. Sometimes this was as a result of a deliberate strategy to widen the search for candidates, particularly in academic specialities or for senior research posts with a limited candidate pool. In other cases it was as part of a strategy to achieve a better fit with student profiles. However, there were some concerns raised about the commitment to stay with the institution of these, often very geographically mobile, individuals. Other strategies in evidence included: the introduction of innovative selection techniques (eg presentation to a panel of students, giving a short lecture, in-tray exercises), working with other institutions for a local recruitment initiative to recruit technicians, and looking to reduce recruitment lead time.

Actions to tackle issues

A minority of institutions in the survey reported that they had taken action to tackle recruitment or retention difficulties. The action that the largest number of institutions (just over a third) reported introducing was upgraded posts for support staff, while about a third had introduced market supplements for academic and support staff. Slightly fewer had upgraded posts for academic staff.

The uptake of such initiatives was similar across all institutions, except for the upgrading of posts for support staff. Some 41 per cent of colleges and 40 per cent of post-1992 universities had taken this action, compared with just 24 per cent of pre-1992 universities. Many of these actions and activities were being used in combination to address both recruitment and retention difficulties.

The case study institutions were also making changes to contract terms to attract new staff, fill vacancies, and retain existing staff (see Box 5). However, from the case study evidence there appeared to be limited upgrading of posts, as this is regarded as a complex process that involves various committees, and could be a permanent change for an institution. As one HR manager noted: ‘some managers do not see the bigger picture and want to offer higher salaries or to regrade the post to help keep the person but the case has to be made and we do not have the flexibility’. Another described how they carefully evaluate each post before it is advertised to encourage recruitment or improve retention.

It is interesting to note that when asked about changes in the next 12 months, 17 institutions in the survey made reference either to job evaluation or movement towards the national framework

xxxi

‘single spine’. The majority felt that these changes would enable them to improve rewards for some staff and help with retention.

Box 5: Actions to tackle issues

use RDS money to increase promotion opportunities

create visible career paths

change working hours for manual staff

introduce flexible working scheme

use fractional or transitional posts

encourage secondments from other employment

match salary offers

offer relocation allowances

One HR representative described how the institution had used the Rewarding and Developing Staff (RDS) funding to continue and even exceed their current rate of promotion as a retention mechanism, so that there is now no real cap on the number of promotions per year. Another had used RDS money to fund promotion exercises. Other institutions were working to make progression routes more visible, to create improved career paths and to better manage career progression, especially in support roles.

Two universities reported that changing the working hours of manual staff had been a successful recruitment and retention mechanism. One institution has introduced a night shift for cleaners. They believed this worked well because it helps employees fit work in with their wider commitments. Another had introduced similar night shifts for cleaners but this had been done so that the institution could offer higher pay.

One smaller institution had successfully introduced a flexible working scheme. It was introduced in response to feedback from their staff survey, which indicated that staff favoured flexibility and also in response to feedback from applicants, who placed a greater focus on work life balance than on salary. Fractional or ‘transitional’ posts had been used to address difficulties attracting individuals into HE, particularly those currently working outside of the sector. This is a strategy welcomed by heads of departments needing to recruit academic staff with industry experience (eg media) or clinical practice (eg health sciences). Secondments to the institution from outside employment can allow individuals to ‘try before they buy’, gaining first-hand experience of working in HE and at the institution.

There was limited use of market supplements or of introductory rewards such as Golden hellos amongst the case study institutions, although most had looked into these as a mechanism

xxxii

for overcoming recruitment difficulties: ‘we are loathe to go down that route, we would want to try other routes’; ‘Golden hellos for top people may be effective, however, academics tend to favour other incentives like a cap on the number of teaching hours. HR representatives reported that changes to pay to attract or retain key people are restricted by pay structures and trade unions. Furthermore, they acknowledged that they can lead to imbalances within departments and an unclear pay system, with new staff being appointed on much better salaries than existing staff: ‘other staff ask “why am I not getting this?”’. There is a general feeling that tweaking pay is a short-term measure that would create problems in the longer term.

Some universities had tried to match salary offers in order to retain key individuals in senior academic or support roles. However, this often relies on heads of departments anticipating problems and spotting people thinking of leaving, but equally, rumours of impending departure may be used to improve an individual’s bargaining position.

Lastly, some HR representatives spoke of offering relocation allowances to attract individuals to move to the local area when relocating within the UK or from overseas. As one interviewee noted: ‘we have used our RDS money to increase the allowance considerably, it is good value for money because you only have to pay it once’. To a large extent, these actions all come under the banner of extrinsic rewards and there is a limit regarding the extent to which this is under an institution’s control.

Non financial benefits

A range of non-financial incentives was reported by the case study institutions. These act as intrinsic motivators/rewards to tackle difficulties in attracting new staff and in retaining key staff (see Box 6.

Many institutions were attempting to provide time for research and reduced teaching load through sabbaticals, time off and reduced teaching hours, along with better research facilities (including travel and conference budgets). However, as one interviewee highlighted, this is not cost neutral: ‘you can employ excellent tutors, purely to teach, but to retain people you need to give them career development opportunities — but in order to progress to lecturer positions people need to undertake research and we don’t have the funding to support this.’

xxxiii

Box 6: Non-financial Rewards

more time provided for research

reduced teaching loads

sabbaticals, time off etc.

improved research facilities (eg via conference attendance etc.)

improved access to training and development

making staff feel valued

recognising teaching contribution

improved communication and response to staff feedback

induction to the HE sector as well as the job for new staff

‘buddy’ and mentoring systems for new staff

Offering training and development opportunities, encouragement and support (such as payment towards fees and time off to study) are regarded by both HR and heads of department as ways to attract and retain staff. This is something that staff appreciated, as indicated in the focus groups with newly recruited staff. HR representatives noted that helping staff to feel valued by providing recognition and support can help with retention. Several spoke of the importance of recognising the work of teaching staff which tends to be overlooked in formal structures such as promotion and progression (and therefore pay) which focus on research contributions, such as the number of publications. One head of HR described how they rewarded excellent teaching contribution through awards and teaching fellowships; another, predominantly a teaching institution, had recently moved to recognise teaching contribution in the academic promotion process.

Communication also appears to play a key role in staff perceptions of ‘value’. One institution had introduced a retention initiative in 2000 which had communication at its heart. A series of Staff Partnership Groups, operating across all sectors and grades, allows staff to feed back on issues that are important to them and help to ensure that staff feel listened to.

Supporting new staff to settle in is also reported as a way to improve retention and can mean providing clear guidance on what is expected of them. One HR representative reported that their institution has a formal induction with structured on-the-job training during a probationary period, regular meetings with line managers, formal induction to the institution and attendance on standard courses (eg first aid, how to be appraised, diversity awareness etc.). Another noted how they had improved their induction process after feedback from staff to include an introduction to the HE sector (including the jargon used, as this can be particularly confusing) and the institution’s position in the

xxxiv

sector, which was found to be particularly useful to those new to HE. They also used a ‘buddy’ system for new staff (ie role models to help new recruits feel at home) and offered mentoring.

Next steps

Next steps

The research findings clearly demonstrate that the efforts of HEIs to address recruitment and retention issues have been met with some success. Many of the initiatives have been focused on improving the recruitment process and on using financial incentives (eg RDS money) to recruit and retain quality staff.3 There are also some attempts to introduce non-financial benefits to tackle retention issues. While there is a perception that the quality of staff recruited has improved and that retention difficulties have eased, the challenge remains for HEIs to demonstrate that this is a reality rather than just a perception.4 There is also a need to sustain these improvements in the light of increased demand and competition from within and outside the sector. To this end, we believe the following should be considered:

1. While there is evidence that some HEIs are introducing HR management information systems, the lack of central and consistent information available in some institutions limits the analysis that can be done to monitor and evaluate recruitment and retention outcomes.

2. The sector as a whole, probably via HESA, needs to identify and agree the most meaningful way of defining leaver categories and calculating turnover rates. While retirement patterns are important for staffing reviews, looking at voluntary turnover is more meaningful and would enable wider and more accurate benchmarking to be undertaken both within and outside the sector. There are various ways of calculating rates and the most appropriate formula needs to be chosen5.

3 These findings are similar to those reported by the evaluation of

Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative; see Evaluation of Rewarding and Developing Staff in HE initiative 2001-02 to 2003-04, May 2005, a report for HEFCE by KPMG LLP.

4 The evaluation of the Rewarding and Developing Staff initiative also commented that there was ‘no evidence of specific monitoring of quality of staff recruited and retained’, p8, op.cit.

5 Voluntary turnover is more meaningful as it is under the institution’s control. Calculating turnover at least should be: number of leavers in a given period/average staff in post over the same period x100. This means that numbers of staff at the beginning and at the end of the year have to be obtained, see Bevan, Barber and Robinson (1997)

xxxv

3. Given the increased competition for talent at senior level, the competition with the private sector and wider public sector in some subjects, institutions should be encouraged to explore beyond overall turnover figures, which may be misleading and can mask more serious problems within an institution and/or subjects as well as groups of staff. It is difficult and costly to replace the best performers.

4. While promoting what HE can offer, there is also a need to avoid recruiting own turnover by overselling the organisation. HEIs should also ensure that increased financial incentives

5. Have led to positive outcomes (eg excellent and retained performers).

6. Non-financial benefits are under the institution’s control and can successfully tackle recruitment and retention issues. Discussions with newly recruited staff have highlighted the impact of intrinsic motivators and rewards (eg flexible working and induction) which are on the whole fairly easy to implement and can act as quick wins.

Keeping the Best: a Practical Guide to Retaining Key Employees, IES Report 337.

Recruitment and Retention of Staff in Higher Education 1

1. Project Background

As part of its continuing research into the Higher Education labour market, the Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) commissioned the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) to undertake a research project to explore current patterns in the recruitment and retention of staff in HE. The research also examined the methods by which HE employers monitor and measure workforce changes and the solutions found by HEIs in dealing with any shortages. Previous surveys of recruitment and retention have been conducted on a regular basis by UCEA, the last being in 2002. The research was supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Universities UK (UUK) and the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP). The research covered HEIs throughout the UK. The research used both quantitative and qualitative methods to build on previous research and to provide an up-to-date picture of the challenges facing Higher Education institutions (HEIs).

1.1 The survey

In April 2005, IES was commissioned by UCEA to analyse the findings from a survey that UCEA had conducted of recruitment and retention across higher education institutions (HEIs). The survey, undertaken between January and March 2005 asked institutions about staff recruitment and retention difficulties they had experienced during the calendar year 2004.

1.1.1 Survey methodology

At the start of January 2005 UCEA wrote to all heads of Institutions and Heads of Human Resources asking institutions to participate in the survey and alerting them to the fact that HEFCE would be undertaking the survey on behalf of UCEA. This was followed by a letter sent by HEFCE to all heads of Institutions and heads of Human Resources in mid-January explaining how participants could access the survey via the HEFCE extranet. In total, some 166 Higher Education Institutions were contacted. Two reminders were sent by UCEA in mid-February and mid-March. The survey was closed at the end of March 2005.

Institute for Employment Studies 2

1.1.2 Profile of responses

One hundred and forty-five responses were received. This is equivalent to a response rate of 87 per cent. This is a slightly larger number of responses than was obtained in the 2002 survey, in which 126 returns were received. Table 1.1 shows the distribution of responses by type of institution and regional distribution across the UK.

Table 1.1: Distribution of responses by region, and type of institution

Type of institution

University College

East Midlands 6 2

East of England 7 1

London 24 9

North East 5 0

North West 7 5

South East 9 7

South West 7 6

West Midlands 6 4

Yorkshire and Humber 8 2

Northern Ireland 2 1

Scotland 11 4

Wales 8 3

Total 100 44

Source: UCEA survey of HEIs, 2005

The distribution of institutions in the categories of pre-1992 university, post-1992 university and college in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales is shown in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2: Distribution of types of institution across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

Type of institution

Pre-1992 University Post-1992 University College

England 45 35 36

Northern Ireland 2 - 1

Scotland 6 5 4

Wales 5 3 3

Total 58 43 44



The survey findings are presented in Chapter 3. In the analyses, we report data overall by staff group in an introductory table. This is then followed by a set of tables that, for each staff group, show the responses by type of higher education institution. These are categorised as: colleges, post-1992 universities and pre-1992 universities. Table 1.2 shows that in 2005, 58 responses were received from pre-1992 universities, 43 responses came from post-1992 universities and 44 responses were received from colleges.

It should be noted that, although we refer throughout to the data source being the 2005 UCEA survey, the survey itself sought information relating to the calendar year 2004. The exception to this was the question that asked institutions to provide data on the number of vacancies at their institution, which specified that these data should be supplied for the academic year 2003-04.

1.2 The case studies

In additional to the survey, the research also used qualitative methods to provide an up-to-date picture of the challenges facing HEIs. The case studies aimed to build on the findings of the survey conducted in the first phase of the project.

1.2.1 Case study model

A case study model was developed to ensure that a range of views were captured at each HEI, with interviews involving:

the head of the Personnel or Human Resource (HR) function to obtain an overview of the issues and challenges facing the university or college

two heads of academic departments experiencing particular problems with recruitment and/or retention to get a more detailed picture of the challenges facing key areas

one head of a support function, again experiencing particular problems with recruitment and/or retention to get a closer view of the difficulties, and

a group of newly recruited staff (ie recruited within the last two years) to understand their experiences of recruitment and their career intentions.

These interviews and focus groups covered the current and future situation with regard to recruiting and retaining staff and gathered both factual and opinion based input.

1.2.2 Selecting case studies

The research team used the individual survey responses to identify departments or schools facing challenges and worked closely with each of the case study institution to focus on their


departments experiencing the most severe recruitment and/or retention problems.

Survey respondents were approached by UCEA and asked if they would be willing to be involved as a case study. A number of HEIs were targeted to ensure that the case studies would include a range of parameters including different locations, types of institutions, and size; and also a mix of experiences of recruitment/retention problems and of strategies to address these problems. Ten universities and colleges agreed to be case studies. These represent a cross section of:

geographic regions in the UK: one in Scotland, Wales, South West, East, Yorkshire and Humberside, West Midlands, and two each in the North West and in London

types of institutions: five pre-92 institutions including a research intensive, three post-92 institutions, one specialist college and one general college

sizes: with student populations ranging from 2,000 to 30,000.

Across the ten HEIs the following departments were represented:

Academic:

Clinical medicine, Health sciences, Social care, Sports science

Education

Business, Economics, Finance and Sociology

Engineering, Computer science

Media and Communications, Photography, and Design

Support:

Academic services (eg registry, quality assurance etc.)

Estates, Campus services

Information services

HR services

Due to the pressures on HE staff at the time of the fieldwork, there were some difficulties in ensuring all case studies followed the ideal model. In most instances, however, the researchers were able to gather feedback from several departments and in total achieved interviews with twenty one heads of academic departments, eight heads of support departments and fourteen representatives from the central HR/Personnel function. Also, in six of the case study institutions, interviews or focus groups were held with a total of twenty three newly-recruited staff.

The qualitative feedback gathered from the range of staff consulted across the ten universities and colleges are presented in


Chapters 3,4 and 5. To maintain confidentiality no individuals, departments or institutions are named and findings are reported thematically with some points illustrated with vignettes taken from the interviews. The term institution is used throughout to represent universities, institutes and colleges to prevent individual institutions from being identified. Similarly, the term department is used to represent both departments, schools and faculties.

1.3 Measurement and monitoring

In order to explore whether and how institutions identify their recruitment and retention issues, and evaluate the outcomes of their initiatives, several sets of data were examined as follows:

the survey asked institutions to provide their number of vacancies during 2003-04 and the number of those vacancies remaining unfilled after three months

HESA data concerning number of leavers for permanent staff were used to calculate turnover rates

monitoring issues were discussed with the case study institutions visited.

These findings are discussed in Chapter 6.


2. Survey Findings

In this Chapter we report the findings of the survey. For each issue addressed by the survey, we report the findings across all institutions first, followed by any differences between type of institution and region.

2.1 Regularity of recruitment and retention difficulties

Institutions were asked about the regularity with which they had encountered recruitment and retention difficulties during the calendar year 2004 for five groups of staff: academic; administrative and professional; technical; clerical; and manual. 6

2.1.1 Recruitment difficulties

Most institutions reported experiencing recruitment difficulties ‘sometimes’ when recruiting academic staff, administrative and professional staff, and manual staff. With technical and clerical staff, however, the highest proportion of institutions reported that they only ‘rarely’ had difficulties. These responses are shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Regularity of recruitment difficulties, by staff group

Staff group

N=145 Academic

%

Administrativeand professional

% Technical

% Clerical

% Manual

%

Always 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7

Usually 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 4.1

More often than not 6.2 1.4 0.7 2.1 14.5

Sometimes 64.8 53.8 35.2 21.4 40.0

Rarely 24.8 39.3 41.4 56.6 23.4

Never 2.8 4.8 22.1 19.3 17.2


6 Academic staff data throughout the report do not include clinical

academics.


Differences between types of institution

In this section we consider recruitment difficulties by institutional type. The data are shown separately for institutions grouped into three main categories: pre-1992 universities, post-1992 universities and colleges.

Academic staff

Table 2.2 shows the extent to which institutions report having difficulties in recruiting academic staff. A majority of all types of institutions say they ‘sometimes' have difficulties in recruiting academics. Nearly one-tenth of post-1992 universities reported having difficulties ‘more often than not’. The great majority — over two-thirds of colleges and pre-1992 universities, and almost as many post-1992 universities — report ‘sometimes’ having difficulties recruiting academic staff.

Overall, recruitment difficulties with academic staff appear to have eased slightly compared with 2002, when greater numbers of institutions reported experiencing difficulties ‘usually’ (3 per cent) or ‘more often than not’ (10 per cent).

Administrative and professional staff

Table 2.3 shows the extent to which institutions report having difficulties in recruiting administrative and professional staff. A majority of universities said they ‘sometimes’ have difficulties in recruiting these staff groups, while just under half of colleges also said this. However, more than one-third of all institutions indicated it was rare for them to have difficulties recruiting these staff groups.

In general, recruitment of this staff group also appears to have eased slightly, given that 39 per cent of respondents said they ‘rarely’ had difficulties recruiting administrative and professional staff in 2004 compared with 29 per cent in 2002.

Table 2.2: Regularity of academic staff recruitment difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 0.0 0.0 9.1 54.5 34.1 2.3

Post-1992 University 0.0 0.0 9.3 62.8 25.6 2.3

Pre-1992 University 1.7 1.7 1.7 74.1 17.2 3.4

Sector average* 0.7 0.7 6.2 64.8 24.8 2.8

Source: UCEA survey of HEIs, 2005 (*Given that the majority of institutions responded, overall responses represent the sector)


Table 2.3: Regularity of administrative and professional staff recruitment difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.5 47.7 6.8

Post-1992 university 0.0 2.3 0.0 58.1 37.2 2.3

Pre-1992 university 0.0 0.0 3.4 56.9 34.5 5.2

Sector average 0.0 0.7 1.4 53.8 39.3 4.8


Technical staff

Table 2.4 shows the extent to which institutions report having difficulties in recruiting technical staff. Around one-half of post-1992 universities, along with one-third of colleges and pre-1992 universities, said they ‘rarely’ have difficulties in recruiting these staff groups. Just over a third of institutions said they ‘sometimes’ have difficulties recruiting technical staff.

Again, there appears to have been an easing of the situation with regard to recruitment of technical staff compared to the 2002 survey, when nearly half of respondents said they ‘sometimes’ had difficulties and a third said these difficulties occurred ‘rarely’.

Clerical staff

Table 2.5 shows the extent to which institutions report having difficulties in recruiting clerical staff. Over half of each type of institution reports that they ‘rarely’ have difficulties in recruiting staff in this category. Nearly one-fifth of respondents report ‘never’ having any difficulty; slightly more colleges report ‘never’ having recruitment problems with this staff group, but the difference between types of institution is quite small.

Table 2.4: Regularity of technical staff recruitment difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 0.0 0.0 2.3 40.9 38.6 18.2

Post-1992 University 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 53.5 20.9

Pre-1992 University 0.0 1.7 0.0 37.9 34.5 25.9

Sector average 0.0 0.7 0.7 35.2 41.4 22.1



Table 2.5: Regularity of clerical staff recruitment difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 2.3 0.0 0.0 20.5 54.5 22.7

Post-1992 University 0.0 0.0 2.3 18.6 62.8 16.3

Pre-1992 University 0.0 0.0 3.4 24.1 53.4 19.0

Sector average 0.7 0.0 2.1 21.4 56.6 19.3


Again, the situation with regard to recruitment of clerical staff appears to have improved slightly since 2002. The proportion of institutions reporting they ‘sometimes’ have difficulties recruiting clerical staff has fallen from over one-third to just over one-fifth, while the proportion saying they ‘rarely’ experienced any difficulties has increased from 48 to 57 per cent. The number saying they ‘never’ have problems has almost doubled from 10 to 19 per cent.

Manual staff

Table 2.6 shows the extent to which institutions report having difficulties in recruiting manual staff. More institutions report some difficulties in recruiting this group of staff than for other staff groups. Over half (55 per cent) say they have difficulties ‘sometimes’ and ‘more often than not’. Over three-fifths of pre-1992 universities report that they ‘sometimes’ and ‘more often than not’ have difficulties recruiting manual staff and over half of post-1992 universities. Fewer — just over two-fifths — of colleges said this. One pre-1992 university reported ‘always’ having difficulties recruiting manual staff.

With this group of staff the picture is similar to that seen in the 2002 survey. In 2002 just under five per cent of respondents reported ‘usually’ having difficulties recruiting manual staff and just over 10 per cent reported having problems ‘more often than not’.

Table 2.6: Regularity of manual staff recruitment difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 0.0 9.1 13.6 29.5 27.3 20.5

Post-1992 University 0.0 2.3 9.3 46.5 23.3 18.6

Pre-1992 University 1.7 1.7 19.0 43.1 20.7 13.8

Sector average 0.7 4.1 14.5 40.0 23.4 17.2



2.1.2 Retention difficulties

Institutions were asked to indicate the extent to which they were experiencing retention difficulties with the five groups of staff. The responses to this question are shown in Table 2.7. For all staff groups, the majority of responses fell in the ‘rarely’ or ‘sometimes’ categories.

Table 2.7: Regularity of retention difficulties, by staff group

Staff group

N=145 Academic%

Administrative and professional

% Technical

% Clerical

% Manual

%

Always 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

Usually 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.7 2.1

More often than not 0.7 1.4 2.8 6.2 13.8

Sometimes 50.3 52.4 20.7 40.7 42.1

Rarely 40.0 37.2 53.8 42.1 27.6

Never 9.0 7.6 22.8 10.3 13.8


A higher proportion of institutions reported that they ‘never’ experienced retention problems with technical and manual staff than in 2002. In the 2002 survey the proportion of institutions saying they ‘never’ had problems retaining technical and manual staff was 6 and 3 per cent respectively; for the 2004 data collected in 2005, these figures were 23 and 14 per cent respectively.

Differences between types of institution Academic staff Over half of all institutions report ‘sometimes’ having difficulties retaining academic staff. While just over a third of colleges said that they ‘sometimes’ had difficulties retaining academic staff, over half of post-1992 institutions said this and three-fifths of pre-1992 universities. The majority of colleges (over three fifths) say that they ‘rarely’ and ‘never’ have difficulties retaining academic staff. These data are shown in Table 2.8.

Table 2.8: Regularity of academic staff retention difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 0.0 0.0 2.3 34.1 54.5 9.1

Post-1992 University 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.5 37.2 9.3

Pre-1992 University 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.3 31.0 8.6

Sector average 0.0 0.0 0.7 50.3 40.0 9.0



A higher proportion of the pre-1992 university group reported that they ‘sometimes’ had retention difficulties with academic staff groups, compared with the 2002 survey when slightly more of the post-1992 universities said this.


Around one-half of all institutions said that they ‘sometimes’ had difficulties retaining administrative and professional staff. Their responses are shown in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9: Regularity of administrative and professional staff retention difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 0.0 0.0 2.3 54.5 36.4 6.8

Post-1992 University 0.0 2.3 0.0 58.1 34.9 4.7

Pre-1992 University 0.0 1.7 1.7 46.6 39.7 10.3

Sector average 0.0 1.4 1.4 52.4 37.2 7.6


Overall there is very little difference in the patterns of responses for the three types of institution compared with the 2002 data.

Technical staff

In each type of institution the majority of respondents reported ‘rarely’ and ‘never’ having difficulties retaining technical staff. These data are displayed in Table 2.10.

Table 2.10: Regularity of technical staff retention difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 0.0 0.0 4.5 22.7 56.8 15.9

Post-1992 University 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 60.5 20.9

Pre-1992 University 0.0 0.0 3.4 20.7 46.6 29.3

Sector average 0.0 0.0 2.8 20.7 53.8 22.8


In 2002, seven per cent of respondents reported having difficulty retaining technical staff ‘more often than not’ compared with three per cent for the 2004 data.


Clerical staff

Table 2.11 shows that most respondents reported having retention difficulties with clerical staff ‘sometimes’ or ‘rarely’. More of the colleges and pre-1992 universities than the post-1992 universities reported ‘sometimes’ having retention difficulties with clerical staff. Over 40 per cent in both cases compared with 33 per cent in the post-1992 universities.

In 2002, 6 per cent of respondents reported ‘always’ or ‘usually’ having trouble retaining clerical staff. Only one institution reported it ‘usually’ had difficulties retaining clerical staff in the current survey.

Table 2.11: Regularity of clerical staff retention difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 0.0 0.0 2.3 43.2 47.7 6.8

Post-1992 University 0.0 2.3 9.3 32.6 46.5 9.3

Pre-1992 University 0.0 0.0 6.9 44.8 34.5 13.8

Sector average 0.0 0.7 6.2 40.7 42.1 10.3


Manual staff

The majority of institutions said that they ‘sometimes’ had difficulties with retaining manual staff whilst over a quarter reported it happened only ‘rarely’. A slightly higher proportion of pre-1992 universities reported having retention difficulties ‘more often than not’ than did the other two groups; slightly more of the post-1992 universities reported these difficulties ‘sometimes’ than the other types of institution. Table 2.12 displays these data.

Table 2.12: Regularity of manual staff retention difficulties, by type of institution

N=145 Always

% Usually

%

More often than not

% Sometimes

% Rarely

% Never

%

College 0.0 0.0 9.1 40.9 40.9 9.1

Post-1992 University 0.0 2.3 11.6 46.5 25.6 14.0

Pre-1992 University 1.7 3.4 19.0 39.7 19.0 17.2

Sector average 0.7 2.1 13.8 42.1 27.6 13.8


2.1.3 Specific recruitment and retention difficulties

Respondents were asked to identify both the academic subject areas in which they experienced any particular recruitment or


retention difficulties and the support staff field in which they were experiencing problems.

Academic Disciplines

Some of the subject areas in which recruitment shortages were identified are the same as in previous years: law, business and management, economics, accounting and computing/IT. Health subjects again are areas of difficulty, in particular nursing and other health care professions. In addition, electrical and electronic engineering and biology are areas of difficulty. With retention, it is the former group (law, economics etc.) in which the main difficulties with retaining staff are seen.

In general, these subjects appear to be causing difficulties across all types of institution. Table 2.13 shows the distribution across institutions of recruitment and retention difficulties.

Table 2.13: Subjects in which recruitment and retention difficulties are most frequently encountered, by type of institution, 7

Pre-1992 University

Post-1992 University College Total

Recruitment

Accounting/finance 22 17 2 41

Business/management 23 13 5 41

Nursing 11 19 8 38

Health care professions other than nursing

13 18 7 38

Computing/IT 21 7 1 29

Teacher education 5 16 8 29

Law 14 13 0 27

Economics 21 2 1 24

Retention

Business/management 14 7 2 23

Nursing 5 10 6 21

Accounting/finance 10 8 1 19

Law 11 6 0 17

Economics 14 2 0 16

Computing/IT 9 5 1 15

Teacher education 3 6 5 14


1 7 2 10

7 Note, these figures are based on number of institutions that cited a

subject, not number of posts reported. An institution may have reported recruitment or retention difficulties relating to several posts in a subject area.



In terms of grade of staff, the majority of reports of staff recruitment difficulties concerned recruiting lecturing staff: there were a total of 344 reports of recruitment difficulty relating to this grade of staff. There were 185 reports of difficulties in recruiting professors but just 69 reports of problems recruiting research assistants.

Table 2.14 shows the subjects in which the highest numbers of institutions reported having difficulties in recruiting professors and lecturers. The cut-off point for inclusion in the table was a count of more than ten institutions for a subject. This table shows the data reported in descending order for the subjects in which the greatest number of institutions report difficulty in recruiting professors.

Table 2.14: Regularity of academic staff recruitment difficulties, by grade of staff

Subject

Difficulty in recruiting Professors

N

Difficulty in recruiting Lecturers

N

Business/management 23 34

Accounting/finance 22 34

Economics 16 17

Law 15 20

Computing/IT 12 14

Nursing 12 34


11 34

Electrical and electronic engineering

10 14

Teacher education < 10 25

Sport science/PE < 10 14

Biological sciences < 10 12


The situation was similar regarding retention, although fewer institutions overall reported retention difficulties. Table 2.15 shows the subjects in which more than ten institutions reported that they had difficulties retaining lecturers; fewer reported difficulties retaining professorial staff. This table shows the data reported in descending order for the subjects in which the greatest number of institutions report difficulty in retaining lecturers.


Table 2.15: Regularity of academic staff retention difficulties, by grade of staff

Subject

Difficulty in retaining Professors

N

Difficulty in retaining Lecturers

N

Nursing 2 19

Business/management 8 18

Accounting/finance 6 18

Economics 8 14

Law 8 12

Teacher education 1 12

Computing/IT 3 10


- 10


Support Staff

Table 2.16 shows the numbers of institutions reporting that they experienced difficulties in recruiting or retaining support staff.

Table 2.16: Regularity of support staff recruitment and retention difficulties, by staff group

Staff group

Difficulty recruiting

N

Difficulty retaining

N

Cleaning 59 55

Catering 55 42

Personnel 33 18

Maintenance 31 10

Accountants 26 10

Secretarial 26 <10

Academic administration 25 22

IT 25 11

Finance 19 13

General administration 13 14

Grounds staff 12 <10


The two support staff groups in which the largest numbers of reports of difficulties in both recruiting and retaining staff are seen are cleaning and catering. A large number of institutions report having difficulties recruiting personnel and maintenance staff but fewer — around half as many — report difficulty retaining these staff groups.


2.2 Have recruitment and retention difficulties eased or worsened in the past year?

Respondents were asked whether they believed that recruitment and retention difficulties had eased, remained the same or worsened over the previous year.

2.2.1 Perceived change in recruitment patterns

For all groups of staff the majority of respondents felt that the recruitment picture had not changed during 2004. A very small proportion, in all cases less than 10 per cent, thought the situation had eased. Somewhat more (between 10 and 19 per cent) thought the situation had worsened with regard to academic, manual and administrative and professional staff groups. These data are shown in Table 2.17.

Table 2.17: Perceived change in recruitment difficulties, by staff group

Staff group

Academic

%


% Technical

% Clerical

% Manual

%

Eased 4.8 5.5 7.6 8.3 7.7

Stayed the same 76.6 84.1 88.2 83.4 79.7

Worsened 18.6 10.3 4.2 8.3 12.6


Differences between types of institution

Academic staff

Table 2.18 shows that the majority of institutions felt that the situation with regard to the recruitment of academic staff had remained the same over the past 12 months. Slightly more of the post-1992 universities felt the situation had worsened than did pre-1992 universities or colleges, but this difference was not very great.



Again, with administrative and professional staff the great majority of respondents – over three-quarters from each type of institution – felt that the situation had remained the same with regard to recruitment difficulties with this staff group. More than one in ten of post-1992 universities felt the situation had eased somewhat. Table 2.19 displays these data.

Table 2.19: Perceived change in recruitment difficulties for administrative and professional staff, by type of institution

N=145 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 2.3 88.6 9.1

Post-1992 University 11.6 79.1 9.3

Pre-1992 University 3.4 84.5 12.1

Sector average 5.5 84.1 10.3


Technical staff

Over four-fifths of respondents reported that recruitment difficulties had largely stayed the same. For this staff group, more than one in ten respondents from post-1992 universities felt the situation had eased somewhat, as did just over nine per cent of colleges. Table 2.20 displays the data relating to technical staff.

Table 2.20: Perceived change in recruitment difficulties for technical staff, by type of institution

N=144 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 9.3 86.0 4.7


Pre-1992 University 3.4 94.8 1.7



Table 2.18: Perceived change in recruitment difficulties for academic staff, by type of institution

N=145 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 4.5 77.3 18.2


Pre-1992 University 3.4 81.0 15.5




Clerical staff

With clerical staff there was some difference between post-1992 universities and the other two groups of institutions. Almost a sixth of post-1992 universities reported some easing of the recruitment situation with this staff group over the past year. Fewer pre-1992 universities and colleges felt this was the case. Table 2.21 shows these responses.

Table 2.21: Perceived change in recruitment difficulties for clerical staff, by type of institution

N=145 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 4.5 86.4 9.1





Manual staff

With manual staff the great majority of respondents — nearly three-quarters from each type of institution — felt that the situation had remained the same with regard to recruitment difficulties with this staff group. However, Table 2.22 shows that there was some difference between pre–1992 universities and the other types of institution. A smaller proportion of the pre-1992 group (3 per cent) reported an easing of recruitment difficulties for manual staff, compared to a higher proportion for colleges (10 per cent) and post–1992 universities (12 per cent). More of the colleges (17 per cent) and post-1992 universities (14 per cent) reported that recruitment difficulties had worsened with this group of staff than did pre-1992 universities (9 per cent).

Table 2.22: Perceived change in recruitment difficulties for manual staff, by type of institution

N=143 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 9.5 73.8 16.7





2.2.2 Perceived change in retention patterns

Table 2.23 shows the extent to which institutions believed that difficulties with retaining staff had changed over the last 12


months. The great majority of respondents — over three quarters in all cases — felt that the situation had remained the same over the previous year. Rather more felt the situation regarding the retention of academic staff, administrative and professional staff and manual staff had worsened (16, 12 and 15 per cent, respectively) than felt it had eased (6 per cent for academic and 8 per cent for both administrative and professional and manual staff).

Table 2.23: Perceived change in retention difficulties, by staff group

Staff group

Academic

%


% Technical

% Clerical

% Manual

%

Eased 6.2 8.3 4.2 6.2 8.3

Stayed the same 77.9 79.3 91.0 85.5 77.1

Worsened 15.9 12.4 4.9 8.3 14.6


We now go on to consider assessments of changes in retention difficulties for the five staff groups separately for the three different types of institutions.

Academic staff

With academic staff the great majority of respondents — nearly three-quarters from each type of institution — felt that the situation had remained the same with regard to retention difficulties with this staff group. Slightly more of the post-1992 universities felt the situation had worsened than did pre-1992 universities or colleges, but this difference was not very great. These data are displayed in Table 2.24.

Table 2.24: Perceived change in retention difficulties for academic staff, by type of institution

N=145 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 4.5 81.8 13.6


Pre-1992 University 6.9 77.6 15.5




With administrative and professional staff the great majority of respondents — nearly three-quarters from each type of institution — felt that the situation had remained the same with regard to retention difficulties with this staff group. However, more of the


post-1992 universities felt the situation had eased than did the other two types of institutions. Table 2.25 shows these data for administrative and professional staff.

Technical staff

With technical staff the great majority of respondents — well over three-quarters from each type of institution — felt that the situation had remained the same with regard to retention difficulties with this staff group. The numbers believing this to be the case were slightly higher for colleges and pre-1992 universities. More post-1992 universities reported an easing of problems with regard to this staff group than the other two types of institutions (9 per cent as compared with 2 per cent for colleges and 2 per cent for pre-1992 institutions). These data are shown in Table 2.26.

Table 2.26: Perceived change in retention difficulties for technical staff, by type of institution

N=144 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 2.3 93.0 4.7





Clerical staff

With clerical staff, as with several of the other staff groups, the great majority of respondents – well over three-quarters from each type of institution – felt that the situation had remained the same with regard to retention difficulties with this staff group. Far more colleges reported a worsening of the problem for this staff group than the other two groups of institutions (16 per cent compared with 2 per cent for post-1992 universities, and 7 per cent of pre-1992 universities). These data are shown in Table 2.27.

Table 2.25: Perceived change in retention difficulties for administrative and professional staff, by type of institution

N=145 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 4.5 81.8 13.6


Pre-1992 University 6.9 81.0 12.1




Manual staff

The majority of respondents felt that the situation had remained the same with regard to retention difficulties with manual staff. There were slight differences between institutions, with more post-1992 and pre-1992 universities reporting a worsening of the problem than colleges. Far fewer pre-1992 universities said that the problem had eased (only 3 per cent compared to 12 per cent for both the other groups of institutions). Data for change in manual staff retention difficulties are shown in Table 2.28.

Table 2.28: Perceived change in retention difficulties for manual staff, by type of institution

N=144 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 11.6 79.1 9.3


Pre-1992 University 3.4 81.0 15.5



2.3 Particular problems with specific groups of staff

Respondents were asked if they experienced particular problems with regard to the following:

recruitment of young academic/support staff

high turnover rates of academic/support staff

retention of young academic/support staff

low turnover rates of academic/support staff.

Table 2.29 shows response rates to these questions in the context of academic staff.

Table 2.27: Perceived change in retention difficulties for clerical staff, by type of institution

N=145 Eased

% Stayed the same

% Worsened

%

College 6.8 77.3 15.9






Table 2.29: Particular problems with academic staff

Yes%

No%

Recruitment of young academic staff (N=139)

14.4 85.6

Retention of young academic staff (N=138)

12.3 87.7

High turnover rates of academic staff (N=141)

7.8 92.2

Low turnover rates of academic staff(N=142)

29.6 70.4


Low turnover rates of academic staff were viewed as a problem by nearly a third of institutions (30 per cent). Just under a sixth of institutions (14 per cent) reported having problems recruiting young academic staff.

Regarding the recruitment of young academic staff, a larger proportion of post-1992 universities (27 per cent) reported this to be a problem than did pre-1992 universities (9 per cent) or colleges (10 per cent). The same was true of retention of young academic staff, for which 20 per cent of post-1992 universities reported difficulties, compared with 10 per cent of colleges and 9 per cent of pre-1992 universities. With regard to turnover, 5 per cent of pre-1992 universities felt high turnover to be a problem, along with 9 per cent of colleges and 10 per cent of post-1992 universities. A higher proportion of post-1992 universities (43 per cent) reported that low turnover of academic staff was a problem compared with colleges (30 per cent) and pre-1992 universities (19 per cent).

Table 2.30 presents the responses to a similar set of questions regarding support staff.

Table 2.30: Particular problems with support staff

Yes%

No%

Recruitment of young support staff (N=136)

8.8 91.2

Retention of young support staff (N=136)

18.9 81.1

High turnover rates of support staff (N=136)

17.6 82.4

Low turnover rates of support staff (N=139)

13.7 86.3



A sizeable endorsement was received for the two items concerning turnover and retention of young support staff. It should be noted that these are effectively two sides of the same issue — difficulties with retention will inevitably lead to high turnover. Just under a fifth of respondents (19 per cent) reported that high turnover rates for support staff were a problem in 2004.

Fewer institutions reported problems with recruiting young support staff. Five per cent of colleges reported this difficulty, compared with 10 and 11 per cent of post- and pre-1992 universities. More of the post-1992 universities (22 per cent) and colleges (23 per cent) than pre-1992 universities (11 per cent) reported difficulties with retaining young support staff. By contrast, more of the pre-1992 universities reported that high turnover amongst support staff was problematic (32 per cent) compared with post-1992 universities (27 per cent) and colleges (15 per cent). Slightly more colleges (19 per cent) reported that low turnover of support staff was a problem compared to pre-1992 universities (12 per cent) and post-1992 universities (10 per cent).

2.4 Factors impacting on ability to recruit and retain academic and support staff

Respondents were asked for their views regarding the extent to which an identified set of six factors had impacted on their institution’s ability to recruit and retain academic and support staff. The factors were:

pay levels in the private sector

pay levels in the public sector eg NHS, schools etc.

workload

location of their institution

cost of living (housing, travel, etc.) in their area

fixed-term contracts.

Their responses are reported in sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 below.

2.4.1 Recruitment

Tables 2.31 and 2.32 show the proportions of respondents that believed these six factors impacted on the recruitment of academic and support staff.

Similar numbers of respondents (over a third) felt that pay levels in the private and public sectors constituted a barrier to recruitment of academic staff. Just under a quarter of respondents felt that cost of living and the use of fixed-term contracts were


factors impacting on their ability to recruit academic staff. Location and workload were seen by fewer institutions (17 and 8 per cent of institutions, respectively) as affecting their ability to recruit academic staff.

Table 2.31: Factors impacting on ability to recruit academic staff

Academics Did this factor have a particular impact on your ability to recruit academic staff?

Yes %

No %

Pay levels in private sector (N=132) 38.6 61.4

Pay levels in the public sector (N=130) 38.5 61.5

Workload (N=127) 7.9 92.1

Location of your institution (N=126) 16.7 83.3

Cost of living (housing etc) in your area (N=127)

23.6 76.4

Fixed term contracts (N=128) 23.4 76.6


Pay levels in the private sector were seen by more institutions as impacting on ability to recruit support staff (59 per cent) compared with their ability to recruit academic staff (39 per cent). Just over a quarter (28 per cent) felt that cost of living was a factor that impacted on the recruitment of support staff. Pay levels in the public sector and the use of fixed-term contracts were seen as factors affecting the recruitment of support staff by just over a fifth of institutions (21 per cent).

Table 2.32: Factors impacting on ability to recruit support staff

Support staff Did this factor have a particular impact on your ability to recruit support staff?

Yes%

No %



Workload (N=125) 4.8 95.2



27.8 72.2



2.4.2 Retention

Tables 2.33 and 2.34 show respondents’ views of the extent to which the same set of factors impacted on ability to retain academic and support staff.


Table 2.33: Factors impacting on ability to retain academic staff

Academics Did this factor have a particular impact on your ability to retain academic staff?

Yes %

No %



Workload (N=131) 32.8 67.2



19.4 80.6



Regarding retention of academic staff, 41 per cent of institutions believed that location impacted on their ability to retain this staff group. A third felt that workload impacted on retention of academic staff. A quarter of institutions felt that pay levels in the public sector and the use of fixed-term contracts were factors impacting on retention of academic staff. Slightly fewer (23 per cent) felt that private sector pay affected their ability to retain academic staff. Cost of living was the factor cited by the lowest proportion of respondents (19 per cent).

Table 2.34: Factors impacting on ability to retain support staff

Support staff Did this factor have a particular impact on your ability to retain support staff?

Yes%

No %



Workload (N=130) 32.3 67.7



19.5 80.5



Regarding the retention of support staff, nearly half of institutions (49 per cent) felt that private sector pay levels impacted on their ability to retain support staff. More institutions viewed location (38 per cent) and workload (32 per cent) as factors impacting on their ability to retain support staff than thought these factors affected their ability to recruit support staff. Over a fifth felt that fixed term contracts impacted on retention of support staff.

In the following sections we consider differences in these response patterns for the different types of institutions.


2.4.3 Differences by types of institution

Academic staff

Recruitment

Table 2.35 shows responses to the question regarding impact of private sector pay on academic staff recruitment, grouped by type of institution. Over half of post-1992 universities, (54 per cent) and 46 per cent of pre-1992 universities felt that private sector pay was affecting their ability to recruit academic staff. However, just 15 per cent of colleges felt this was a relevant factor. It should be noted that the proportion of institutions identifying private sector pay as an issue has fallen since the 2002 review, when 59 per cent identified this as a problem.

Table 2.35: Impact of private sector pay on academic staff recruitment

N=132 Yes %

No %

College 15.0 85.0

Post-1992 University 54.1 45.9

Pre-1992 University 45.5 54.5

Sector average 38.6 61.4


Table 2.36 shows the proportion of institutions reporting that pay levels in the public sector were impacting on their ability to recruit academic staff. More of the post-1992 universities (60 per cent) felt this to be affecting academic recruitment than the other two groups of institutions (pre-1992 universities 30 per cent and colleges 31 per cent).

Table 2.36: Impact of public sector pay on academic staff recruitment

N=130 Yes %

No %

College 31.0 69.0





Table 2.37 shows that less than a fifth of institutions felt that fixed term contracts had affected their ability to recruit academic staff. However, a greater proportion of post-1992 institutions felt this to be the case (29 per cent) than either pre-1992 institutions (24 per cent) or colleges (18 per cent).


Table 2.37: Impact of fixed term contracts on academic staff recruitment

N=130 Yes %

No %

College 17.9 82.1





Less than one in ten institutions overall felt workload to be a factor in recruiting academic staff. Given the small number of institutions overall that felt this to be a problem, these data have not been shown broken down by type of institution.

Retention

A higher proportion of post-1992 universities than colleges and pre-1992 universities felt that private sector pay was a factor impacting on retention of academic staff. Table 2.38 shows response rates for this question. Over a third (34 per cent) of post-1992 universities believed this to be the case compared to 13 per cent of colleges and 23 per cent of pre-1992 universities.

Table 2.38: Impact of private sector pay on academic staff retention

N=130 Yes %

No %

College 12.8 87.2





Nearly a third of post-1992 universities (32 per cent) felt public sector pay levels impacted on academic staff retention, as did 26 per cent of colleges and 19 per cent of pre-1992 universities. These figures are shown in Table 2.39.

Table 2.39: Impact of public sector pay on academic staff retention

N=126 Yes %

No %

College 25.6 74.4






Nearly two-fifths (39 per cent) of pre-1992 universities believed workload impacted on retention of academic staff, along with 29 per cent of post-1992 universities and 27 per cent of colleges. These data are shown in Table 2.40.

Table 2.40: Impact of workload on academic staff retention

N=131 Yes %

No %

College 26.8 73.2





Table 2.41 shows that more of the pre-1992 universities felt location to be an issue affecting the retention of academic staff, with 47 per cent of these institutions reporting this compared to 41 per cent of post-1992 universities and 30 per cent of colleges.

Table 2.41: Impact of location on academic staff retention

N=131 Yes %

No %

College 30.0 70.0





Roughly the same proportions of institutions in the three groups felt cost of living to impact on academic retention, with around a fifth of institutions generally believing this to be a factor affecting retention. More of the post-1992 universities reported that the use of fixed-term contracts impacted on retention of academic staff (36 per cent) than did pre-1992 institutions (20 per cent) and colleges (19 per cent). The data for impact of fixed-term contracts are shown in Table 2.42.

Table 2.42: Impact of use of fixed-term contracts on academic staff retention

N=122 Yes %

No %

College 19.4 80.6






Support staff

Recruitment

With regard to support staff, a majority of respondents felt that pay levels in the private sector impacted on their ability to recruit. Table 2.43 shows that this was consistent across the three types of HEIs, with more than half of respondents in all three types of institution believing this to be the case.

Table 2.43: Impact of private sector pay on support staff recruitment

N=135 Yes %

No %

College 60.0 40.0





Table 2.44 shows that fewer (just over a fifth) felt that pay in the public sector affected the recruitment of support staff. There were some slight differences between the three groups of institutions. While just under a fifth of colleges (18 per cent), and just over a fifth of pre—1992 universities (21 per cent) believe this caused them some difficulties with retention of support staff, a quarter of post-1992 universities felt this to be a problem. These data are shown in Table 2.44.

Table 2.44: Impact of public sector pay on support staff recruitment

N=128 Yes %

No %

College 17.9 82.1





Workload was identified by less than five per cent as an issue affecting recruitment of support staff. Given that so few institutions considered this to be a problem, these data are not shown broken down by type of institution. With regard to location, less than a fifth of respondents in total felt this affected their ability to recruit support staff. Table 2.45 shows that slightly more pre-1992 institutions (22 per cent) and colleges (18 per cent) than post-1992 universities (9 per cent) believed this to constitute a difficulty for them.


Table 2.45: Impact of location on support staff recruitment

N=126 Yes %

No %

College 18.4 81.6





Slightly more, just over a fifth, felt that cost of living in their area impacted on ability to recruit support staff. Rather more of the pre-1992 institutions (37 per cent) and colleges (24 per cent) felt this to be the case than did post-1992 universities (18 per cent). These data are shown in Table 2.46.

Table 2.46: Impact of cost of living on support staff recruitment

N=126 Yes %

No %

College 23.7 76.3





Lastly, around a fifth of institutions felt that fixed term contracts had affected their ability to recruit support staff (Table 2.47). Similar proportions of the post-1992 institutions (23 per cent), the pre-1992 institutions (20 per cent) and the colleges (21 per cent) felt this to be the case.

Table 2.47: Impact of fixed-term contracts on support staff recruitment

N=128 Yes %

No %

College 21.1 78.9





Retention

With support staff, nearly half of institutions overall (49 per cent) felt that private sector pay impacted on ability to retain support staff. Some 46 per cent of colleges, 57 per cent of post-1992 universities and 45 per cent of pre-1992 universities reported that


private sector pay caused difficulties. These data are shown in Table 2.48.

Table 2.48: Impact of private sector pay on support staff retention

N=132 Yes %

No %

College 46.2 53.8





Table 2.49 shows that a smaller, though nonetheless sizeable, proportion of all institutions felt that public sector pay was affecting the retention of support staff. Some 15 per cent of pre-1992 universities, 23 percent of post-1992 universities and 27 per cent of colleges felt this to constitute a difficulty.

Table 2.49: Impact of public sector pay on support staff retention

N=127 Yes %

No %

College 25.6 74.4





Workload was felt to be affecting support staff retention by more of the pre-1992 universities (38 per cent) than colleges (32 per cent) and post-1992 universities (24 per cent) although it should be noted that there were sizeable numbers of institutions in each category that felt this was an issue. Table 2.50 displays these data.

Table 2.50: Impact of workload on support staff retention

N=130 Yes %

No %

College 31.7 68.3





Table 2.51 shows that slightly more institutions felt that location affected support staff retention. Again, slightly more of the pre-1992 universities felt this factor to be causing difficulties: 45 per cent of pre-1992 universities believed location affected support


staff retention, compared with 34 per cent of colleges and 32 per cent of post-1992 universities.

Table 2.51: Impact of location on support staff retention

N=131 Yes %

No %

College 34.1 65.9





Table 2.52 shows that cost of living in the region was seen as a problem by fewer institutions, but nonetheless even here a sizeable proportion of institutions in each of the three groupings felt this to be a factor: 26 per cent of colleges, 20 per cent of post-1992 universities and 15 per cent of pre-1992 universities.

Table 2.52: Impact of cost of living on support staff retention

N=128 Yes %

No %

College 25.6 74.4





Lastly, regarding the use of fixed-term contracts for support staff, Table 2.53 shows that while 29 per cent of post-1992 universities believed that these were affecting the retention of support staff just 18 per cent of pre-1992 universities and 17 per cent of colleges believed this to be the case.

Table 2.53: Impact of fixed-term contracts on support staff retention

N=122 Yes %

No %

College 17.1 82.9






2.4.4 Variations by geographical region

Some of these issues — particularly location and cost of living — may well be expected to vary by geographical region. Therefore, the responses to each of these questions were broken down according to whether the institution was in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or one of the English regions. In Table 2.54 we show the regions in which at least 50 per cent or more of institutions identified these factors as impacting on recruitment and/or retention.

Table 2.54: Regional variation in factors affecting recruitment and retention

Recruitment Retention

Academic Support staff Academic Support staff

Private sector pay East Midlands East of England North East Northern Ireland South West West Midlands

East Midlands East of England London North East North West Scotland South West West Midlands Yorkshire & Humber

North East East Midlands East of England London North East Scotland South East

Public sector pay East Midlands North West South East West Midlands

- East Midlands -

Workload - - South West Wales

Northern Ireland South West

Location - - London South East South West

London South East

Cost of living South East South East North East -

Fixed-term contracts North East - North East -


Not surprisingly, nearly half of institutions in London (48 per cent) also cited cost of living as a barrier to recruiting support staff. While at least half of institutions in several regions view private sector pay rates as a factor affecting ability to recruit both academic and support staff, comparable pay rates in the public sector are seen as problematic (by at least half of institutions in the region) only when recruiting academic staff, and in fewer regions.

Academic staff

Private sector pay was identified as a factor affecting just over a third of institutions’ ability to recruit academic staff. Regional analysis showed that this was viewed as a problem by a majority of institutions in six regions: East of England, four out of seven (or 57 per cent); North East, three out of four (or 75 per cent); East and West Midlands, four out of eight (or 50 per cent), in both cases;


and the South West, seven out of thirteen, (or 54 per cent). However, it should be noted that in some regions there are small numbers of institutions. Although eight London institutions identified private sector pay as a factor, this constituted only just over a quarter of institutions, at 26 per cent.

With regard to public sector pay, four regions identified this as a factor affecting the recruitment of academic staff: the South East of England (53 per cent); the East Midlands (63 per cent) and West Midlands (75 per cent). No region identified workload as a particularly strong factor affecting recruitment. In most of the regions, location was not considered to be a particular problem by a majority of institutions when recruiting academic staff, although in the South East some 40 per cent of institutions identified this as a factor.

Over half of institutions in the South East of England and more than a third in London felt cost of living to have impacted on their ability to recruit academic staff. With regard to fixed term contracts, 60 per cent of institutions in the North East (three out of five) felt this to be a problem in recruiting academic staff. Other than the North East, the only other two regions in which a significant proportion of institutions felt this to be an issue were the South West and West Midlands, in both of these regions, a third of institutions reported this created difficulties.

A different pattern was seen for retention. Only one region, the North East, had a majority of institutions that felt that private sector pay affected retention. The North East was the only region in which a majority of institutions believed that cost of living and fixed-term contracts affected academic staff retention.

In just one region, the East Midlands, did a majority feel that public sector pay impacted on retention of academic staff. In London, the South East, and South West the majority of institutions said that location affected retention of academic staff.

Support staff

For support staff there was a slightly different pattern from that for academic staff. While a majority of institutions in more regions identified private sector pay as a factor affecting both the recruitment and retention of support staff, public sector pay, workload, location and fixed-term contracts were not viewed by a majority of institutions in any region as having an impact on recruitment. As with academic staff, in only the South East did a majority of institutions identify cost of living as a factor affecting recruitment of support staff. In no region did a majority of institutions identify public sector pay, cost of living, or fixed-term contracts as issues affecting support staff retention. Workload was viewed as affecting support staff retention by a majority of


institution in two regions (the South West and Wales), as was location (London and the South East).

2.5 Impact of recruitment and retention difficulties on service provision

Respondents were asked to indicate whether, in their opinion, there had been any impact on teaching, research or support services as a consequence of any of the following recruitment or retention difficulties:

Inability to recruit leading to shortage of staff.

Recruitment of lower quality staff leading to concerns regarding quality of provision.

Rapid turnover of staff leading to quality concerns.

Their responses are shown in Table 2.55.

Table 2.55: Impact of recruitment or retention difficulties on service provision

Teaching Research Support services

Yes%

No %

Yes%

No %

Yes %

No %

Inability to recruit leading to shortage of staff

Pre-1992 university 16.1 83.9 10.7 89.3 16.1 83.9

Post- 1992 university 30.8 69.2 10.5 89.5 26.3 73.7

College 26.8 73.2 10.3 89.7 34.9 65.1

Sector average 23.5 76.5 10.5 89.5 24.8 75.2

Recruitment of lower quality staff leading to concerns regarding quality of provision

Pre-1992 university 1.8 98.2 3.6 96.4 14.5 85.5

Post- 1992 university 12.5 87.5 5.3 94.7 15.8 84.2

College 4.9 95.1 0.0 100.0 4.8 95.2

Sector average 5.9 94.1 3.0 97.0 11.9 88.1

Rapid turnover of staff leading to quality concerns

Pre-1992 university 1.8 98.2 3.6 96.4 12.7 87.3

Post- 1992 university 5.1 94.9 2.6 97.4 17.9 82.1

College 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 9.3 90.7

Sector average 2.2 97.8 2.3 97.7 13.1 86.9


None of these consequences was endorsed by a majority of institutions. The type of difficulty that was identified by the largest proportion of institutions was ‘inability to recruit leading to shortage of staff’. This was seen by a quarter of institutions as impacting primarily on teaching and support services. Fewer, just


ten per cent, believe this has had an impact on research. More post-1992 universities (31 per cent) and colleges (27 per cent) felt there had been an impact on teaching than did pre-1992 universities (16 per cent); with regard to support services, more colleges (35 per cent) and post-1992 universities (26 per cent) felt there had been an impact than did pre-1992 universities (16 per cent).

2.6 Innovations to tackle recruitment or retention difficulties

Respondents were asked if they had undertaken any of the following actions in order to tackle recruitment or retention problems:

Introduced market supplements for academic staff.

Increased number/value of market supplements for academic staff.

Upgraded posts for academic staff.

Introduced market supplements for support staff.

Increased number/value of market supplements for support staff.

Upgraded posts for support staff.

The proportions of institutions reporting they had taken these actions are shown in Table 2.56.

Table 2.56: Actions taken to tackle recruitment and retention difficulties with academic and support staff

N=145 Yes %

No%

Market supplements for academic staff 33.1 66.9

Increased number/level of market supplements for academic staff 15.2 84.8

Upgraded posts for academic staff 29.7 70.3

Market supplements for support staff 31.7 68.3

Increased number/level of market supplements for support staff 11.0 89.0

Upgraded posts for support staff 33.8 66.2


One third of institutions had introduced market supplements for academic staff and a third had upgraded posts for support staff. Just under a third (32 per cent) had introduced market supplements for support staff and slightly fewer (30 per cent of institutions) had upgraded posts for academic staff.

Around a third of each type of HEI had introduced market supplements for academic staff. The uptake of the other initiatives


was similar in each of the three groups of institutions. The largest difference between groups was seen with upgrading posts for support staff, which 41 per cent of colleges and 40 per cent of post-1992 universities had undertaken, compared with 24 per cent of pre-1992 universities.

2.7 Expectations for the coming year

Respondents were asked for their expectations regarding recruitment and retention trends over the next twelve months. Their responses are shown in Tables 2.57 and 2.58.

Table 2.58: Expected change in retention difficulties in the next 12 months

Staff group

N=136 Academic

%


% Technical

% Clerical

% Manual

%

Ease 4.4 8.8 4.4 6.6 10.3

Stay the same 71.3 82.5 89.7 86.8 83.1

Worsen 24.3 8.8 5.9 6.6 6.6


The data reveal that most institutions feel the situation will remain the same over the next twelve months. The only real exception to this is with academic staff, where around a quarter of institutions feel the situation may worsen. Inspection of the data for the three groups of institutions (pre- and post-1992 universities and colleges) indicates that for both recruitment and retention it is pre-1992 universities who largely feel the situation will worsen: around a third of these feel recruitment and retention patterns with academic staff will worsen compared to a quarter of post-92 universities and less than a sixth of colleges.

Institutions were asked to comment on their reasons for giving their particular responses. While there was a range of comments, two issues stood out. A total of 17 institutions made reference

Table 2.57: Expected change in recruitment difficulties in the next 12 months

Staff group

N=138 Academic

%


% Technical

% Clerical

% Manual

%

Ease 7.2 7.9 5.1 7.2 7.2

Stay the same 66.7 86.3 89.9 88.4 88.4

Worsen 26.1 5.8 5.1 4.3 4.3



either to job evaluation and movement towards either the national framework agreement for pay and rewards, or to a single pay ‘spine’. The majority felt that this would enable them to improve rewards for some staff and help with retention. One response indicated they expected the national framework to make the situation worse.

A sizeable number of institutions (12) made comments about the Research Assessment Exercise. They believed this was leading to increased competition for top research staff thus increasing their retention difficulties with academic staff.


3. Recruitment Issues

Discussions with senior members of the personnel or HR team and heads of academic departments and support functions in the case study institutions give an overview of the recruitment process and the difficulties facing the sector as well as how these difficulties are identified, and the impact they have.

3.1 Recruitment process

There is remarkable consistency across the case studies with academic and support departments responsible for their own recruitment, largely handling the process from start to finish. However recruitment administration, and to varying degrees, monitoring of the process is handled centrally by HR. This central position of recruitment support is driven by the regularity and volume of recruitment in these universities, and the need to ensure standards. HR act therefore as quality control to ensure:

standard paperwork is used by all departments, such as institution information, application forms, and generic parts for job descriptions

decisions are made fairly with all individuals being considered

legislative requirements or organisational policies are followed (eg Equal Opportunities policy, guaranteed interviews for disabled persons, opportunities for internal re-deployment). As one HEI noted, this ensures that the institution can be defended from external criticism and litigation.

HR departments also act as advisors and/or trainers – providing guidelines on shortlisting and interviewing, advising on wording and placement of adverts, and training panel members in interview techniques and equal opportunities.

Several HR representatives spoke of trying to reduce their direct involvement in selection decisions (eg interviewing) as this could be very time consuming – limiting their representation in cases where they could ‘add value’ eg senior administrative posts. They feel that departments now have a much better awareness of what is expected of them.


‘There is less danger of things going wrong’

This means that HR departments can monitor activities at a distance and provide support where it is needed.

Although recruitment support tends to be centralised, several of the case studies align their other HR services to the various departments within their institution, providing a degree of individualised support through dedicated HR officers.

The use of information technology varies greatly between the case study institutions. The case studies revealed that a few institutions are moving towards greater use of technology in recruitment. One HEI has a recruitment website offering information, advice and guidance to applicants, another now advertises vacancies on their website and are planning to operate an online application process by the end of the (calendar) year. A third currently operates an on-line system which allows managers access to check on the status of applications to their departments.

The extent to which institutions group the recruitment process into exercises or rounds also differs. Some institutions also place regular adverts in key newspapers, grouping vacancies together to reduce costs rather than advertising as and when a vacancy arises. A smaller institution undertakes only three recruitment rounds a year at specific times (January, Easter and September) as they consider it is possible to predict the majority of vacancies in advance. Where vacancies cannot be held over until the next recruitment round they undertake individual recruitment exercises.

3.2 Areas of recruitment challenge

3.2.1 Is there a problem overall?

Given their involvement in recruitment processes across their institutions, representatives from HR are able to give an overview of the extent of recruitment difficulties. While there are some areas in which persistent difficulties are experienced, in general there is a view that recruitment problems occasionally arise in the absence of any really systematic or consistent problem. In most cases the problems were felt not to be insurmountable: ‘We always manage in the end’ remarked one interviewee.

One institution had struggled to recruit several years ago but now feels they have ‘turned a corner’. Two of the case study institutions also report increasing levels of recruitment activity. This is due to positive factors such as expansion and increased funding levels rather than to replace staff who have left.


3.2.2 Current areas experiencing some difficulties

Some areas nonetheless reported difficulties for some, specific groups of staff.

Academic staff…

HR staff and heads of department feel that difficulties in recruiting academic staff tend to occur in areas in which there are equivalent needs for professionals in both the private sector or wider public sector and in areas seeing above average growth. Taken together, these factors mean that HEIs have to compete both with employers outside the HE sector and with other HEIs. This is felt to be a problem common across all of the HEIs visited. Problems occur at all levels but appear to be greater when recruiting to senior posts.

The areas in which there currently are problems of this nature include:

Education studies, particularly in specialities such as Early Years, Childhood Studies and Educational Psychology or in attracting individuals from the secondary school sector - (cited by five of the ten case studies)

Health sciences especially clinical practice staff such as nursing (including specifically theatre nursing, neonatal nursing, and children’s’ nursing); shortage fields such as therapeutic radiography, diagnostic radiography, and midwifery; very specialist fields such as audiology; and popular disciplines such as psychology (including forensic psychology, neuropsychology and sports psychology) and sports and exercise science (cited by eight of the ten case studies).

Social sciences including law (one case study) business, management science and marketing (in two case studies) in economics (two case studies) accounts and finance (one case study)

Engineering (two case studies)

Media (one case study).

And support staff…

Current problem areas include:

Senior support posts such as: academic registrar and assistant registrar; financial accountants and finance staff; business development and project management; and estates management, professional engineering staff and planning support (cited by five out of the ten case studies)


Fundraising posts (two case studies)

HR staff - particularly project managers and consultants (in four of the ten case studies).

Technicians, particularly senior technical staff, IT technicians (e.g. web-designers and systems administrators) and animal lab staff, and skilled trades such as electricians (three case studies)

Cleaners, caterers, and nursery assistants, these jobs are often characterised by casualised or part-time work and tend to be filled by people with other commitments such as family commitments (five case studies).

With support staff, interviewees at the case study institutions alluded to continuing, chronic difficulties with recruitment:

‘Couldn’t recruit cleaners at all, virtually impossible, as they can get more pay in private sector’ (HR representative)

‘Catering is the main recruitment issue. It has always been difficult to recruit good general catering assistants and chefs and the department is growing so it is becoming more important to recruit a core of staff’ (Head of Department)

But some improving areas

HR representatives also mentioned areas where they have previously or traditionally experienced problems, but where these difficulties have largely been overcome, either due to changes in focus for the institution or to wider market changes increasing the supply of suitably qualified individuals. These include:

computing, both in academic and support roles (in six out of the ten case studies)

maths academic staff (one case study)

physics academic staff (one case study)

3.2.3 Impact of difficulties

Heads of HR departments spoke of the impact that difficulties in recruitment eg failure to fill a post, have on departments and the wider institution. These include:

costs of re-advertising (two case studies)

increased use of visiting lecturers to cover teaching responsibilities (three case studies). Although it is interesting to note that, as reported in the newly recruited staff focus groups, this can successfully act as a route into a more permanent position

use of agency staff as a rapid method of filling immediate needs (one case study)


and increased workload on existing staff.

The latter appears to be the main impact of recruitment difficulties, and pressure is felt both above and below the vacant post and ripples can also be felt outside of the department directly affected. One staff member noted how ‘there is a threshold below which people struggle to get the job done’. One Head of Department noted how it is important to be supportive and to manage existing staff expectations in these circumstances so that recruitment difficulties do not lead to retention problems. This includes helping them understand who is responsible for what so that work does not get passed on from one place to another or deferred: ‘it is about being sensitive and aware, open and supportive’.

3.3 Exploring the factors affecting recruitment

This section explores in greater detail the challenges faced by universities in attracting and successfully filling vacancies but first identifies factors that can work to attract individuals into the sector and into the institution or department. Discussions are based on interviews with all groups of staff including HR, heads of department and newly recruited staff.

3.3.1 Attraction factors

A range of factors work together to make up the quality of experience in HE, both extrinsic and also intrinsic. HR representatives and heads of department generally acknowledge that pay, an extrinsic reward, is not a key motivating factor in individuals’ decisions to work in HE. As one head of HR noted:

‘ [Moving into HE] is not about finance because we are not competitive in terms of.. [the] package we can offer in terms of cars and mobile phones, but things are starting to change’.

Indeed, some of the newly recruited staff interviewed reported how they had taken a pay cut to move into the sector. This aspect is explored in the next section.

Factors of importance to those working in support or lower level academic posts may differ from those of importance to senior management or academics. In addition, these two groups of individuals tend to operate in different markets. The former operate in local or regional markets whereas the latter operate in national if not international markets. Similarly, some attraction factors are general across all HEIs while others relate specifically to certain institutions, the particulars of their situation and what they are able to offer.


Terms and Conditions

Across the HEIs, HR staff referred to the attractive terms and conditions offered by the HE sector to academic and support staff which are often regarded as more generous than those offered in other industries and sectors. These include:

the pension, which is still one of the few final salary schemes on offer, and which is viewed as a particular benefit or draw to those in mid or late career;

reasonable holidays which often include additional closure days when the entire institution is closed down at key times such as Christmas and Easter;

sick pay; and

also access to free or lower cost facilities such as parking, sports facilities, and refectories.

Heads of department also referred to the terms and conditions but, as one Head of Academic Services noted, people may be unaware of this aspect to working in HE:

‘Perhaps we don’t make enough of these. Our salary may not compete but we have other benefits’.

Pleasant working environment/fair employer

HR staff and heads of department pointed to the stable and generally pleasant working conditions and environment offered by their institutions, including appropriate facilities and, for those institutions based on campuses, green open spaces. The reputation that the sector has built as a fair employer, respecting and valuing its staff, is also a key attraction.

These factors are important to both academic and support staff. As one Head of HR noted:

‘We are no Victorian mill’.

In this respect, HE is considered by some case study interviewees as a more sophisticated and caring employer with more developed policies (eg family friendly working) than may be found in the private sector.

For many staff in HE, universities and colleges are the only real employer in that academics may have few alternative purchasers for their skills, or that support staff, who operate in a local market, have few alternative employers of a similar size. However, for academic staff in particular, a major draw of the HE sector remains the opportunity of:

’Working with respected colleagues in a vibrant and stimulating intellectual community’.


As one interviewee noted, graduates find the HE environment a familiar one. Graduates therefore may feel encouraged to stay on and work in what they see as a comfortable and safe environment. Thus HE can be a good starting point for a career:

‘A stepping stone from their own education’.

However, HE can also be attractive to those wanting to put down roots after working in industry, or a familiar place for graduates to return to once they have moved through a profession and established themselves. Indeed the point made both by a course leader and a new member of staff was the regularity of work in HE, noting that for their discipline (media), many of those working in the private sector work on a freelance basis and may be attracted by a regular income.

Interesting, fulfilling and worthwhile jobs

Heads of department noted that working in HE, particularly teaching, is seen as important and worthwhile - ‘the right thing to do, and giving back to the community’, ‘to bring on the next generation’, and is regarded highly in society. Working in support roles within HE is also perceived to be highly regarded, with such jobs seen as ‘high class employment’, and something that would look good on a CV. New staff in teaching roles also highlighted this aspect as an important factor in their decision to work in HE - ‘creating human beings, social engineering, the bringing out of talent.‘

Academic jobs are felt by HR representatives, heads of department and newly recruited staff alike to offer individuals autonomy and flexibility in their professional lives, more so than offered in other sectors. As one department head noted:

‘There are few other jobs in the economy where you have a great deal of control over what you do’.

However, there are concerns raised by HR but particularly by department heads, that with the increasing focus on accountability, academic jobs are becoming more administrative and bureaucratic.

Jobs in the sector are also regarded as stretching and challenging, which heads of department view as a positive factor in recruitment. Jobs in HE are pressured but this is a different kind of stress or pressure than that experienced in some industries, particularly in the private sector. One new member of staff noted how she has been prepared to compromise on salary to move away from a very pressured career. However, as one head of HR noted, this can create a false impression of an easy ride, particularly amongst those from the private sector joining academic posts:


‘There is a perception that life in a university is not pressured or busy, that it is “a nice little job” or “safe haven” but the reality is that it has other pressures. It is a different place to work and people are surprised at how pressured it can be. It is getting more and more target driven, and academics are becoming more accountable. The sector is changing… we are becoming more like the private sector. We are trying to produce a set of conditions in the employment contract that is more attractive to people who are prepared to perform and not attract people who are looking for safe havens to coast in’.

HR staff also felt the sector has a good reputation for training and development, offering support and academic staff learning opportunities throughout their careers. This is something that new staff particularly appreciate.

3.3.2 Institution-specific factors

Factors specific to particular institutions include: culture, location, and reputation, and are described below. However, HR representatives and heads of department acknowledged that these specific factors are often only apparent upon visiting the institution or working there for some time. Institutions could do more to promote these positive factors in their recruitment literature or do more to encourage people to visit. As one HR representative noted:

‘You get the feeling that people are pleasantly surprised when they visit the institution and that the low turnover figures indicate that once here people are happy and appreciate what we have to offer staff.’

Culture

The culture and image of the institution can be an attractive factor in recruitment. Each institution has its own feel and tends to emphasise aspects such as friendliness, openness, and dynamism, as these comments from HR, department heads and new staff illustrate:

‘We are slightly edgy, anti-establishment, bit alternative, cool’…’we are really very friendly, staff are very nice to each other’

‘We have a relaxed, open culture’

‘We are a buoyant, growing organisation that is still a small and friendly community... you can walk into the Principal’s office, you know everyone and everyone is helpful’

‘It is friendly, there is no one bad here, people are generally nice and it is an exciting place that is changing’

Location

Location is also regarded as a positive factor, in that the institution can be located within an active labour market and easily accessible


‘just up the road’ for support staff. Additionally, some institutions are located close to key industry clusters or hubs (matching disciplines offered at the institution) as well as being easily accessible. Institutions in such situations may be viewed as doubly attractive for some groups of academic staff.

Some universities are located in areas offering high standards of living or lower costs of living such as relatively lower housing costs. Location in terms of physical environment is also a benefit, with some being close to the coast or national parkland. City entertainment is also regarded as a positive factor:

‘It is seen as an attractive place to work’

‘We have a rural campus, quite remote but we are attractive to outdoor people’

‘[The town] is a great place to work, offering restaurants, an excellent beach and a good quality of life’

In addition, people may see the campus as generally indicating a sense of prosperity about the institutions and this too is attractive to applicants:

‘People see the new buildings, the development and see that we are doing well’ (HR representative)

’We have a brand new “state of the art” education building and this helps to attract people. It is in a very attractive setting overlooking the lake’ (HR representative).

Reputation

The reputation of the institution, of a department or of key individuals is viewed as a key factor at eight of the ten case study institutions. This aspect is mentioned particularly by heads of academic departments as well as by interviewees in HR. In most cases, this refers to research reputation and standing within the HE sector (often measured by RAE ratings, league tables, or staff profile, and standing within the discipline/industry). As two heads of department noted:

‘Young people want to work in highly rated departments alongside established names, people they have heard of and have read the work of’;

‘Academic staff are attracted by extremely high calibre professors in their field, this in turn attracts other good people and means that if you can attract eminent scholars in a particular field you can attract others to come’.

However, reputation may also refer to the organisation being viewed as a fair and responsive employer:

‘The name of the institution is its strength for academics, and its reputation as a good employer is its strength for support staff’.


A good reputation for offering staff and career development for both academic and support staff also makes institutions attractive as potential employers:

‘There aren’t just opportunities to undertake further qualifications, they actively encourage you to do it’ (new member of staff).

A number of case study institutions regard development as a key part of the package they offer to new recruits. One in particular felt that it offers good career prospects for academic staff. Other unique selling points noted by case study participants include close links with industry and the diversity of the student population.

3.4 Challenges to recruitment

HR representatives and heads of department reported the challenges they face in attracting suitable applicants and successfully filling vacancies.

3.4.1 Limited pool with right skill mix

The most frequently cited difficulty during the case study interviews, mentioned particularly by heads of academic departments but also by HR representatives, is that for some posts the institution is fishing in a very small pool. This is mainly in the context of senior academic posts but is also the case for some senior support posts too. Across the UK and even internationally there is a limited supply of suitably qualified and experienced individuals.

This is a problem perhaps unique to the HE sector in that HE institutions are looking for individuals who have a combination of professional practice, experience of higher education or teaching experience (and often teaching qualifications), and, for academic posts, a research profile. As one head of department reported:

‘It is important to have lecturers that are working outside, that have industrial currency, the link to industry is important as it feeds into the quality of the student experience’

However, another from the same institution noted:

‘The perfect mix is not necessarily out there’.

This appears to be a particular problem for disciplines in health sciences, an area that has moved relatively recently into the HE sector. In this sector there is a requirement for clinical practice in combination with teaching and research expertise, and there has only been a short time to develop HE experience. There are similar difficulties for education studies, social sciences, business and finance, and media and creative arts.


The small size of the pool in some disciplines can create intense competition amongst HEIs. This has recently been intensified in the run up to the forthcoming Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). Most of the heads of department interviewed report pressures to look for individuals with publications of national excellence:

‘Chairs of interview panels are told not to recruit anyone who cannot deliver on research terms’

‘The RAE means that refereed journal publications take precedence over everything else including teaching and this can be difficult for staff who want to be recognised for being strong in several areas…everyone is playing the RAE game’.

This pressure is reducing the number of suitable candidates and inflating their value in the sector, creating what some interviewees referred to as an active ‘transfer market’. This problem therefore creates difficulties for recruitment in trying to locate suitable individuals and in competing with the package offered by other HEIs and other employers in the public and private sectors. It also creates problems with retention in that rising or established stars may be poached.

3.4.2 Demand outgrowing supply

Another problem described by both heads of department and HR representatives is the mismatch between demand and supply in terms of demand for subjects amongst students and the corresponding supply of academic staff. In some disciplines, such as Psychology, the demand for academic staff is growing faster than supply, raising questions as to whether students will have a quality learning experience. As one head of department noted:

‘Our psychology courses get BPS accreditation but to ensure this we need a low staff/student ratio’.

However, the opposite can occur in that supply outstrips demand. One institution recruits three times a year. They may advertise and attempt to recruit a lecturer based on predictions that students will want to do a specific course but then find that students do not sign up for the option, leading to the course being cancelled and the vacancy disappearing.

3.4.3 Perceived quality and quantity of applicants

Quality

HR representatives and heads of department noted that the quality of applications they receive and the quality of applicants can be poor, particularly responses to open and internet advertisements and for junior academic posts, where many applications are received from overseas. This can make the


recruitment process challenging, and can reduce confidence in the suitability of the applicant pool. In some cases candidates may have neither the experience nor the qualifications required but universities are reluctant to lower their requirements and appoint what they consider to be weak candidates.

One head of a support department spoke of the difficulty experienced by applicants to catering posts who are not used to the recruitment process.

Quantity

Universities can encounter situations when they receive very low numbers of applications, only about four or five. So here the problem may not be quality but quantity – there are suitably experienced and qualified people in the labour market but few are attracted to apply for the post. Examples given of such shortages tended to be for support roles; examples cited by the case study institutions included jobs such as a management development post and cleaning posts.

3.4.4 Pay relative to other sectors

Pay in the HE sector is considered by many interviewees to lag behind that offered in the public and the private sectors. Moving to HE from outside can result in a substantial drop in earnings. This is particularly an issue for education academics moving from senior level posts in the secondary school sector, due to recent improvements in school teachers’ pay. One head of an education studies department reported that salaries offered in HE for senior posts were about £15,000 lower than those offered in schools to senior school managers:

‘There has been a huge change in school salaries. Senior staff in schools are earning more than a Principal Lecturer, and it is very difficult to come in at this level, so people take a drop in salary to come to HE’.

Another sector that has seen positive changes in pay is the health sector, where the NHS Agenda for Change has significantly improved salaries and made the NHS a relatively more attractive employer. Thus pay appears to be a particular issue in those disciplines with established career paths outside of HE eg teaching, clinical practice, consultancy.

However, lower relative pay in HE is an issue that applies across academic and support staff, as these quotes from heads of department illustrate:

‘We pay too little to get people to move out of London where the industry is concentrated.’ (academic department)


‘The institution pay rate is average and they don’t have to come here to work, they could stay in the town centre rather than the fringes of the city.’ (support department)

‘Domestic salaries tend to be low, and this coupled with split shifts and long hours make us a less attractive proposition.’ (support department)

Competition within the sector

Variations in pay within the HE sector was an issue raised by heads of department in relation to academic staff. Some department heads felt they could not afford to pay at the same rates as other more ‘research rich’ universities.

‘The opportunities are here but not with equivalent pay packets. We advertised last week for a Sports Psychologist and one applicant had been offered £28,000 plus travel expenses and £30,000 research funding from another institution. We could only look at the bottom of the lecturing post and he would be lecturing’ (academic department).

Relative pay within the sector was also picked up in focus groups with newly recruited staff. One group felt that the salaries on offer in their institution were not only below the market but were lower than offered in other universities.

3.4.5 Limited career development

As might be expected, while good career development opportunities help attract applicants, limited career development is a barrier, not just to recruitment but to retention too. Universities may sometimes not be able to offer candidates real career progression, particularly if an individual has been recruited at the top of a salary scale to overcome issues with pay. Not surprisingly, this negatively affects the attractiveness of a post. This aspect was mentioned by HR representatives in the smaller HEIs.

3.4.6 Unattractive or inaccessible location

While for some of the case study institutions location was a positive attraction, at other it is regarded as a barrier to recruitment. Both HR representatives and heads of departments believed this to be the case. Location may affect recruitment of junior support staff and senior support/academic staff in different ways. For example, interviewees noted that it can be difficult to persuade senior support staff and academic staff who operate in a national or international labour market to relocate. This is particularly a problem for HEIs in areas with high costs of living and a strong housing market, where a move may result in a drop in living standards. It may also be more difficult to persuade individuals mid-career to relocate as they will already be established in a particular area with financial and family commitments.


Image or perception of the local area can also be an inhibiting factor for more senior staff. Some interviewees were aware that the location of their institutions is regarded somewhat negatively. This may be because the area is viewed as industrial, too remote, or too threatening:

‘The area is not particularly salubrious – security staff used to escort people to the station’.

For more junior support staff, particularly manual staff, operating in the local labour market, HEIs may face difficulties being located in an area where there is strong local competition from large employers and/or tight labour markets with little or no unemployment. Indeed, the institution can be sensitive to local economic changes and one HR representative noted how their pool of applicants for IT vacancies improved dramatically when a local IT company made redundancies. Another HR representative noted that their location means they have to compete for the same individuals with high paying employers. Accessibility also plays a part here – if it is difficult for individuals to get to the institution it can be off-putting:

‘We are slightly out of the way, in an inconvenient location for those on low incomes and working few hours. It is two bus rides…if you are working only 15 hours a week it can be a problem’.

‘The London factor is a particular issue in recruitment, it places the burden of commuting on most staff which can be off-putting’.

‘Our location is a problem, we are in a rural area and public transport is not good. This affects people on lower grades and those without cars’.

3.4.7 Constraints of the recruitment process

Finally, the recruitment process itself was also cited by heads of department as a cause of recruitment problems, and this was echoed in the focus group discussions with new staff. Indeed one department head noted how devolving recruitment to departments is creating heavy additional burdens for him. The key criticisms of the process are that:

the process is too slow;

the deadlines are too short; or

the process excludes potentially acceptable candidates (either through inappropriate criteria or through aspects of the process itself).

Where a recruitment process is too slow, this may mean that suitable candidates may drop out of the process before a decision is made, often after receiving offers from other universities. One participant of the recently recruited staff focus groups noted how she had applied to the institution on two previous occasions but had received no response:


‘I wrote in with a CV and received no response. I contacted them and still there was no response…it put me off applying’.

Another noted how a lengthy process could be off putting. This individual had accepted the job at their current institution because another HEI that was considering their application took too long with their recruitment process:

‘It took them four weeks to make a booking for the second interview’.

Conversely, though, deadlines can be too tight so that candidates, particularly those from overseas, feel they will not have time to respond:

‘If the deadline is too tight, they won’t even look at it’.

As suggested by the previous two points, sometimes either the criteria or the process may serve to exclude suitable internal candidates. In such cases, when vacancies remain unfilled, this can lead to staff dissatisfaction and low morale.

One other aspect, raised by a head of department, is that the recruitment process can be misused by external candidates seeking to improve the terms and conditions with their current employer. This means that not all those applying for a post will actually want to take it up if they are offered it.


4. Retention Issues

This Chapter focuses on retention, whether it is regarded as a problem by the case study institutions, and then explores why people leave and where they go.

4.1 Identifying issues

4.1.1 Is there a problem?

Amongst HR representatives and heads of department, it is generally felt that there is no real problem with retention in that either people are not leaving, or those who do leave move to other institutions within the sector, with the result that HE as a whole is not losing individuals; this movement within HE means that there is a pool of recruits to replace those who leave. Some HR representatives indicated the importance of a degree of turnover, as it introduces ‘new blood’ and alters the skill mix. Thus, low turnover may also be viewed as problematic, particularly if it is concentrated in specific areas within an institution.

Low turnover

Across the case studies, turnover is perceived to be low and falling year on year, with HR representatives quoting figures ranging from six per cent to 12 per cent. As one HR representative noted:

‘Turnover is low, less than 12% and has reduced from about 20% in 2001. We must be doing something right’.

Another noted how retention had been a problem in the past due to the institution suffering severe financial problems but turnover has improved:

‘We have turned things round and now turnover is low, we now have over retention as people tend to get too comfortable’.

The case studies institutions tend to give a turnover figure for the whole institution. One institution, however, was able to break down their turnover figures. This shows that although they have


very low rates for permanent academic staff, clerical staff and technical staff, rates for manual staff are much higher.

Moving within the HE sector

The fact that people move on to develop their careers is not regarded as a problem by some HR representatives, particularly those in smaller HEIs where progression is more limited. It is only felt to be a problem if people are leaving due to a lack of action from the institution itself. As one HR representative noted about his own department:

‘We encourage people to develop, for example in personnel it doesn’t do you good to stay in one place.’

Another head of a support department regards staff development as a key part of the package they offer recruits. He considers the institution to be developing individuals for the sector, not just the organisation:

‘If people don’t leave, I feel we have failed them, and not made them ready to move on’.

However, this philanthropic view is not shared by all heads of academic departments who, with the run up to the RAE, are competing with other universities and are concerned about ‘established stars or those on their way up’ being poached.

Challenges for the future?

Although HR representatives and heads of department feel there is no real problem with retention, some potential challenges for the future are noted. These include:

the European funding cycle which will come to an end in August 2006, bringing with it the end of many fixed term contracts funded through this funding stream;

the ageing profile of academic staff in the fields of education and health sciences, which, for one institution, will mean at least half of their health sciences teaching staff will need to be replaced over the next five years.

4.1.2 Current areas of challenge

As noted above, HR staff feel that retention is not a real problem, although monitoring is somewhat limited (see Chapter 7). However, there are some general areas where HEIs (mostly in the South East) are experiencing some difficulties, particularly for areas with local and national competition both from within HE and beyond. These include: academic research and teaching staff in areas of social work, finance and sociology; and support staff in


secretarial; junior administrative, HR, web support, and library clerical roles. As one HR representative noted:

‘I saw a recent advert for a secretary with a salary of £37,000 in the private sector. We cannot compete with this’.

There are also difficulties retaining manual staff, particularly catering and cleaning staff.

4.1.3 Impact

The impact of high turnover and difficulties in retaining staff is felt in the loss of investment in terms of recruitment time and expense, and investment in staff development. As one head of HR noted:

‘We have invested in them …it is a ‘lead time’ issue in terms of the new person acquiring sufficient knowledge to ‘get up to speed’, plus there is the manager’s time in developing the new person’.

When academic staff leave, it can also impact on the staff:student ratio. This is a concern for one HEI which feels it has poor staff:student ratios, and is trying to recruit more people to junior part-time posts to fill the gaps arising from staff leaving.

One of the key effects of retention problems is an increase in the workload burden on existing staff:

‘If someone leaves we rely on other people to cover and be flexible’ (Head of HR).

This can lead to staff dissatisfaction and encourage more staff to leave. Indeed HR representatives and heads of department noted the importance of communication and managing expectations to try to avoid a vicious circle developing.

4.2 Reasons for leaving

Staff leave for a range of reasons. Some leave because they have come to the end of their fixed term contract or are retiring. However, as noted above, few institutions monitor this closely. Much of the discussion of issues relating to retention therefore are based on staff perceptions gathered by HR representatives and heads of department, supplemented by comments made regarding areas of dissatisfaction made by newly recruited staff.

4.2.1 Career development

HR representatives and heads of department believe one of the key reasons why staff may leave is to improve their careers. Staff move on to gain more responsibilities and higher level positions. Indeed, one newly recruited staff member noted:


‘We can undertake further training and study for qualifications but this can mean that people become overqualified for their jobs and have no real opportunities to apply their skills, so good people leave. But they [management] don’t seem to mind if you leave.’

Career prospects are regarded to be roughly the same in all universities, but HR representatives and heads of department acknowledge that size is a factor:

‘We are small so we cannot provide a career for everyone’, ‘individuals can only grow their roles so far..’.

Another factor increasing the likelihood that individuals need to move out in order to progress is low turnover in senior positions:

‘There is quite a big jump up from administrator to advisor grade, and they have to wait for a post to become vacant to apply for upgrading’.

Another issue was highlighted by a participant in a staff focus group. She noted that research offers more career opportunities than teaching, but she enjoys teaching. Individuals may feel they have to move on to research to gain more career progression opportunities.

4.2.2 Culture shock and workload

Increasing workload, particularly amongst academic staff, is also regarded as a factor affecting retention. Heads of department feel this is one of the primary reasons for leaving HE:

‘Academics are generally under a disproportionate amount of pressure for the amount they are paid.’

Staff focus groups corroborated the idea that workload influences staff decisions to leave, with many staff reporting dissatisfaction with this aspect of their jobs. One participant talked of feeling overwhelmed when she started her job:

‘By September I had more roles than I thought I had been given. I did not cope, I worked 12 hour days but only for around three to four weeks….Semester one was horrible, I felt out of my depth all of the time, despite how nice people were to me’.

Another felt he had been allowed no real settling in time:

‘It was just constant work. I had to come in hard and fast to get things done, there was no space available, it was just all hands on deck’.

Another spoke of the pressures of coping with increasing numbers of students, which had doubled in the last 15 months. The amount of bureaucracy and paperwork in the sector also can be frustrating:

‘People have to sign everything you do, there are things I could do but I have to get my manager to deal with it’ .


Others feel they are under pressure because their department is under-resourced:

‘We desperately need more staff, there is just not enough funding.’

However, HR representatives tend to feel that workload is a confirmatory factor, usually mentioned in exit interviews only once an individual has already decided to move on:

‘Generally people work hard and expect to work hard as it is part of the professional culture. Sometimes this can be hard, though, as there is no real down-time to compensate’ .

There are some examples of workload being well-managed in institutions. For example, one HR representative reported that their institution has ‘fair workload’ guidelines, good management, and ability to take time off in lieu of long hours.

For some individuals, the move to HE from another sector may prove to be something of a culture shock. As noted above, some may perceive the HE sector as less pressured than industry and, perhaps, an ‘easy ride’, then find it proves to be a more challenging environment than they had expected. One head of a health sciences department noted how some new staff find it difficult to cope with the change from NHS to HE:

‘The jobs are very different – nursing and lecturing – the skillsets are very different or new or additional skills are needed. So staff coming in are struggling to upskill and some do not like the job, it is difficult and challenging. It is harder than they think it will be…I talk informally to the staff who leave and they miss the patients, they find the tasks very demanding of time and work spills over into life whereas it didn’t in practice. They find themselves marking at weekends and academic administration is one of the biggest dissatisfiers to staff in post and to those who leave’.

Cultural mismatch can also affect existing staff. Some of the case study institutions are undergoing much change, growing and restructuring, and this is changing the prevailing culture. As one HR representative noted:

‘It is a question of the cultural fit not being right for them now that we have restructured’.

4.2.3 Better reward

Some HR representatives acknowledge that a key reason for leaving is for better salaries elsewhere, often outside of the HE sector. This is particularly the case in health sciences, where pay in NHS has recently become much more attractive.

‘One person recently accepted a deputy directorship at a health trust. She will be a great loss but she wanted to spend her last five years in the NHS on a high salary for her pension. We are competing with an NHS payscale that is increasing every day. I have to think of


imaginative ways to increase salaries and match the scales they would be on in the NHS. There is perhaps an eight per cent difference at present between us and the NHS’.

However, some heads of department felt they were unable to compete effectively in salary terms even within the HE sector itself, particularly against those universities with a strong research profile and funding. Often this is compounded by higher costs of living in some areas as indicated in the following quotes from heads of department in the South East:

‘Junior academic staff are on a very low income, they come because they want to be at [institution] but are unhappy about the salaries. This creates tensions, so we support junior staff with salary increments. But it is so demoralising to be on such a salary, you won’t be able to afford even a flat.’

‘Can anyone find a place to live on the salary offered? We have just lost a senior professor who had moved down from Newcastle but found his standard of living plummeted. He has gone off somewhere for better remuneration…..’

Pay was also mentioned by new staff, as something that may influence their decisions regarding whether to remain, either with their current institution or within the sector more generally. One participant of the newly recruited staff focus groups noted how she had taken a pay cut to move into the HE sector but that the lower pay level may become an issue:

‘At the end of the day we all have bills to pay’.

4.2.4 Line management

Feedback from the staff focus groups indicated there are some issues with management that are causing job dissatisfaction. These include the perceived poor management of under-performing colleagues and the lack of personal supervision and guidance. One group of cleaning and catering staff felt strongly about the lack of management of sickness absence in their institution:

‘If they don’t like their job, people go on the sick, they play the system and get away with it, we don’t see anything happening to these people. They [management] don’t do anything about it and we have to make up for their inability. They are picky about some things but not firm on the key things’.

Another participant noted that getting concrete help and support was really hard, and another reported how it can be difficult to see line managers to discuss their support needs.

4.2.5 Other reasons

Individuals may leave through personal choice, perhaps to move to a more suitable location, to follow a partner, or to achieve a


better balance between work and life priorities. Manual staff are more likely to want a more accessible workplace that is closer to home or with better public transport links. This group may also look for more flexible working arrangements that fit with their other commitments – avoiding split shifts or long hours which are unappealing.

4.3 Destination of leavers

No real trends or patterns in leaver destinations emerge from the discussions with HR representatives. Interviewees gave examples of staff who have moved on to a range of various activities. However heads of department feel that many leavers stay within the HE sector. Possible destinations cited include:

Retirement: this is causing particular concerns for heads of education and health sciences departments which have lower retirement ages and ageing staff profiles.

Other HEIs: there is movement within the sector, particularly for senior support posts such as finance and for academic staff. This has been referred to as a ‘transfer market’. For some individuals, HE is the only suitable employer due to the nature of their work; others, however, may have a wider market for their skills. Indeed, HR representatives in one institution feel that as the institution itself is vocationally focused, the skills acquired whilst working at the institution are widely transferable and this means that staff have a wide range of work options.

Wider public sector outside of HE: staff can move into other public sector organisations (eg to local authorities, and the NHS). Heads of department reported the strong attraction of the NHS to clinical academic staff and of LEAs to education staff. One HR representative feels that academics generally tend to remain in the public sector as it has attractions the private sector cannot offer:

‘For example equal opportunities, diversity, is part of someone’s job here to make sure it works properly and you only get that in the public sector’.

Private sector: leavers can also move to the private sector, often to highly paid consultancy positions or become self employed. One HR representative is of the opinion that those leaving from professional support (non academic) roles also tend to go into the private sector.

In addition, some staff go back into further study.


5. Strategies and Solutions

This section examines the strategies that the case study institutions and individual departments have adopted to address recruitment and retention challenges. Many of these actions and activities are used in combination and can be used to address both recruitment and retention difficulties. Actions taken by the survey respondents were discussed previously see 3.6.

5.1 Improving the recruitment process

There appears to be much that HEIs can, and do, utilise to improve their recruitment process – to improve the field of candidates for vacancies, and the quality of applications and the ease of selection.

5.1.1 Improved marketing and branding

Most HR representatives and heads of department spoke of the need to raise the profile and improve the branding to better ‘sell’ the institution as an ‘employer of choice’ and the vacancies they have. Interviewees believe that institutions should be highlighting both the benefits of working in the sector and at the specific institution and overcoming any negative perceptions particularly with image or location:

‘We need to help people understand what university life is like and the advantages and rewards of a career in HE.’

In essence, the universities recognise the need to strengthen the messages about what they have to offer, such as equal opportunities, training and development, pleasant physical working environment etc..

Several case study institutions are working on this aspect, for example tightening up and standardising their recruitment literature, improving information about posts and the institution itself and making adverts more ‘dynamic’; improving links with industry; using high profile ‘champions’ such as VCs to raise the institutions image and profile ; and working with their marketing departments to improve their profile in the region and across the UK.


One HR representative talked about getting stories out in the trade press about their successful award-winning students and graduates. Another noted how the institution is working closely with an advertising agency to produce adverts they feel will attract people:

‘We want to make our adverts fresh and interesting so that they stand out among the other adverts, we try to be a bit different’.

One institution is focusing on getting potential candidates to visit their campus and see for themselves what they have to offer in terms of physical environment and facilities:

‘This is quite effective as the campus is actually very beautiful, a bit like Oxford or Cambridge, and people are often pleasantly surprised’.

5.1.2 E-recruitment

Many HR representatives spoke of the need to make better use of technology in their recruitment activities, particularly in terms of making available the opportunity to apply for jobs online. Some have their own recruitment website listing opportunities, providing information about the institution and giving guidance to individuals on how to apply.

One HR representative described how the institution’s recruitment website provides case study examples of real staff, giving an account of their careers, their progress, and what they like about working at the institution. Another HEI has found the quality of applicants and applications varies greatly; because of this, they have developed a recruitment website that gives potential applicants guidance on applying. This ensures better quality of applications (ie completed forms), although not necessarily a better quality of applicants. Nonetheless, the institution believes that this has improved the recruitment process, making it much easier to shortlist applicants. However, online recruitment seems to be still more of a desire than a reality for many of the case study institutions, despite the fact that, as one head of department noted, ‘it is what the world expects’.

Others have successfully used external recruitment websites to advertise their vacancies. For example, one institution used a recruitment website for advertising a vacancy in their IT services department. They found it was very effective in that they received a good response and saved money on advertising in the trade press such as Computer Weekly. The HR representative indicated that they would consider this approach again, particularly as this form of advertising is becoming more accessible. An increasing number of publications now also have websites, some of which can target suitable individuals for advertised vacancies. They also noted that, as websites have an international reach, they can encourage applications from overseas.


5.1.3 Review of advertising strategy

Another aspect to improving the recruitment process described by a few HR representatives is to rethink their advertising strategy – looking at the most cost effective means of attracting the best candidates. One head of HR spoke of their target to reduce spend on advertising. This is leading them to question the ethos of externally advertising all vacancies, regardless of the suitability of internal candidates. He noted that external advertising could send negative signals to existing staff but also acknowledged that there may be equal opportunities issues in not advertising widely.

Another HR representative spoke of their new approach which is to place regular adverts with open application periods for posts with retention or recruitment problems, and to block-advertise other posts in order to keep their employer profile high. Some heads of department also mentioned advertising. However, in contrast to the views of HR representatives, heads of department tended to feel that they should be advertising more widely, in combination with targeted key sources of supply such as NHS Trusts for health sciences vacancies.

5.1.4 Use of networks, agencies and headhunters

Most of the case study institutions make use of the informal networks of heads of department and senior staff to supplement formal networks when recruiting to senior support or academic posts. This is used mainly to encourage applications from particular individuals and strengthen the quality of the applicant field, rather than to side-step the selection process:

‘To get the vacancy out there, pass the word about and share ideas for potential candidates’.

Networks also tend to be used as a ‘one-off’ when traditional advertising has failed to produce suitable candidates rather than as a regular strategy. One HR representative said that they had used ‘targeted’ methods to encourage applications from key people on one or two occasions but this had to be fairly circumspect:

‘[This has to be done] very softly so as not to put others backs up’.

Another HR representative, at a smaller institution, spoke of undertaking mailshots to schools and arranging taster days for school teachers, in order to try and target teachers who may have hit a career barrier. In these mailshots, the institution emphasises that experience of HE is not necessary and that instead they are looking for potential.

HR representatives also report using recruitment agencies and headhunters, but this appears to be a strategy that they are reluctant to adopt more widely, using it just occasionally when


they encounter particular difficulties and often only with key posts (for which there is a limited pool of suitable candidates) :

‘For hard to fill posts we have occasionally used recruitment agencies.’

‘We have used search consultants for very senior posts to generate the field for example for academic registrar or other specialised posts. Consultants help as they understand the field and can persuade people to consider working in HE. However, the danger of using search consultants is that it can lead people to expect to be searched which creates a culture of its own.’

Interestingly, two institutions reported operating their own agencies for temporary staff. This approach has worked successfully for one institution where it provides an internal pool to cover secretarial and admin posts, using returnees to work, re-deployees, people looking for work experience, and students on gap years. However, the other institution had disbanded their internal agency because they found it was too costly to operate and because concerns had been raised over the quality (and thus performance) of the temporary staff. It also appeared that it was being abused, becoming ‘a back door into the university’, contrary to equal opportunities principles.

5.1.5 Looking overseas

The case study HEIs receive an increasing number of applications from overseas. Sometimes this is as a result of a deliberate strategy to widen the search for candidates particularly in academic specialities or for senior research posts with a limited candidate pool. However, in one case the institution was looking to achieve a better fit with their student profile in a particular academic discipline. At other times this was an outcome of using the internet for advertising vacancies which has a wide international reach. There are some concerns, however, raised about the appropriateness of these applicants, and about the commitment to stay with the institution of these, often very geographically mobile, individuals.

5.1.6 Other changes to the recruitment process

Other actions cited include the introduction of recruitment techniques such as requiring candidates to sit for a student or staff panel; for support posts, undertaking an in-tray exercise; or, for teaching posts, to give a short lecture (ie practical teaching experience). This is felt to give candidates a true feel for the working environment at the institution, and to better involve students and staff in the recruitment process.

For support staff, one approach tried by one institution is to have representatives attend the local job centre to raise the profile of the institution as an employer:


‘We have had problems recruiting electricians so we might think about sitting in the job centre all day to short-cut the recruitment process. We don’t really sell ourselves very well in that kind of market place. We can offer good security, safe working environment, the best pension scheme in the country. People may be fed up with working for contractors but have not thought of working for a university’.

Some institutions have tried working collaboratively with other institutions on recruitment efforts. One institution is involved in a local recruitment initiative with other HEIs that aim to provide a safe process and environment in which to recruit specialist technical staff to work in animal laboratories, an area where they have experienced difficulties in recruitment. Another finds that specialist arts institutions (like themselves) tend not to be highly competitive in terms of their staff as they are small and geographically spread, and so suggests that these institutions could work together sharing information, problems and ideas.

Reducing the lead time in the recruitment process was another way in which institutions believed the recruitment process could be improved. One HR representative noted that they have received complaints that the process takes too long. Another agreed with this, saying that they would particularly like to shorten the appointments committee process as a recruitment round can take three months:

‘By this time you may have lost your best candidate’.

Other institutions reported finding it difficult to reduce this time for the recruitment process, as they believed they could not start the process until the previous incumbent had actually left the job, rather than commencing the recruitment process during the notice period. The need for candidate-checking such as criminal record checks also can take some time.

Changing the application form to make it easier to complete was felt to be useful. Some institutions reported having the same form for all groups of staff, which caused difficulties:

‘We used to have the same application form for all staff including academics, and this was quite lengthy and could put people off, so we changed it and have different forms for different types of staff.’

Institutions also felt that ensuring that the recruitment process is fair, equal and transparent would improve staff and candidates’ confidence in the process overall.

5.2 Position and contract terms

The case study institutions are also making changes to contract terms to attract new staff, fill vacancies, and retain existing staff. However, there appears to be limited upgrading of posts, as this is regarded as a complex process that involves various committees,


and would be a permanent change for an institution. As one HR manager noted:

‘Some managers do not see the bigger picture and want to offer more salaries or to regrade the post to help keep the person but the case has to be made and we do not have the flexibility’.

Another noted how they carefully evaluate each post before it is advertised rather than assess the grade to encourage recruitment or improve retention.

5.2.1 Offering promotion

Promotion can be a key tool in both recruitment and particularly in retention. One HR representative described how the institution has used the Rewarding and Developing Staff (RDS) funding to continue and even exceed their current rate of promotion as a retention mechanism, so that there is now no real cap on the number of promotions per year. Another also used RDS money to fund promotion exercises. Some of the case study institutions are working to make progression routes more visible, to create improved career paths and to better manage career progression, especially in support roles.

For some universities the ability to offer progression is limited. This is often due to the small size of the institution which tends to affect promotion opportunities in support roles. Alternatively, it may sometime be due to strict promotion criteria that focus primarily on research experience, which can affect the promotion opportunities for academic staff with heavy teaching workloads and little opportunity to undertake research. The latter is prompting one of the case study institutions to look at ways to open up progression to recognise teaching contribution.

Another institution has experimented with creating room for staff to progress and earn more by elongating the salary scale for posts. Staff in support roles in IT and HR have demonstrated that they could operate at a higher level than the current grade of their post, so their salary scale was extended to follow that of the grade above. They felt that this method could also be used to attract individuals to posts, with the higher salaries and development opportunities being stressed in the recruitment literature.

5.2.2 Changing working hours

Two universities report that changing the working hours of manual staff has been a successful recruitment and retention mechanism. One institution has introduced a night shift for cleaners. This works well as it helps people fit work in with their wider commitments. Another has introduced similar night shifts for cleaners but it is undertaken so that the institution can offer higher pay. The HR manager noted how it is not possible to


increase the pay for day shifts, but that higher pay for night shifts could be justified. This approach does help recruit and retain more cleaners but obviously increases costs.

Another HR representative noted how, although they have not changed working hours, the institution tries to be flexible about start and finish times for support staff who tend to commute locally:

‘The contract says they have to work 9 – 5 but we do not make them adhere strictly to this, we allow them some flexibility because we acknowledge that there are travel issues’.

One smaller institution has successfully introduced a new flexible working scheme. It was introduced in response to feedback from their staff survey, which indicated staff favour flexibility, and also in response to feedback from applicants, who place a greater focus on worklife balance than on salary. The scheme was piloted in 2004 and is currently being rolled out across staff groups. The HR representative noted that the scheme is proving to be very popular and is helping with retention and may help with recruitment as staff are able to choose the hours that best suit them.

5.2.3 Secondments, fractional posts and traineeships

Fractional or ‘transitional’ posts are used to address difficulties attracting individuals into HE, particularly those currently working outside of the sector. This is a strategy welcomed by heads of department needing to recruit academic staff with industry experience (eg media) or clinical practice (eg health sciences. For example, in one arts institution, the head of HR has found that half-time (0.5) posts have worked very well, since these provide individuals with steady money yet allow them to continue to build industry experience and to retain links with their industry. She also feels that students appreciate this mix in their tutors.

This view was echoed by course leaders in the institution but they noted how it can put pressure on them to maintain continuity for students if staff subsequently leave to return to their industry. In some institutions, posts that allow individuals to work in HE and in the relevant sector are organised as joint appointments, usually with HE being the lead institution (ie their primary employer). In one institution, some 20 per cent of their academic staff in health sciences are joint appointees. Joint appointments allow individuals to gain experience of HE and maintain relevant clinical expertise, although as one head of department acknowledged, having two jobs can be hard for individuals to manage.

Secondments are also seen as a recruitment and retention mechanism. Secondments to the institution from outside can


allow individuals to ‘try before they buy’, gaining first hand experience of working in HE and at the institution. These secondees may sometimes be attracted to more permanent posts. An HR representative from a smaller HEI noted that they work closely with the NHS in their local area to attract health staff for their secondments.

Alternatively, secondments within the institution to other departments and roles, or to organisations outside the institution, can be used as a retention mechanism. This allows individuals to gain new experiences while the HEI retains their skills in the longer term. For example, one head of a support function noted that some turnover in clerical grades in library posts was largely due to a lack of progression opportunity; she now encourages job rotation whereby library staff swap to another area to get wider experience. In general, there seems to be an acknowledgement of the usefulness of secondments, but actual use of them in practice is less apparent.

‘Growing your own’ is also mentioned as a method to overcome recruitment difficulties. This can mean developing existing staff to fill more senior roles, especially for support posts. One HR representative commented that, following a technical staff review, their institution is now considering bringing in apprenticeships to show there is progression. Growing staff is also associated with retaining links with graduates through fellowships, engaging them in research projects or inviting them to become visiting lecturers. In this way they can be encouraged to return during their careers and take up academic posts.

5.3 Financial incentives

5.3.1 Market supplements and golden hellos

There is limited use of market supplements or of introductory rewards such as Golden hellos amongst the case study institutions, although most have looked into these as a mechanism for overcoming recruitment difficulties:

‘We are loathe to go down that route, we would want to try other routes.’

‘Golden hellos for top people may be effective, however, academics tend to favour other incentives like a cap of the number of teaching hours.’

Indeed, HR representatives reported that changes to pay to attract or retain key people are restricted by pay structures and trade unions. Furthermore, they acknowledged that changes to pay can lead to imbalances within departments and an unclear pay system, with new staff being appointed on much better salaries than existing staff, which could cause difficulties:


‘Other staff ask “why am I not getting this?”’.

There is a general feeling that tweaking pay is a short-term measure that would create problems in the longer term.

However, a few have successfully used market supplements and ‘golden hellos’ to match salaries with the external market and attract academic staff. Such actions have mainly been taken to attract clinical staff in the areas of nursing, radiography, occupational therapy and clinical psychology, but also in education studies and management science. HR representatives also reported using market supplements to aid recruitment to support functions such as marketing and accounts. One institution reported increasing pay for domestic staff by eight per cent in order to improve recruitment and retention amongst cleaners and catering staff, but feel it is too early yet to know whether things have improved as well as they had hoped.

5.3.2 Matching offers

Universities also try to match salary offers in order to retain key individuals in senior academic or support roles. As one HR representative noted:

‘If there is wind of someone good leaving, the head of their department will speak to them and ask if there is anything that can be done. Sometimes we cant do anything about it but we can change the salary although we cannot afford to completely distort the internal pay structure and create a rush for moves…if they are offered a chair at another university we will offer them a chair here.’

However, this often relies on heads of department anticipating problems and spotting people thinking of leaving, in order for the institution to make what one head of HR termed a ‘pre-emptive strike’ to hold on to the member of staff. On the other hand, there are concerns that rumours of impending departure may be used to improve an individual’s bargaining position.

5.3.3 Relocation allowance

Some HR representatives spoke of offering relocation allowances to attract individuals to move to the local area when relocating within the UK or from overseas. As one interviewee noted:

‘We have used our RDS money to increase the allowance considerably, it is good value for money because you only have to pay it once… we pay up to £5,000 routinely but in special cases such as UK nationals returning home from working overseas, we can pay more’.

One institution offers a special USA incentive package to attract individuals from USA.


5.3.4 Appointing at higher points on the salary scale

Another strategy used by the case studies is to appoint individuals to higher points on the salary scale rather than only appoint to the bottom of the scale. In some cases, this was used to allow salaries offered to match previous salaries:

‘There is some room for discretion. We generally appoint at the bottom of the scale, but if the individual has evidence of higher earnings we can put them on a higher salary point’.

5.3.5 Other payments

Some HR representatives reported other methods of using pay to retain staff. These include: ‘balloon payments’ at the end of a set retention period; and a merit award for clinical academic staff (funded by the NHS).

5.4 Non financial benefits

A range of non-financial incentives are reported to tackle difficulties in attracting new staff and in retaining key staff.

5.4.1 Time for research/reduced teaching load

Lack of progression due to limited research experience and heavy workload, as noted above, are challenges for academic staff, particularly at more junior levels, that can lead to retention problems. This is acknowledged by the case study institutions that are working to provide more opportunities for research through sabbaticals, time off and reduced teaching hours; and better research facilities (including travel and conference budgets) however, these can be costly.

‘You can employ excellent tutors, purely to teach, but to retain people you need to give them career development opportunities, but in order to progress to lecturer positions people need to undertake research and we don’t have the funding to support this’.

One institution is looking to introduce administrative assistants to reduce the burden on academics and others report using visiting lecturers or tutors to reduce teaching loads.

Offering reduced teaching loads is reported by some heads of department as a tactic that universities can use to attract or poach academic staff to boost their research profile. Reducing teaching loads may therefore also act as a recruitment mechanism.

5.4.2 Training and development opportunities

Offering training and development opportunities, encouragement and support (such as payment towards fees and time off to study)


is regarded by both HR and heads of department as a way to attract and retain staff. This is something that staff appreciated, as indicated in the focus groups with newly recruited staff. This is used successfully by universities to recruit to academic posts that require industry or clinical experience, and where (as noted above) the pool of suitably qualified and experienced individuals is limited. Here interviewees spoke of recruiting individuals with industry experience but little or no HE experience or teaching qualifications and providing them with support to study for an HE teaching qualification (eg PGCE). This approach is also used by some universities to fill other hard-to-fill vacancies, allowing them to recruit at lower levels and then develop staff for the role.

However, as acknowledged by one head of HR, providing staff with training and qualifications can make them more marketable in the labour market and they may leave to go to destinations that can offer higher salaries:

‘Sometimes we lose people who gained a masters while here to the banks.’

5.4.3 Recognition and support

HR representatives noted that helping staff to feel valued can help with retention. Several spoke of the importance of recognising the work of teaching staff which tends to be overlooked in formal structures such as promotion and progression (and therefore pay) which focus on research contributions such as the number of publications. One head of HR described how they reward excellent teaching contribution through awards and teaching fellowships; another, predominantly a teaching institution, has recently moved to recognise teaching contribution in the academic promotion process. However, some heads of department feel that the prevailing culture in the sector still undervalues teaching staff who are not regarded with the same prestige and esteem as research staff.

Communication also appears to play a key role in staff perceptions of ‘value’. One institution introduced a retention initiative in 2000 which has at its heart communication. A series of Staff Partnership Groups, operating across all sectors and grades, allow staff to feedback on issues that are important to them and help to ensure that staff feel listened to. The importance of communication and involvement was stressed in focus groups with newly recruited staff. One participant felt that new staff bring fresh perspectives so their ideas and opinions should be sought. He called for more discussion and sharing of information, and felt that currently communication with staff is ad-hoc and relies upon individual departments and managers. Members of a focus group in another institution also felt there are problems with communication and do not feel listened to. This is not always the


case as one member of staff who did feel involved and valued said:

‘You can have your say and bring your ideas in, in other jobs I have just felt like a dummy.’

Supporting new staff to settle in is also reported as a way to improve retention and can mean providing clear guidance on what is expected of them. Participants in staff focus groups indicated the importance of support, particularly in their first few weeks and months:

‘I had a mentor, that was really helpful. They were not in my specialist area but they were in the same team. The personal support was really helpful.’

‘I was impressed by the induction and hand-over, it took three weeks to get into the job. It was a soft landing, I felt looked after and part of the team.’

One HR representative reported that their institution has a formal induction with structured on-the-job training during a probationary period, regular meetings with line managers, formal induction to the institution and attendance on standard courses (eg first aid, how to be appraised, diversity awareness etc.). Another noted how they have improved their induction process after feedback from staff to include an introduction to the HE sector (including the jargon used as this can be particularly confusing) and the institution’s position in the sector, which is found to be particularly useful to those new to HE. They also use a buddy system for new staff (eg role models to help new recruits feel at home) and offer mentoring.


6. Measuring and Monitoring

This Chapter examines approaches and issues with measurement and monitoring in the case study institutions. The monitoring systems and practices are discussed. Data supplied in the UCEA survey on vacancies and vacancies lasting longer than three months are analysed for the three groups of institutions. Figures provided through HESA were used to calculate mean turnover rates for permanent staff for the three groups of institutions.

6.1 Identifying issues with recruitment

6.1.1 Degree of monitoring

One of the key variations in HR recruitment and retention activity across the case studies is in the extent of, and sophistication in, monitoring initiatives undertaken. In most of the HEIs visited, discussions indicated that, apart from equal opportunities monitoring, there is no real consistent monitoring of the recruitment process and of its outcomes. This may be due to a lack of resources, capacity or focus. For example, some institutions rely on a paper-based system which makes it difficult to analyse or monitor recruitment activities in any great detail. For others, when figures are captured they are either limited, uninformative or not used. Often the data gathered are limited to the number of applications received, the background of applicants, the number of posts vacant and the number of vacancies filled with no real monitoring of the quality of applicants. In some cases, the data were not broken down in a way that would enable managers to identify problems and causes. As one HR representative noted:

‘We need to analyse it more, look at recruitment patterns, what types of work attract people in the community, who gets through the process’.

In some cases, institutions do have the ability to track the recruitment process; however, there appears to be no real motivation to do so when they are recruiting successfully. This means though that such institutions are unable to fully monitor the recruitment process.

With no regular monitoring, this presents the case study HEIs with challenges in identifying and measuring any difficulties. HR


departments have to rely on departments to provide such information (which is facilitated by aligning HR services to departments as many of the case study universities have done). Indeed, one institution spoke of working closely with departments:

‘We [encourage] the schools to [alert us to] any problems in recruitment or retention so that we can ‘trouble-shoot’, and work together to move forward’.

HR representatives spoke of a need for better HR systems that would allow closer monitoring of recruitment and retention, and that would identify problems and provide data. As these comments from heads of HR illustrate:

‘We don’t track to see where applicants apply from to see how effective the sources of advertising are, we currently only have raw data and this is too labour intensive’.

‘We are trying to increase the sophistication of our retention/ turnover data… we want to be able to explore diversity in recruitment, and make better use of the qualitative information gathered from exit interviews’.

Introducing a new Management Information system provides opportunities to get more meaningful data. As one HR representative remarked:

‘We have had little MI for recruitment – whether it has been effective, the costs… no analysis has been done on recruitment. But with the new system this will improve. It has a specific recruitment module that will track the whole recruitment process, and will record the reasons for people turning down jobs’.

6.1.2 Examples of monitoring

Although there were shortcomings in monitoring at some of the institutions visited, several examples of good practice in monitoring recruitment were identified in the case studies. It should be noted that these did not come just from larger institutions who might be presumed to have more resources for such activities; two of the following three examples come from smaller institutions.

One smaller institution undertakes monitoring exercises to help them to understand and make adjustments to their recruitment process. They monitor responses to adverts (requests for applications forms) and number of applications made, to calculate conversion rates. This is used to focus their advertising strategy. For each post advertised a report is produced, with a summary report being produced for the year.

This institution also sends a follow up questionnaire to those who asked for job details/application forms but then did not apply. This helps the institution to check whether adverts match job


content/description, and provides an opportunity to seek feedback on the image and reputation of the institution itself, in order to look for new ways to encourage greater numbers of applications. HR also follow up by telephone those who drop out of the recruitment process by declining an interview, to find out the reasons why individuals have declined.

Another institution monitors applications for equal opportunities, recruiters’ experience of the process, number of successful applications, and the length of time taken to fill posts. Regular reports are sent to the senior management group and the university council. Current staff are also monitored. They conduct a regular staff survey, monitor take up of the staff development programme, and retention during individuals’ probation periods.

One of the smaller institutions collects a great deal of data on recruitment as part of its general monitoring of performance indicators. For example, they monitor which adverts and types of media seem to work well (such as the internet with www.jobs.ac.uk) and which do not. Other monitoring activities include a regular staff survey, equal opportunities reviews and analysis of sickness absence data.

In the context of equal opportunities monitoring, one institution provided a good example of the way data can be used to highlight any issues. The institution analyses patterns of internal promotions and report these to their Equal Opportunities Committee. In doing so, they have identified a number of issues with the promotion of minority groups. Armed with this information they are now seeking to address this issue.

6.2 Analyses of vacancies

Another way of identifying recruitment difficulties may be to measure the number of vacancies and how long they take to fill. Vacancies that take longer to fill may be a proxy measure for recruitment difficulties. To this end, institutions in the survey were asked to provide information about their vacancies.

Institutions that responded to the survey gave information about the number of vacancies that had occurred during 2003–04, and how many of these had remained unfilled for more than three months. These data are displayed in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.


Table 6.1: Mean number of vacancies occurring during 2003-04

Type of institution

Academic vacancies

Admin & prof vacancies

Technical vacancies

Clerical vacancies

Manual vacancies

Total vacancies

College (N=44) 25.2 22.1 5.3 18.9 10.6 82.1

Post-92 university (N=43) 100.3 86.1 12.7 70.1 29.8 299.0

Pre-92 university (N=58) 120.6 56.6 23.0 96.4 38.6 298.5

Sector average 85.6 54.9 14.6 65.1 27.5 232.1

Source: UCEA survey of HEIs 2005

The largest number of vacancies is seen for the staff group which is also the largest, academic staff. After this, clerical and administrative posts are those in which the next highest numbers of vacancies are seen. It should be noted that, while the numbers of vacancies for academic staff are the highest for the five staff groups, this is not surprising, as they are the largest staff group, and the percentage of permanent staff who leave from this group is in fact the lowest of the five staff groupings (see Table 6.4).

Table 6.2: Mean number of vacancies remaining unfilled after three months

Type of institution

Academic Vacancies

Admin & prof Vacancies

Technical Vacancies

Clerical Vacancies

Manual Vacancies

Total Vacancies

College (N=44) 3.1 1.6 0.3 0.8 0.8 6.6

Post-92 university (N=43) 8.3 7.5 1.0 3.0 3.3 23.0

Pre-92 university (N=58) 19.1 9.0 2.8 8.4 5.8 45.1

Sector average 11.0 6.3 1.5 4.5 3.5 26.9

Source: UCEA survey of HEIs 2005

However, if posts unfilled after three months are considered as a proportion of all vacancies, the highest proportions of posts remaining unfilled after three months are seen for academic (13 per cent) and manual staff (13 per cent). Similar proportions of administrative and professional posts (12 per cent) and technical staff (10 per cent) remain unfilled after three months. The vacancies least likely to remain unfilled for long periods of time are those for clerical positions (6 per cent).

Vacancies that persist for longer than three months might be considered ‘hard-to-fill’. It may be useful for institutions to be able to benchmark their analyses of vacancies with those for the wider working population. However, the most authoritative source of information on vacancies (the Employers Skills Survey (ESS) 2004) does not provide a definition of ‘hard-to-fill vacancies’; rather, the ESS data are compiled on the basis of employers’ responses to the question ‘how many of your vacancies are proving hard-to-fill?’


In addition, there is a range of reasons why posts remain unfilled. It may be because vacancies are proving hard-to-fill; equally, it may be because agreement to fill a post has not been reached within this time period, or there has been a strategic decision taken to delay recruitment to save money.

Given these reservations, any comparison of figures across the UCEA and ESS surveys should be viewed as tentative at best. The UCEA data indicate that, across all posts in HEIs, some 12 per cent of all vacancies are unfilled after 3 months; the ESS data revealed that employers in the wider population believe that some 37 per cent of their vacancies are hard-to-fill.

On the whole, this analysis of vacancies supports the survey responses and the perceptions of the case study institutions about the difficulties sometimes experienced for academics, manual and professional and administrative staff. Compared with other employers it does seem less of a problem. However, the limitations mentioned above should be addressed before it is used more widely.

6.3 Identifying retention issues

6.3.1 Measuring turnover

Most of the HR representatives interviewed are able to give turnover figures, but some have difficulties interpreting these in the most meaningful way. There appears to be no consistent approach to measuring turnover across the ten case study institutions. One HR representative talked of the difficulties in removing the influence of retirement and of people finishing short term contracts in order to identify what he felt to be ‘true turnover or retention’.

6.3.2 Use of HR data gathering methods

Institutions in the survey were asked whether they used attitude surveys or exit interviews/surveys. Table 6.3 shows that while fewer than one-third used attitude surveys, nearly three-quarters used exit interviews or surveys.

Table 6.3: Use of attitude surveys and exit interviews/surveys

Yes %

No %

Attitude surveys (N=142) 31.0 69.0

Exit interviews/surveys (N=143) 74.1 25.9


Post-1992 universities were slightly more likely to use attitude surveys than were the other two groups. Over four-fifths of


colleges used some form of exit survey, compared with 79 per cent of post-1992 universities and 64 per cent of pre-1992 universities.

Some of the universities participating in the case studies have moved beyond turnover figures to undertake exit surveys or interviews. They do so with varying degrees of success. One reported low response rates to their exit survey but, as turnover is not perceived to be a real problem, the need to gather feedback on retention is not regarded as a priority. Another found staff are generally willing to provide feedback on leaving and that exit interviews are more useful than surveys:

‘People say more than they write down’.

6.4 Analysis of turnover rates

In order to gauge the extent of staff turnover, data provided by HESA were used to calculate turnover rates. Table 6.4 shows the mean percentage8 of permanent staff who left HEIs during 2003 - 04. It can be seen that the permanent staff groups with the highest percentage of leavers were the manual and clerical staff groups, followed by administrative and professional. The staff group with the lowest percentage of leavers was technical staff, followed by academic staff. Colleges have the highest leaving rates for permanent administrative and professional, and technical staff. There is little difference in the leaving rates for academic, clerical and manual staff between the different types of institution.

Table 6.4: Percentage of permanent staff on full-time, or full-time term-time only contracts, who left during 2003 – 04, by type of institution

Staff group

N = 144

Academics

%

Administrative & professional

%

Technical

%

Clerical

%

Manual

%

College 6.9 9.1 7.1 9.8 10.3

Post-92 university 6.2 7.8 5.3 9.8 10.2

Pre-92 university 6.1 7.8 5.7 9.5 10.2

Average, HEIs that responded to the UCEA survey9

6.5 8.1 6.1 9.8 10.2

Average, all HEIs 6.5 7.9 5.9 9.7 10.4

Source: HESA New Individualised Staff Record 2003/04 - amended following data provided by HEFCE on 1 April 2005.

8 It should be noted that current HESA data on staff outflows and

inflows includes those leaving due to retirement and death in service, as well as movement into other employment.

9 Excluding one university


The data can be given some context by comparison with turnover data from the wider working population. The latest available survey conducted by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) revealed that labour turnover in the UK was on average 16 per cent in participating organisations (CIPD, 2004). Of this level of churn, 10 per cent was estimated to arise from individuals leaving voluntarily (rather than through redundancy, retirement, dismissal, short-term contracts, etc.)10.

Sectoral comparisons reveal that the figures for HEIs are similar to those seen in health and the wider education sector, two sectors widely-cited as being key competitors to HEIs for staff. In health, there was an average voluntary turnover rate of 8 per cent, while in education the figure was 9 per cent. Professional services, which might perhaps be seen as the sector with the closest similarity to the academic situation, had a voluntary turnover rate of 10 per cent, while for IT services the figure was 9 per cent.

Within these overarching sectors there are different staff groupings. CIPD data for different occupations and industry sectors reveal a median11 voluntary turnover rate for managers and professionals in the private sector services grouping, of 13 per cent, and in the public sector equivalent of 11 per cent. The median for HEI academics is 7 per cent12. Administrative, secretarial and technical staff had a median voluntary labour turnover rate of 15 per cent in both private and public sector services. For administrative, clerical and technical staff in HEIs the median turnover rates were 8, 10 and 7 per cent, respectively. Manual and craft staff had a 26 per cent median voluntary turnover rate in private sector services and 15 per cent in public sector services. The median turnover rate for permanent manual staff in the HEI sector was 10 per cent.

It can be seen from this that the median turnover rates for permanent staff in the universities generally fall below the median voluntary turnover rates in the wider economy. The highest median turnover rate, 10 per cent for permanent manual staff, is considerably lower than the 26 per cent seen in private sector services and 15 per cent within the public sector services grouping.

10 The CIPD data do not therefore provide a perfect comparison for the

UCEA data, since these include, as we have already noted, those moving into retirement, or dying in service.

11 Note, CIPD does not provide means for its calculations of labour turnover by occupation and industry sector. Therefore we have calculated medians for the HEI data to enable comparison between the two data sets.

12 Note, medians have been calculated on the basis of individual institutional percentage leaving rates; means were calculated on the basis of sector totals.


Given the limitations of these analyses and the lack of consistent monitoring, it would be useful to explore turnover calculations or methodologies for calculating in further research. There is a need to find the most meaningful way of defining leaver categories and calculating turnover rates. While retirement patterns are important for staffing reviews, looking at voluntary turnover is more meaningful and would enable wider and more accurate benchmarking to be made both within and outside the sector. There are various ways of calculating rates and the most appropriate formula need to be chosen.13

13 Voluntary turnover is more meaningful as it is under the institution’s

control. Ideally, calculations of turnover should be based on the number of leavers in a given period/average staff in post over the same period x100. This means that numbers of staff at both the beginning and at the end of the year should be obtained (see Bevan, Barber, Robinson (1997) Keeping the Best: a Practical Guide to Retaining Key Employees, IES Report 337).


7. Conclusion and Next Steps

In this concluding chapter we note the key findings to emerge from the research and indicate the next steps that should be taken.

7.1 Key findings

We present the key findings under each of the themes that emerged from the research.

7.1.1 Recruitment and retention issues

The majority of institutions that responded to the survey believed that the picture regarding recruitment and retention had largely remained the same over the past 12 months. However, there were some indications that there have been some improvements since 2002.

Overall, a majority of the responding institutions reported that they experience recruitment difficulties ‘sometimes’ for academic and for administrative and professional staff. Less than half of institutions reported ‘sometimes’ having recruitment difficulties with manual, technical and clerical staff. The subjects in which recruitment shortages most often were encountered were largely those that had been identified in previous years’ surveys: law, business and management, economics, accounting, computing/IT and health subjects.

Specific problems with recruitment of specialist education staff were also highlighted by the case study institutions. In particular, specialities such as early years and educational psychology were identified as areas of difficulty.

Interviewees believed that problems in recruiting academics arose in areas where there is a strong demand for similar groups of professionals from outside HE. This means that there was competition not only from other HEIs but from other sectors of the economy, such as the health service or schools.

While over half of those institutions that responded to the survey said that they ‘sometimes’ had difficulties retaining academic, administrative and professional staff, fewer reported experiencing


retention difficulties for technical, clerical and manual staff. Less than half of respondents reported ‘sometimes’ having difficulties in retaining clerical and manual staff and less than a quarter reported sometimes having difficulties retaining technical staff. However, these averaged figures conceal particular pockets of difficulty. Amongst support staff groups, HEIs identified particular recruitment and retention difficulties with cleaning and catering staff. Some difficulties are also reported with the recruitment of personnel and maintenance staff.

In the case studies, interviewees also identified some other groups of specialist administrative and professional staff that institutions were having problems recruiting. These included posts such as academic registrars, financial accountants, HR and business development staff.

Most institutions were expecting the situation with regard to recruitment and retention to remain broadly the same over the next twelve months. However, a quarter of those who responded to the survey were expecting the situation to worsen for them in terms of their ability to recruit academic staff. The reasons given by respondents and interviewees for such difficulties are set out in section 7.1.2.

In the case study institutions, interviewees saw potential challenges for retention arising in the near future as the funding period for projects funded through European funding drew to a close. This would affect staff on fixed term contracts funded from Europe. A further factor is the ageing profile of academics in some fields.

These challenges can be predicted to have specific implications for turnover rates. An ageing staff profile suggests that turnover rates will be low. This was confirmed by respondents: over a quarter reported that low turnover of academic staff was a problem. For support staff, less than a fifth felt that high turnover rates were a problem. More pre-1992 universities experienced problems with high turnover of support staff in general compared with other institutions and indeed for colleges, low turnover amongst support staff appears to be more of an issue.

7.1.2 Perceived causes and impact

In both the survey responses and the case study interviews participants alluded to the causes for the difficulties they were facing. A third of institutions in the survey believed that both private and public sector pay levels are affecting their ability to recruit academic staff. Private sector pay, in particular, was viewed as affecting the recruitment of support staff.

Aside from pay, institutions identified a range of other challenges they faced when attempting to recruit. One complaint,


particularly in subject areas that had come relatively recently to HE, such as health sciences, was that there was only a limited pool of applicants with the right skillmix. This shortage was caused by the relatively new status of these disciplines which meant there had been insufficient time for a pool of qualified individuals to come through the system. Elsewhere there were reports of a mismatch between demand and supply of individuals with certain skills or specialisms, shortcomings in both the quantity and quality of applications and, for some institutions, inaccessible or unattractive locations.

In the case study institutions interviewees cited a number of factors that could serve to attract applicants. These included factors such as generous terms and conditions, the fact that many (although not all) HEIs are in pleasant locations, the reputation that HEIs have for being fair employers, the interesting nature of the jobs on offer and, particularly for research-rich institutions, their research profile.

Location, as well being both a positive and a negative factor impacting on recruitment, is viewed by a sizeable proportion of institutions in the survey as a factor impacting on the retention of staff. This was particularly the case for the HEIs in London and the South. Cost of living is also reported as an issue for institutions in this region. Workload too is seen as contributing to retention difficulties.

Some institutions believed that difficulties in retaining academic staff were exacerbated by the run up to the RAE. This has served to increase competition amongst HEIs and impacted on retention. Interviewees commented that the RAE has created an active ‘transfer market’.

Areas of dissatisfaction cited by interviewees as affecting staff decisions to remain with an institution or within the sector included lack of career progression, an increasing workload, difficulties in gaining access to their managers and lack of support from line managers. Increased workload and consequent burden on existing staff is perceived to be the main impact of recruitment and retention difficulties.

7.1.3 Measurement and monitoring

Many of the case study institutions reported little consistent monitoring other than for equal opportunities purposes. The absence of any significant or consistent monitoring of recruitment and retention data and evaluation of trends presents the case study HEIs with challenges in identifying and measuring the extent of difficulties.

Analyses of unfilled vacancies data provided by respondents to the survey indicated that the highest proportions of posts


remaining unfilled after three months are seen for academics and manual staff. However, turnover rates for permanent staff calculated using HESA statistics for permanent academic staff on full time contracts show that turnover of academic staff is the second lowest of the five staff categories. For only technical staff were turnover rates lower. The highest turnover rate was seen for manual staff.

However, it should be noted that there is no consistent approach used by individual institutions in calculating turnover rates. The way in which turnover was calculated (where any attempt to calculate this was made at all) varied. In interviews with the case study institutions it emerged that the types of leavers that are included within turnover calculations can include both involuntary departures (eg retirement or redundancy) as well as voluntary departures (eg to take up another job).

Amongst the case study institutions there was a view that there was no real problem with retention, in that it was believed that those who leave are mostly moving within the HE sector. However, given the large-scale absence of monitoring data it is difficult to verify such beliefs. Although three-quarters of institutions report that they now use exit surveys or interviews there appears to be little analysis of the outcomes of these procedures.

7.1.4 Actions and initiatives taken

There was little evidence of any significant actions being taken to address recruitment or retention issues in the responses to the survey. Only a third of institutions reported adopting strategies such as upgrading posts for support staff or introducing market supplements for academic and support staff.

More accounts of actions and initiatives to address recruitment difficulties emerged from the case studies. The strategies adopted by the case study institutions included: taking steps to present themselves as an employer of choice; developing e-recruitment systems and recruitment websites; using informal networks; and encouraging applications from overseas.

Some of the case study institutions also reported using the Rewarding and Developing Staff (RDS) fund to increase promotion opportunities and to enable them to offer relocation allowances to potential staff. In addition, some of the case study organisations had introduced flexible working and the use of fractional posts as ways to attract and retain staff. Non-financial benefits offered as part of their recruitment and retention strategy by the case study institutions included time for research, the


recognition of teaching contribution, better access to training and development and improved communications.

7.2 Next steps

The research findings clearly demonstrate that the efforts of HEIs to address recruitment and retention issues have been met with some success. Many of the initiatives have been focused on improving the recruitment process and on using financial incentives (eg RDS money) to recruit and retain quality staff.14 There are also some attempts to introduce non-financial benefits to tackle retention issues. While there is a perception that the quality of staff recruited has improved, and that retention difficulties are easing, the challenge remains for HEIs to demonstrate that this is a reality rather than just a perception.15 There is also a need to sustain these improvements in the light of increased demand and competition from within and outside the sector. To this end, we believe the following should be considered:

1. While there is evidence that some HEIs are introducing HR management information systems, the lack of central and consistent information available in some institutions limits the analysis that can be done to monitor and evaluate recruitment and retention outcomes.

2. The sector as a whole needs to identify and agree the most meaningful way of defining leaver categories and calculating turnover rates. While retirement patterns are important for staffing reviews, looking at voluntary turnover is more meaningful and would enable wider and more accurate benchmarking to be undertaken both within and outside the sector. There are various ways of calculating rates and the most appropriate formula need to be chosen.16

3. Given the increased competition for talent at senior level, together with the competition with both the private sector and wider public sector in some subjects, institutions should be encouraged to explore beyond overall turnover figures.

14 These findings are similar to those reported by the evaluation of RDS,

see Evaluation of Rewarding and Developing Staff in HE initiative 2001-02 to 2003-04, May 2005, a report for HEFCE by KPMG LLP.

15 The evaluation of RDS also commented that there was ‘no evidence of specific monitoring of quality of staff recruited and retained’, p8, op.cit.

16 Voluntary turnover is more meaningful as it is under the institution’s control. Calculating turnover ideally should be based on: number of leavers in a given period/average staff in post over the same period x100. This means that numbers of staff at the beginning and at the end of the year should be obtained (see Bevan, Barber, Robinson (1997) Keeping the Best: a Practical Guide to Retaining Key Employees, IES Report 337).


Overall turnover rate may be misleading and can serve to mask more serious problems within an institution and/or within specific subjects and/or groups of staff. As it is difficult and costly to replace best performers it would be to organisations’ benefit to have better quality information available to them on patterns of leaving and specific areas of difficulty.

4. While promoting what HE can offer, there is also a need to avoid inflating the institution’s turnover by overselling the organisation leading to the risk of developing unrealistic expectations in appointees. HEIs should also ensure that any increased financial incentives have actually led to positive outcomes (eg excellent and retained performers). This emphasises the need for better monitoring information to enable evaluation of the impact of any initiatives introduced in an institution.

5. Some non-financial benefits are also under the institution’s control. Often institutions have found that emphasising these can help in tackling recruitment and retention issues. Discussions with newly recruited staff have highlighted the impact of intrinsic motivators and rewards (eg flexible working and induction) which are on the whole fairly easy to implement and can act as quick wins. They have also identified issues that quickly discourage new recruits. It would be to institutions’ benefit to determine the types of factors that new staff see as particularly attractive, in order to ensure that marketing and recruitment materials emphasise the relevant aspects found attractive by potential applicants. Equally, institutions would be well advised to identify and take steps to address the factors that serve to motivate staff to look elsewhere for employment.

recruitment and retention in higher … · recruitment and retention in the uk higher education...

Documents