It is with deep concern the Otago Daily Times featured the University of Otago and its troubling times in the Weekend Mix last Saturday.
While on the surface all might appear well — and vice-chancellor Harlene Hayne can recite various impressive indicators — disquiet, upset and frustration is rife among staff. Although students have, so far, been sheltered largely from the issues, the performance of demoralised teachers and researchers across the institution is undermined.
Dunedin these days, notwithstanding other successes, is a university town. The city relies enormously on a vibrant university for prosperity. This is not just a matter of economics but for sport, culture, vibrancy and for pride. Much of the wider community share joy and satisfaction being associated, even vicariously, with this leading establishment, New Zealand’s first and New Zealand’s best.
We, too, revel in publishing a plethora of positive pieces about the University of Otago. At the weekend, for example, a report, illustrated by a large photograph, told of students off to compete in an international business case competition.
But in the wake of a drawn-out review and restructuring of general staff as well as what is seen as a growing “culture of control”, employees right across the university are expressing their fears and frustrations. This is not just among areas that have faced their own restructuring. It includes even the brightest and best academics secure in their status and position.
The large amount of feedback we have received from staff and ex-staff since the feature was published also reflects how widespread the concerns are. It was, as well, most unfortunate that the 150th celebrations last year were clouded somewhat by the poor morale.
Prof Hayne is correct when she says the university cannot stay the same. An organisation its size will be constantly reviewing and restructuring. That is always difficult and creates unhappiness. It might also be true that academics, given their jobs entail critical faculties, are an especially difficult lot. And the university requires a degree of staff accountability and conformity of process across its diverse departments.
Nevertheless, feelings are rampant that an ill-functioning, centralised bureaucracy has disempowered staff while also adding to their bureaucratic burdens. Every task seems to be more difficult. Flexibility, innovation and job satisfaction suffer, and it is argued that a stubborn hierarchy that will not tolerate any questioning has added to the alienation of staff.
It is extraordinary how much criticism, all behind the scenes, of course, is made about the vice-chancellor and the top administration. Surely — and there are and have been good and talented people at the very top — they must be aware of the acute discontent.
They, though, in their denials of the issues are aggravating the hurt and sense of powerlessness.
The woes are the talk of Dunedin, and it was likely soon that a national news outlet would have put the university through an unsympathetic wringer.
Feature writer Bruce Munro’s article concluded with helpful comments from a visiting overseas academic who had witnessed the best and worst around the world.
He acknowledged the funding gap in higher education, and — as also seen in the polytechnic sector — that that causes acute and damaging strains. But he said it was apparent Otago’s centralised administration systems and culture of management was not working in the interests of staff or students. He had spent time with Otago staff locked in pain and anger at what their institution had become.
All this led to a sense of an organisation that had quite simply lost the plotline for what it meant to be a university, he said. His view was that good, steady and unobtrusive leadership was required.
“Universities can turn this around, can be places of flourishing and robust debate, and can do so quickly. It needs leadership that is not at war with its staff, and which sees scholarship as an ecology, welcoming criticism and conscience.”
