~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ #1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SCMP.COM 2005-05-07 EDU EDU3 Linda Yeung

Top-down reform method criticised

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Such an approach is viewed as outdated and university staff want more participation and open discussions on the plans

University staff have accused senior management of adopting a top-down approach in implementing reform.

Such an approach was outdated, said Chan Chi-wai, vice-chairman of the Federation of Higher Education Staff Associations, especially in light of the reform carried out at Guangzhou's Zhongshan University a few years ago which incorporated much staff input.

"The management there produced more than 30 drafts for their reform plan in response to staff views," Dr Chan said. "The big problem here is universities do not treat staff as partners."

Li Ping, vice-president of Zhongshan University, told a seminar on management reform in higher education last week held at City University that they had formed expert groups involving staff to lay down details of their reforms. These included staff recruitment being based on open competition; appointments or new positions being made in a more flexible manner, and staff promotion and pay awards being made on the basis of their performance.

"We do not measure an individual staff's performance strictly by his research output, that is the number of research articles they have produced, but by the quality of their work. We have invited experts to assess their work. One of the purposes of our reform is to increase staff's sense of responsibility and motivation," Professor Li said.

At the seminar, staff representatives from various local institutions said there was little consultation over reform plans, such as new remuneration packages.

"Staff morale is low in many institutions and the trust between senior management and staff has declined since the government reduced its budget for the sector," said Professor Nora Tam Fung-yee from City University's Department of Biology and Chemistry, who is also council member of the Society of Hong Kong Scholars.

The mutual mistrust was also caused by the government's policy of concentrating resources in a few institutions, as proposed in Lord Sutherland's report on higher education reform released in 2002.

"This has led to vicious competition not just among institutions but within institutions for resources, since some programme areas are likely to receive much less support under the new funding model. The extent of internal competition varies from institution to institution but it is worse in the smaller ones," Professor Tam said.

The top-down approach only made matters worse, she added. "There are fewer open discussions at our university compared with the time when it was just upgraded to a university. I don't think decisions should be made entirely from the bottom up but it would help if there are more open discussions."

Staff at various institutions were now either unwilling to speak up, had no channels to reflect their views or felt it was futile making their views known, she added.

Joseph Lee Heung-wing, assistant secretary of the Polytechnic University Staff Association, said more transparency in management's decision-making process was needed to lessen the chances of senior management reaping gains from their position.

He cited the case of PolyU deputy president Tzang Hing-chung, now under investigation by an inquiry panel for a possible conflict of interest in his role as a shareholder in a joint venture company providing leadership training for PolyU students, as one example of what can happen in a closed system.

"Such cases are also more likely to happen when management decisions are imposed top-down," he said.

His association was waiting to see what findings or recommendations the panel had before deciding what action to take on Mr Tzang's case. A PolyU spokesman said the panel was still gathering information.