Chapter 12 – General Readings
257
diminishing and competitive pressures are continuing to grow. The need to demonstrate
outcomes to justify public expenditure are increasing, both in the quality and quantity of
teaching and research. Funding is becoming more contingent. Each university will have
its own unique policy responses to this environment, dependent on their perceptions of
their current strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. At the University of
South Australia the policy direction relevant to this research has been to develop, then to
define more closely the Program Director role as a multifaceted leadership role with a
large administrative load. At the same time various reward systems have been put in
place to nurture a research culture.
These external conditions and the University’s responses have jointly led to a
disjuncture at the Program Director level. The focus on research output as defining for
academic careers, coupled with the administrative load of the Program Director role
(which consumes any time for research) means this role is not attractive to most
academics, particularly senior academics with successful research programs, and
indeed has been described as “a career killer”. At the same time, in response to direct
competitive pressures, the University offers both specialist degrees and greater flexibility
in entrance into, transfer within and composition of degree. This means that more
programs (degrees) are on offer and their management is more complex, demanding
more Program Directors, who must have a specialised knowledge as well as general
knowledge of their field and the University’s bureaucratic structures.
There are informal and formal organisational responses to this contradiction between
the disincentives associated with the Program Director position, and the need for more
Program Directors. On the informal side, the Program Director role is sometimes treated
as something of necessary evil, and at times Heads of Schools will need to use their
authority to get academic staff to take it on. On the formal, side there are a number of
support resources in the form of workshops and written materials. Most importantly,
there is the tangible reward for academics at Levels A and B to act at Level C for the
period they hold the Program Director position.
This response has a number of unintended outcomes. The role in the Division
attracts academics who are less experienced. Many Program Directors are reluctant
and disgruntled. As they lack any defined authority they need to rely on informal
authority, which as junior academics they do not usually possess. They may gravitate
towards administrative tasks that are relatively straight-forward over bold, creative and
inherently risky changes they do not believe they have time for, feel ill-equipped to
undertake, lack the authority to control, and are, extrinsically at least, unrewarded for
doing.
Individual
The Vilkinas, Leask, and Rogers (2007) research used a 360° developmental (as
opposed to evaluative) interview process. Program Directors, their Heads and Deputy
Heads of School, teaching and support staff, and other senior administrative staff were
interviewed. The initial analysis of the data is consistent with the findings in the limited
existent literature. Those interviewed said that it was a very complex role being an
academic coordinator. They said that the academic, managerial and administrative
strategies within their role were intertwined. Because of the other demands placed on
them, academic leadership had low priority. It was difficult to provide leadership in their
programs because they had no authority, they had role and time conflicts and they had