Research

Summary page

Research

The agile organisation: Case studies of the impact of flexible delivery on human resource practices in TAFE

Overview

The purpose of this project is to examine the human resource practices of technical and further education (TAFE) institutes active in flexible delivery, in order to assess the impact of flexible delivery on these practices. Four case studies were prepared using group interviews with teaching staff, non-teaching staff, managers and human resources staff in each institute, as well as an interview with the chief executive officer, and in some cases, additional interviews. Some institute documentation was also used. The case studies do not aim to be representative of the TAFE sector. Nevertheless, the similarity of findings between these four institutes, and their congruity with the findings of a companion project on the same topic, which surveyed managers in fifteen other TAFE institutes, indicates that a fairly consistent picture can be drawn for TAFE as a whole.

TAFE staff who participated in the case studies were asked to describe the range of teaching methods used in their institute (without limiting the description to flexible delivery), and the reasons why these had been adopted. They were then asked to describe the impact of the adoption of these methods on their own work and that of their colleagues, and on staff management and practices.

Summary of findings and implications

Discussion in the four institutes revealed a great deal of similarity in the difficulties experienced in managing the human resources aspects of flexible delivery. Allowing for variations in organisational culture and external circumstances, there was also broad consistency in approaches to solving the problems. The institutes are making a serious attempt to be fair to their staff as well as providing excellent service to their clients. Flexible delivery brings enrichment and enjoyment to many staff. Nevertheless, a high degree of stress and exhaustion is reported by many teaching staff in particular.

Organisational culture and structure

The institutes employ a wide range of delivery methods, both traditional and non-traditional. Newer modes tend to be used in combination with more traditional modes. There is a strong emphasis on workplace activity, and eagerness to satisfy the needs of both enterprise and individual clients. Not all staff see themselves as working in flexible delivery, but it is obvious that everyone is aware of the need for flexible approaches to suit clients' needs. Although there is a way to go before everyone is fully involved, flexible delivery has gone beyond the 'early adopters' in all four institutes.

Organisational structures are becoming flatter and more team-based. Non-teaching staff work more closely with teaching staff than previously. In some cases, this is because they are in direct contact with students (as in flexible learning centres); in others, because non-teaching staff are deliberately associated with teaching centres in an 'account manager' type of relationship, and are encouraged to see their purpose as supporting the teaching and learning process. This leads to a more integrated structure, with some institutes looking for a 'whole-of-institute' culture.

The chief executive officer and senior managers play a large part in setting the tone of the organisational culture as well as the strategic directions, and their recognition and support for the efforts of staff are highly valued.

Work design and management, working conditions

Job design, recruitment and selection

In addition to teachers, institutes employ various teaching-related classifications, such as workplace trainers, tutors and lecturers. Their employment adds flexibility and may bring budget savings (although opinions are divided on this), but this practice is unpopular with teachers who fear erosion of their conditions and professional status.

Non-teaching as well as teaching staff are selected for open attitudes and adaptability as well for their job skills. They need to be able to communicate well with teaching teams and with students.

Job descriptions are not always updated to reflect the current situation. This is not a major problem, but means that clarification of duties at the recruitment stage is especially important.

Teachers are enthusiastic about teaching and about being able to make a difference to students. However, discussion of workloads generated a great deal of emotion in the interview sessions, and many teaching staff claimed that they were overloaded and exhausted. Because funding models and reporting systems are mostly based on classroom teaching conditions, they do not accommodate flexible teaching methods easily. Activities such as online interaction with students are often not recognised as being real work, and so they are often undertaken as an unrecognised, unpaid extra. All staff find that externally imposed systems such as the Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF) and user choice have created far greater loads of recording, reporting and auditing, while administrative support has decreased.

Workload management and working conditions

Teaching awards (even with some amendments to improve flexibility) make distinctions between 'teaching' and 'non-teaching' duties, distinctions which no longer reflect what teachers do, and it requires some ingenuity on the part of teachers and managers to negotiate workloads which are manageable but still fit into the terms of the award.

The way in which workloads are negotiated varies between institutes: some are done individually between the teacher and the team manager, while others are done by the teaching team as a whole. Institutes are continuing to pursue ways of managing this task in order to produce efficient results while being fair and equitable to staff.

Teachers can contribute to making their workloads manageable by setting realistic boundaries and service standards for duties, such as their availability to students. To date, not all teachers have translated their self-management skills into the flexible delivery environment.

Flexible delivery often requires staff to travel away from campuses, work at home or work late at night and on weekends. This has implications for non-teaching staff such as facilities, library and technical staff. It also adds complexity to workload management for teachers, as awards and procedures in many cases do not make it easy to recognise these as legitimate activities or to compensate staff for extra work.

All this makes the job of managers at all levels, but especially at team leader level, more complex, particularly since the proportion of middle managers has been reduced. They therefore need high-level skills and excellent communication and team-building skills to do their job well and to cope with their loads.