Reporter 21/10/98: Report of the General Board on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers: Notice

Report of the General Board on the recruitment, reward, and retention of academic and academic-related officers: Notice

12 October 1998

In their Notice dated 27 July 1998 (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 952) the Council informed the University that the remarks made at the Discussion of this Report on 7 July (ibid., p. 926) had been referred to the General Board, and that the Board, having given the matter preliminary consideration, had agreed to postpone making any detailed comments until the Regent House had decided (in the ballot to be held at the end of October; ibid., p. 786) whether a Syndicate should be established to consider these matters. The Council are now informed that the General Board have given further consideration to the points made in the Discussion and, notwithstanding their earlier statement, have agreed, in view of the importance of the issues and their relevance to the questions which are the subject of the forthcoming ballot, to proceed with the publication of this reply for the information of the University.

1. The Board wish to emphasize that their Report represents a critical stage in the development of policies for recruiting, remunerating, and rewarding University academic and academic-related staff. The changes proposed are not only important for the longer term but are essential if the University is to be able to respond effectively within the present academical year to the challenge of the coming Research Assessment Exercise (RAE).

2. With regard to Senior Lectureships, the Board wish to make clear their belief that the majority of University Lecturers in Cambridge are deserving of promotion. If the proposals contained in the Board's Report are approved, they would expect that a substantial majority could expect to become Senior Lecturers in the course of their academic career. The Board are committed to funding as many of these promotions as are justified by the criteria. They do not intend Senior Lectureships to be a 'consolation prize' for those not achieving promotion to Readerships or Professorships; they expect that many University Lecturers would achieve promotion to a Senior Lectureship at an earlier stage in their career than that at which they meet the criteria for promotion to a Readership or a Professorship. They therefore regard the Senior Lectureship proposals as a way of rewarding and retaining academic staff.

3. It is undoubtedly the case that the present stipend arrangements impede the recruitment of professorial staff, regardless of subject. As well as being able to retain its academic staff, the University must be in a position to compete at least on a par with other higher education institutions in recruiting individuals of the highest calibre to Cambridge in advance of the next RAE. The Board hope that their policy on Senior Lectureships and on promotion to Readerships and Professorships will enhance the attractions of University Lectureships to applicants from outside Cambridge. The University's remuneration arrangements must facilitate rather than hinder recruitment if the University is to benefit financially from the outcome of the RAE to be held in 2001; it is therefore imperative that the Board's proposals should be approved not later than the beginning of the Easter Term 1999, in order to provide the flexibility that will be required if leading academics are to be attracted to Cambridge.

4. If the Regent House votes in favour of setting up a Syndicate, in the Board's view it will be vital for the Syndicate to complete its task in time for its proposals to be approved and acted upon in advance of the next RAE. The Board's Report is the outcome of lengthy, complex, and detailed consideration of a range of matters. There has been extensive consultation about promotion arrangements over a period of several years. The Board believe that, if appropriate recommendations are to be approved and acted upon within the timescale suggested above, it will not be possible for a Syndicate to address these issues thoroughly and with the level of expertise and knowledge that is required. They are therefore of the view that, whether or not a Syndicate is set up to consider these matters, the Board's proposals should be put to the Regent House for their approval this term.

5. The Board have ensured that the level of the funds committed to improving the remuneration arrangements of non-professorial staff will be of roughly the same order as that for professorial pay in terms of a percentage of the relevant pay bill.

6. Turning to the specific points made by speakers at the Discussion, the Board wish to comment as follows:

7. Dr Dodgson stressed the importance of the contribution that University officers make to College teaching, and suggested that this contribution should be included as part of the evidence for assessment for promotion to a Senior Lectureship. Dr Thompson also expressed a similar view in the Discussion on 20 January 1998 on the topic 'Promotion to Senior Academic Offices' (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 342), namely that the significance of College teaching should be acknowledged in the University's promotion procedure. In their reply (ibid., p. 471), the Board acknowledged that this is a difficult issue. The majority of the respondents to the consultative questionnaire favoured the exclusion of College teaching from assessment; reservations were also expressed by a number of Faculty Boards. In the light of these expressions of opinion the Board said that they would adhere for the present to the position which they had earlier adopted but would keep the matter under review. This remains the Board's view.

8. With regard to Dr Dodgson's point about consultancy work undertaken by University officers, the Board wish to explain that it is the policy of the central bodies that consulting arrangements should be entirely private matters between the individual and the organization concerned; the Head of the Department, however, has the responsibility of satisfying himself or herself that such arrangements do not involve the University in any way and do not detract from the performance of the individual's University duties. In this connection the Board point out that the amount of College teaching that can be undertaken by University officers is restricted by Statute to ensure that officers are able to discharge fully the duties required under their University contract of employment.

9. Professor Snodgrass argued that the supplementary payments scheme ought not to be used to assist the recruitment of Professors and that there is a lack of clarity about the extent to which available funds will be used to provide payments on appointment, possibly at the expense of officers already in post. With regard to the current proposals, which in respect of recruitment are similar to those operated at Oxford, the Board would expect the remuneration of Professors to be assessed by reference to the same criteria in all cases, including both officers assessed at the time of their appointment and those assessed when they are already in post. It is worth noting that the payments are to be made for periods of six years and that renewal will depend on further assessment. Under the present arrangements it is not possible to offer a stipend higher than the Cambridge standard professorial stipend, and the Board are seriously concerned that other universities, with more flexible arrangements for recruiting Professors, are now more competitive in attracting academics of international reputation. As they have stated in their Report, the Board expect that only a small number of supplementary payments will be made, especially at the higher levels; this applies to all Professors, both those in post and those to be recruited in the future. The Board believe that the extension of the present supplementary payments scheme to staff on appointment will not compromise equity of treatment among Professors in Cambridge; indeed, they are concerned that policies for determining professorial pay should continue to be firmly based on the principle of equitable treatment. Dr Schofield considered that it would be undesirable to adopt a scheme which has features in common with the current discretionary payments scheme for staff in non-professional grades, in particular the submission of proposals by application, 'rejection' letters, etc, in view of the unpopularity of that scheme. While the Board recognize Dr Schofield's concern and appreciate that it may be demoralizing for Professors who apply unsuccessfully to receive 'rejection' letters, they believe that it is important that in their essential features the arrangements should be consistent with the scheme for determining promotion to senior academic offices, i.e. the scheme for personal Professorships and Readerships and the proposed scheme for determining promotion to Senior Lectureships, particularly as the increases in remuneration are relatively substantial.

10. The Board accept Professor Snodgrass's suggestion that statistical data, including the number of applications made, together with the percentage of applicants who are successful, should be published in the Reporter.

11. Dr Schofield drew attention to a general feeling that 'something has gone wrong with [the University's] career structure' and asked whether the proposed new office of Senior Lecturer can carry a very significant part of the burden of putting right what is wrong. In previous Discussions much criticism has been levelled at the present arrangements for promotion to senior academic offices because they are weighted predominantly in favour of achievement in research. There is at present no procedure under which promotion to a more senior office is achievable largely on the ground of excellence in teaching. The present discretionary payments scheme allows for additional financial reward if an officer has made an outstanding contribution in at least two of the three areas of teaching, research, and general contribution; the award of a discretionary payment, however, is not promotion. The purpose of the proposed introduction of Senior Lectureships is to provide visible recognition through promotion (comparable to that provided at present for achievement in research) for sustained excellence in teaching and sustained supportiveness and efficiency in undertaking administrative and organizational tasks, and to underline the importance that the University attaches to the three essential components of academic activity - teaching, research, and the administrative contribution essential for the support of those activities.

12. Dr Whitehead said that she would prefer an extension of the current University Lecturer scale, to which all University Lecturers would be expected to progress, to the proposed arrangements, which she regards as analogous to those for personal Professorships and Readerships. The Board's reasons for preferring separate statutory provision for the office of Senior Lecturer were set out in paragraph 48 of their Report (Reporter, 1997-98, p. 810). With regard to Dr Whitehead's points concerning the number of promotions and the sums set aside for meeting the cost of promotions and restructuring, it is not possible to be specific as to the number of promotions that will be approved initially or indeed in any particular year. It is intended that promotions should be determined on merit but it is clear, as the Board have indicated in their reply to remarks made on this point in previous Discussions, that the University's financial position cannot be disregarded. Also of relevance is the question whether the rewards provided by this University in respect of contribution and achievement are at least on a par with those at other universities. The Board believe that a substantial majority of University Lecturers at Cambridge deserve recognition in respect of the excellence of their contribution in teaching, research, and administration, and they recognize the importance of achieving a steady state as soon as possible in terms of the overall balance of the academic establishment and the annual number of promotions. To that end, substantial sums have been built into the financial baseline over a three-year period to meet the cost of restructuring senior University offices - £2.5m in 1998-99, £3.5m in 1999-2000, and £4.5m in 2000-01 (see paragraph 8 of the 1998 Allocations Report, Reporter, 1997-98, p. 678). Dr Whitehead suggested, as Dr Evans did in a previous Discussion, that one of the reasons motivating the General Board in their proposals for reform of arrangements for promotion, is a desire to do away with tenure as defined prior to the Education Reform Act 1988. This is not the case, although it must be said that the promotion to a more senior office of any officer, whether academic or academic-related, who was in possession of tenure to the retiring age before November 1988, would bring the officer within the scope of that Act. Dr Whitehead also asserted that in the 1997 Allocations Report the Council set aside money for restructuring the top of the Lecturer scale. A sum of £1m was set aside, not specifically to restructure the top of the University Lecturer scale but more generally to allow for the restructuring of academic and academic-related salaries.

13. Dr Whitehead questioned the proposal that officers should be permitted to choose the period of their teaching career that they wish to be taken into account for promotion as long as it includes the last three years. In the Board's view an excessively prescriptive approach to the requirements of this criterion would be inequitable. Some flexibility is essential; sabbatical leave, other periods of leave, periods of illness, and maternity leave ought to be taken into account, and officers who wish to apply for promotion must be trusted with a discretion to interpret the requirements in a reasonable manner.

14. Dr Whitehead suggested that in paragraph 57 of their Report the General Board intended promotions to be determined by the Councils of the Schools rather than by Appointments Committees. She went on to say that Appointments Committees work perfectly well in dealing with the upgrading of University Assistant Lecturers and should be trusted to deal with the promotion of University Lecturers to Senior Lectureships. In fact, paragraph 56 of the Report states that Appointments Committees would receive and consider applications, and would forward in an order of priority those judged to be of the required standard; this is a role not dissimilar from the role that Appointments Committees currently undertake in respect of the promotion of University Assistant Lecturers to University Lectureships. The Councils of the Schools, or committees of the Councils, would decide which of the applications forwarded should be approved, within the financial allocations made to them. Paragraph 57 of the Report provides an explanation of the Board's reasons for believing the involvement of the Councils of the Schools to be preferable to a central committee, namely, that the Councils of the Schools are closer to, and more familiar with, the teaching and other activities of the institutions within their scope, and would be in a better position to make judgements in relation to such activities.

15. Dr Evans asked whether it would be made clear whether an officer could apply for a Senior Lectureship, a Readership, and a Professorship in the same year. The General Board have considered this point and have agreed to adhere to the policy that they operated in the 1998 exercise; it is their intention that University officers should be permitted to apply either for a Professorship or for a Readership, but not for both, and that there should be no default consideration. Dr Whitehead questioned the appropriateness of external referees in connection with the Senior Lectureship scheme. All referees would be informed of the criteria and requested to comment on the applicant in the light of their knowledge of the applicant. As one of the three criteria is achievement in research/scholarship, it is not inappropriate to expect external referees to comment on the area of research/scholarship.

16. Dr Lehmann was of the opinion that the General Board's proposals are biased in favour of longer serving officers, and that more needs to be done for younger staff; in particular, he suggested that starting salaries should be at a level which would compete with comparable professions. The proposals of the present Report are not intended to be comprehensive. In the summary printed at the beginning of the Report the Board made it clear that they are seeking the approval of the Regent House for a range of proposals which are to be viewed as part of the evolving process of reform and a stage in a strategy for improving the University's competitive ability to attract and retain staff of the highest calibre; this applies to younger as well as to more senior staff. It should also be understood that the proposed Senior Lectureship scheme, if approved, would be open to all University Lecturers; each application would be considered on its merits in relation to the criteria, whatever the age of the applicant. With regard to academic-related staff, the Board will report in due course on changes necessary in less senior grades (see paragraph 64 of the Report). The University in its policies must achieve a balance between attempting to retain staff of the highest calibre, of which there are many, and continuing to attract staff who have established excellent academic reputations or who possess the potential for excellence. Given the limited extent of the University's resources, this is a difficult task.

17. Dr Cowley did not accept that the lack of competitive remuneration in the Cambridge arrangements is most apparent at the professorial level. In response, the Board wish to reiterate that generally low levels of pay are a sector-wide problem and that no category of staff is an exception. However, as they stated in paragraph 9 of the Report, the problem is especially acute at Cambridge, where a substantial majority of staff are at the top of the scale and where there is an exceptionally high percentage of very able staff. The statement to which Dr Cowley refers is essentially about recruitment and the ability to compete with other institutions to attract the most able academics. Difficulties experienced in recruiting staff are not confined to Professorships but have become particularly acute at professorial level. The current standard professorial stipend is no longer sufficient to enable the University to compete with other institutions which have more flexible arrangements for remunerating Professors.

18. Dr Good drew attention to the omission of any reference to the University Librarian in Annex 2 of the Report. The Board wish to confirm that the office of University Librarian should be included in Annex 2 along with the other offices assigned to step 32.

Table of Contents