
Becoming one university – a staff perspective: Jennie Blake, Siobhan Cartwright and Steve Jones
Few colleagues would claim that we’ve all been on the same journey together over the last few years, so the goal of becoming one university is self-evidently an important and justifiable one. However, it does beg the question: why are we not already one university?
Every University of Manchester staff member would answer this question differently: for some, restructures and other change programmes have made the job more impersonal and less rewarding; others may be concerned that management cultures have grown distant from day-to-day campus activities; and for many, a constant narrative of financial squeeze has eroded collegiality by positioning departments and Schools as rivals with one another, not allies. However, we’d all agree that engagement now is crucial for the kind of future we all want, and that it’s important to remain hopeful and enthusiastic, despite previous frustrations. The three authors of this piece initially met on the university’s PGCert in Higher Education, one of the few spaces in which staff across all professional roles and from all kinds of backgrounds can come together to become better informed about the context in which they work. With the opportunity to learn and reflect outside of their everyday roles, both academic and PS participants soon gain an understanding of – and often sympathy for – the myriads of strategic, political and financial pressures that can push an institution and its senior leaders away from a common understanding of the experiences and aspirations of its campus communities. Views are expressed passionately at times, but discussions are almost always collegial with a strong focus on sharing and critiquing potential solutions.
It is in this spirit that the authors are asking whether we can afford to wait till 2035 to become one university? Community advocates recognise the power of small groups working towards common goals, discovering (much like the PGCert participants) that where individuals recognise and value each other, their shared energy can transform anxiety into action. But those of us who have fed into previous visions may wonder whether progress in some areas lived up to the fanfare with which the consultations were launched. The most recent strategic plan, Our People, Our Future promised to “simplify our decision-making processes” (p.6), “develop new, consistent approaches to workload management” (p.8) and “empower staff and students to challenge inappropriate or threatening behaviour” (p.10). But without robust evaluation of the extent to which these and other objectives were achieved, the danger is that vision-making processes begin to feel like a cyclic PR exercise.
No one wants to keep looking backwards, but first steps are nearly impossible to take without a sense of the starting point. All colleagues want to feel backed by their university but many feel constrained. Responses to staff surveys in recent years confirm this: working for the University of Manchester is exciting; we love the campus and the people; but why does it have to be run the way it is? Listening to diverse opinions is important, but those who contribute need to feel that their input ultimately matters. Consultations must be more than a performative exercise in collecting feedback on decisions already reached. This sort of approach would mean accepting that sometimes change might be slow, or the future undefined, but a sustained move to genuine, good faith collaboration would itself be a creative learning journey. The workforce could be repositioned as a source of valuable expertise rather than as an impediment to reform, with colleagues’ skills and know-how central to getting the key operational decisions right. The University would look to external consultants less but potentially impact the sector and wider society more. A two-way approach would also generate greater buy-in at source, meaning that managing change would need to be talked about less because everyone could see why it was needed and feel they’d had agency to contribute. The PGCert in HE is testament to this: since its launch in 2014, friendships have been made and maintained over many years, through which conversations about how we might improve our practice and take new initiatives have emerged. There is no them and us because academic and PS staff sit side-by-side, working together to help our students get the very most from their time with us.
There are ways in which all universities can benefit from uniting behind a shared strategy. But it needs remembering that campuses are driven by relationships between human beings – whether between students and staff, academics and PS colleagues, or managers and teams – rather than operational visions. We’d suggest that not all changes implemented in recent years have benefitted those professional relationships, and some have made those relationships more difficult, despite the remarkable dedication, optimism and persistence of University of Manchester colleagues. We think the first step to becoming one university – one where staff are proud to work and students thrilled to learn – is to unite behind new cultures of co-operation and openness.
Get involved
If you would like to continue the conversation, come along to Manchester 2035: Are we on the right track? with Professor Duncan Ivison and strategy experts Ken Mcphail, Head of Alliance Manchester Business School, Mark Healey Professor of Strategic Management, Alliance Manchester Business School and Dr Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo, Senior Lecturer in Science Policy and Innovation, Alliance Manchester Business School.
Couldnt have been summed up better!
Great opinion piece, sensitively written while laying out the truth many feel. I am inspired, and would like to quote this article for a piece I’m working on!
Thank you for this thoughtful article, a lot of which resonated with me. The emphasis on communities and human relations is welcome – this has been lacking in other articles on the “One University” topic.
In my area, changes over the last 5+ years have led to a sad loss of community and feeling of common purpose. The department and discipline, which is the strongest bond tying us together, has been undermined and replaced by new structures “doctoral/teaching college”, “school of natural sciences” etc. that I do not understand and feel no affiliation towards. I know from talking to my colleagues, this is not unique. A few points I have also noted from observations at Manchester and other places:
1. Centralization and standardization work against flexibility and agility. Every admin type task (both research and teaching) is more onerous and takes longer than it did when I started at Manchester. Of course, there needs to be a balance, but that balance should be based on the assumption that staff can be trusted, and that they know what works best in their area.
2. Disciplines and departments are our communities. The weakening of the power/influence of the department and the merging of departments might make sense on an operations chart or looking at spreadsheets, but that should come second to the fundamental role of a department as the home of a discipline. The regular structural changes/addition of management layers has further eroded identities and sense of belonging.
I am now in a research institute, which is associated with a department, which is part of a school, which is in a faculty, which is in the University. All of these entities have open meetings/make decisions/run some aspects of my work life – I don’t have time to engage in all of this (who does?) and responsibilities are unclear. Furthermore, these entities become hostile to each other (people are tribal) and the friction between them becomes an obstacle to getting things done.
Interdisciplinary work happens through common interest and nothing else, and happens most when the discipline (department) is strong. Common interest can be identified whilst retaining strong individual department identities/practices.
3. Top down mega programmes wind people up and are an inefficient use of resources.
4. Big open meetings are not effective methods of consultation. Only a tiny minority of people can participate in such meetings, and they tend to be dominated by those who like to speak out rather than those raising the most important issues.
5. Major concerns raised by many staff members at department meetings around (for example) SEP or the MECD development were ignored – or dismissed without properly listening from senior leaders. This leads to a high level of cynicism about senior management consultation in general (see staff survey results).
6. PS and academic staff getting together to discuss how best to improve things is good but uncommon. There should be more of this – it is helped by having PS staff located in departments so there is a proper community established. We used to know the PS staff in our departments well (by name, so we could have a friendly chat together), and have a strong sense of common purpose. This has been mainly lost (although it seems this has been belated recognised and I welcome the attempts to help address this in my department).
7. I have lived through at least 3 strategy documents from the University. As far as I can tell, none of them had the slightest influence on my actions in work – and I know many of my colleagues did not even read them. Furthermore, they seem to have had no effect even on the things that the University says are important, like league table performance etc. (remember the “top 25 in ARWU” from the 2015 Manchester2020 strategy). I know making strategies is more fun but we need less time spend on strategising and more on sorting basic stuff out. Build strong communities and appoint great people and the strategy will look after itself. We all know we want to deliver excellent teaching/research/social responsibility.
While the idea of “One University” is compelling, it risks feeling gimmicky without clear definitions of what it means in practice for experimentation, flexibility, and fostering community among staff and students. Governance structures may unify us on paper, but true integration must avoid making one area—teaching, research, or business—a drag on others in an attempt to maintain smooth operations.
Moreover, the workplace is rarely a singular experience, particularly for individuals with protected characteristics or those outside traditional privileges. Ignoring this diversity risks alienating those we aim to support. A realistic, inclusive approach that values flexibility and acknowledges these nuances is crucial for progress.
This blog is brilliant! It perfectly captures the sentiments of many university staff who have actively engaged in the past but sometimes felt unheard. It’s refreshing to see these perspectives being acknowledged and addressed. Thank you for giving a voice to our experiences and fostering a sense of unity and understanding within the university community.