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
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
FundamentalBuildingBlocks.docx