Instrumentos de planeación de la Escuela de Gobierno y Políticas

ML1 & ML2 both agreed that there was a mismatch between their job descriptions and the reality of their roles. Both indicated that they had not returned to their job description document since examining it prior to the recruitment process for their role. They stated that the original job description contained elements of work which neither of them had done during the duration

58

of their tenure. For ML1, this was one issue which had conspired to transform the programme leader’s role from its original intention, as described in the role description, to something which was so multifarious in it nature it would be very difficult to define.

when you read the job description, I am doing all of those things but probably not as in depth, not as focused as I need to be on those because on a day to day basis, I’m having to deal with the here and now (ML1).

While SL in common with ML1 and ML2, identified a considerable mismatch between the intended purpose and activities of their role against the realities of their position in practice. The job description was described as a strategic position however in practice, the role is very much operational. When asked to consider the workload of their institution’s programme leaders, SL volunteered a number of observations but focused on the pressures experienced by programme leaders. This participant provided an in-depth detail of the institutional gaps supporting programme leaders, as not closing the gaps had led an increase in stress levels and feelings of considerable anxiety amongst programme leaders.

SL attempted to rationalise the role of the programme leader. Initially the intended purpose of the role was to focus on maintaining the educational quality of the programme in their care. This included working with staff to help to maintain and improve not only programmes of study, but to drive and commit to quality assurance processes amongst the programme leader’s team members. There was also an element of developing staff both as educational professionals and for the maintenance of industrial relevance. In relation to success as a programme leader, SL expressed the opinion that the previous experiences of the programme leader largely influenced their ability to meet the demands of quality and understand, implement and evaluate information as dictated by the needs for compliance based quality cycles.

59

ML2 did discuss an initiative which led to the implementation of a new role, titled Manager, and this support from the Directorate was developed to lighten some of the programme leader’s administrative burden. Recent changes in structure conspired to undo any progress made, leaving the participant with the feeling that the institution had taken a backward step and left only two mature, experienced managers in a programme leader’s role with the remainder being relatively new in their positions. This was considered to be indicative of the high staff turnover in the programme leader role.

As a centre manager, ML3 identified the high expectations contained within the job description, expressed that their work load was so demanding, that it was essential to delegate several operational activities. It was also conceded that this attributed to the ‘nature of the beast’ and that the quantity of the work demanded an excessive number of unpaid hours. This, the participant identified was a direct consequence of a significant mismatch between the original job description and the institution’s expectations of those in the centre manager’s role. ML3 described the complexities of having to deal with and meet the requirements of multifarious stakeholder groups coupled with the senior management demands. It was also expressed that there was an institutional reluctance to investigate and realise the excessive work load carried by the institution’s team managers.

The same interviewee (ML3) was further frustrated by the increasing demands of government organisations, industry stakeholder groups, and their own institution in an environment of ever dwindling physical and staff resources. A key pressure point for them was the pressure exerted by the institution to meet EFTS targets. It was explained that these targets are agreed in

60

conjunction with the institution’s finance department. The consequences of failing to meet targets threatened to have an adverse effect on staffing and resourcing.

Similarly, ML4 reflected on the heavy weight of responsibility and relating workload. They described how they had to manage staff and maintain morale when it was obvious to them that there was a significant dwindling of resource allocation due to harsh budget restraints. They spoke of the demands of compliance activities and what they perceived to be the institution’s key driver, meeting EFTS’s targets. They declared their stress, dissatisfaction and the mismatch in values between themselves as an educator and the institution as a commercial enterprise. ML4 also indicated that not having a teaching load, was due to the significant pressures of the administrative and compliance demands of their management role.

However, ML4 admitted to paying very little attention to their job description and had not revisited it for a number of years however. They did however, consider their experiences and provide a self-defined job description. They described the team manager’s role as an opportunity to manage staff and provide them with the conditions to excel, this it was argued, was the best way to improve learner outcomes. It is significant that this leader coped with the significant pressure and frustration of their role by relieving a vocational lecturer in the classroom. This was of their own initiative and was not a requirement of the job. This, according to the participant was not only for their own stress relief, it was a mechanism for supporting staff and a way of disseminating their vast industrial knowledge and teaching experience.

61

4.1.5 Question 5. Are you expected to engage with disciplinary issues and engage with