7 April 2015 by Lotte Bilberg

Like employees at AU’s other faculties, the employees at BSS have been through a process of scrutinising the faculty since an internal group of experts identified a number of structural problems at the university last spring.

Based on the findings of the expert group, the senior management team made the following announcement at the end of October:

“A review of the structure of the departments at all faculties must be carried out in order to ensure that the organisation of the departments provides appropriate support for the academic disciplines and for cooperation.”

In addition, the senior management team singled out the Faculty of Business and Social Sciences: 

“The faculty’s business activities have a particular need for visibility in relation to industry and potential applicants. In addition, a significant group of employees at the Department of Economics and Business has expressed concern that the business degree programmes are not sufficiently visible. The review must therefore assess the extent to which structural changes are necessary out of consideration for the business degree programmes and whether they are being branded effectively.”

Work complete

Fast forward three months to the end of January. Following a vote, the employees at BSS could read a summary of the process and the result in the faculty's official newsletter:

“The work to determine the departmental structure at BSS is complete. The process has given way to a minor reorganisation, which, among other things, entails new initiatives to consolidate the collaboration on the degree programmes, more focus on BSS’ external profiling and implementation of sections within the large departments.”

Dean Svend Hylleberg commented on the process in the same newsletter:

“Within the faculty management team, we acknowledge that this has been a long and difficult process, which has given way to a lot of discussions and may have created rifts among colleagues.”

We will return to what the dean describes as "conflicts among colleagues" later in the article.

Permanent staff voted against

Economics professor Tor Eriksson, who is also head of the Economics section at the Department of Economics and Business, agrees with the summary of the process as being both long and difficult. On the other hand, with his roots in the classic business school, he disagrees with the management’s final choice of BSS’ departmental structure.

"Many of us don't like the organisation which won the vote, because it is virtually the same as it was before. A very slender majority voted in favour and among the permanent employees at the Department of Economics and Business, the majority voted against it. We don’t like it, because it is based on this idea of a broader business school. I have not heard anyone who really believes in the model, apart from the management," says Tor Eriksson.

Like an election in a banana republic

At the end of the process the faculty management team decided to send two different proposals for the departmental structure to a vote among the employees at the Department of Business Administration and the Department of Economics and Business. This is the vote that Tor Eriksson refers to.

"It was a bit like an election in a banana republic. You had to state your name and position. I didn’t let that affect me that much. But you can’t dismiss the idea that it affected younger colleagues. People who don’t have a permanent, tenured position and who might therefore be concerned about their career. Especially when they hear the management supporting the one proposal very strongly."

Research or education?

Professor Torben M. Andersen was another who raised his eyebrows when he heard that the employees were to vote on two different proposals for the organisation of the departments.

"Most unusual" is his brief comment on the vote. Torben M. Andersen is also an economics professor at the Department of Economics and Business, but as opposed to Tor Eriksson, he has his roots in the classical university.

Torben M. Andersen has the following to say about the process as a whole:

“If you simplified things a little, you could say that the focal point has been the question of whether we should have an organisation that primarily benefits research or primarily benefits education. And the structure we have had until now – the one that the management has now decided to continue with – is an organisation that will strengthen research. Though with the proviso that the question of how the new measures to strengthen the degree programmes are implemented will naturally be crucial."

He continues:

"I think many people will say that research has clearly seen some benefits from the mergers and relocations that the faculty has been through. But then you have the degree programmes and one observation here is that the issue of ownership of these has been diluted after the reorganisation. And thereby a significant part of our raison d’être."

Mobile students

Professor Tor Eriksson is of the same opinion:

"The management cannot destroy research, at least not within the social sciences, because we only need a little paper and sometimes a computer, while the rest is our own mental activity. So if you’re a skilled researcher, you’ll always manage to get by in our field, regardless of the local conditions."

But education is something you can quickly destroy, he says. 

"Students are very mobile today. They exchange experiences far more than previously, they compare educational institutions on the internet, and they are very critical when they decide what and where to study."

 

Off-the-shelf products

The professors agree that when it comes to the degree programmes, it’s a matter of continuing to have some products on the shelves which are – in the jargon of economics – worth reaching for, not least for the employers of the graduates who must, by all accounts, increasingly find employment in the private labour market.

"And this is a discussion many of us have had," says Torben M. Andersen and continues:

"How can we ensure that we still have some degree programme that are both interesting and maintain high quality? To answer the question you shouldn’t just look at whether you have the academic resources for the degree programmes. But also whether they are degree programmes which are interesting for those who will ‘buy’ from us, that is, employ our graduates. And, of course, whether the degree programmes are interesting for the students so that there is an influx to them."

Let’s move on

Even though Tor Eriksson disagrees with the management’s final decision to retain the existing organisation, this is not synonymous with him deciding to conduct research in peace with a few sheets of paper in his office. On the contrary.

"My attitude is that it’s time for us to move on,” he says.

He emphasises that a willingness to take joint responsibility for the further development of the degree programmes is in his opinion precisely one of the positive results of the process over the past few months at BSS.

"It's become clearer along the way that there are other things which are more important than how we are organised. Particularly the whole question of the degree programmes. And it can’t be repeated too often: This is where the money comes from. This is what we must live on. And there are already lots of people who are talking about what we need to improve and where we can develop the degree programmes."

Where are the discussions taking place? And between whom?

"We are professors, associate professors and others who are discussing how we can put together working groups of some kind on our own initiative."

Discussion at the Department of Economics and Business

Tor Eriksson explains that there is an initiative among the employees at the Department of Economics and Business. 

"We have had some informal discussions so far. But there is nothing to prevent you forming small working groups and analysing why we have ended up in the current situation. And asking one other how we can move forward, what can we learn from other places and why the programme is not as attractive as it was ten or twenty years ago."

But when you say informal, is that discussing things while you fetch coffee?

"No, it’s not that informal and it could very well be more formal later on. But so far it is independent of the Study Programme Panels which the management has decided to introduce. I see the Study Programme Panels as a way of trying to solve a problem that many of us have been pointing to for a long time in relation to developing the degree programmes. But it can end up being a forum where you meet once or twice a year. That won’t help because the development of degree programme is something that we need to discuss on a running basis."

Tor Eriksson continues:

"So I hope that the initiative with informal working groups doesn’t only end up applying to the economics degree programme, but that it will spread to the other degree programmes here. We are facing a lot of challenges in connection with the study progress reform and the various proposals from the Expert Committee on Quality in Higher Education, so we might as well begin getting ready for all of it."

Wait-and-see

‘Wait-and-see’ is the expression Torben M. Andersen uses when asked for a one word comment on his attitude to the implementation of the Study Programme Panels, which the management views as a way of strengthening the teaching staff’s ownership of the degree programmes.

“You get a clearer forum between the teaching staff where you don’t have that way of thinking of only addressing what’s happening within your own narrow field. Instead everyone sees themselves as part of a whole that has the overall responsibility for a degree programme such as economics, for example. As it is not a formal body, there are naturally enough some questions as to whether it will function as intended. But I think that many people are thinking that is how things are going to be and now we have to get things to function."

He goes on to emphasise that:

"The management has launched the panels as a key point of departure in relation to the development of the study programmes. And they mustn’t end up being yet another paper tiger. But if people can see that they gain influence and it makes a difference when it comes to solving these problems, then the initiative will have a lot of support. And then people will also be willing to deliver." 

A piqued dean

When Dean Svend Hylleberg is asked to comment on the rumours that the result of the vote on the departmental structure was more or less decided in advance, he says:

"Why on earth would we hold a vote and then overrule the result? Actually, I feel slightly piqued about the fact that anyone could think that I could be so stupid."

The decision to ask for titles and names was in order to facilitate the management’s getting a better picture of how employees' opinions were divided in terms of personnel groups and in the departments respectively, explains Svend Hylleberg. 

"Fortunately, the vote showed that the voting within the individual groups was not uniform, which is also what the reports of the results of the vote clearly showed," he says.

Impossible to create consensus

The dean explains the background for holding the vote in the first place:

"We could see that it was impossible to create consensus and nobody would be able to say they hadn’t been consulted if we held a vote. The result also clearly showed that, at the very least, there wasn’t a majority against the result we had worked towards in the management, which provided us with a certain legitimacy in a situation where we had to make a decision."

But today the dean is not so sure it was a good idea to let the employees vote on the two proposals for the departmental structure, which for him has nothing to do with the criticism of the procedure in connection with the voting. His doubt is rather a result of having experienced the process in connection with the vote, which he describes as “unsightly".

Svend Hylleberg becomes angry when the financial commitments which he made during the period around the vote lead to accusations of attempting to bribe people to vote in a particular way.

"I have to admit that I was deeply shocked to hear that some people could actually imagine that this kind of thing could take place at all."

Pure harassment

Now we arrive at the promised explanation of the dean's formulation "conflict among colleagues" in the internal newsletter which was sent out immediately following the result of the process at the faculty.

"I would describe it as pure harassment when colleagues accuse another colleague of taking bribes."

I talked to several people during my research who say that the accusations were based on misunderstandings.

"I would bloody well hope so, considering that I’ve proven that this was not the case. In any case, this goes to show that there are people who are good at harassing others – and that these people can also be found at a university."

Dean on tour

Svend Hylleberg is currently visiting all of the departments at the faculty to talk to the employees about the forthcoming work of implementing e.g. the Study Programme Panels. 

"The aim of the Study Programme Panels is to ensure that as many people as possible take part in planning the teaching and in the teaching itself, in particular at Bachelor’s degree level. The hope is that the panels can also increase transparency," says Svend Hylleberg.

The Study Programme Panels will consist of between ten and twenty members of staff and as a starting point, the dean conceives of them as meeting at least a couple of times a year. But also that the panels will meet when there is a need to do so, for example in connection with major changes to the degree programmes.

The faculty management team has not decided on a final form for the Study Programme Panels, as it will to a large extent be up to the individual departments to determine a structure that suits their situation, explains Svend Hylleberg.

More people must take responsibility

When the dean is asked to respond to the assertion that it appears that the long and difficult process has also resulted in a greater understanding of the need to take responsibility for the degree programmes, he says:

"Well, I’m certainly pleased to hear that as I have been very conscious of the fact that we have problems which are, among other things due to these huge departments we have. I am also aware of the fact that the initiatives with Study Programme Panels – and also the sections – in the new structure cannot solve the problems in and by themselves, but can only provide a structure which can act as a catalyst for the necessary processes. But we also need people who are willing to act to ensure that we can take care of the problems and we must have more people to take responsibility.

Stopping as dean

Perhaps surprisingly, Svend Hylleberg announced at the beginning of January that he is stepping down as dean.

"I’ve turned seventy and I’ve always said that I wanted to return to the department. The people who know me also know that if there’s one thing I’ve missed it’s the teaching." 

Svend Hylleberg leans back in his chair with crossed arms and continues with a look in his eyes that reminds you that the devil is in the details:

"I can say one more thing in connection with my decision because I know that rumour has it that the rector supports a more narrow business school, and that I’m stopping because of a difference of opinion about this. Excuse me, but Brian is the head of the senior management team! He could have just told me that I needed to create a narrow business school, but he has never done that. Of course the rector supports the decision of senior management team on the future structure of BSS and he has said this very clearly."

Svend Hylleberg is leaving with a good gut feeling.

"And I look forward to starting on the ‘Go online course!’ I also have to admit that I don't expect to be without some influence in the future. Among other things, I believe I’ll be able to help change the atmosphere so we can put a stop to all the trouble. And we have to, because I’m quite certain that the initiatives we’ve launched now have a good chance of working".

---

---

Facts

What is the purpose of introducing Study Programme Panels at BSS?

The management has decided to establish Study Programme Panels for all degree programmes to ensure that a wide circle of senior members of the academic staff are involved in the planning and the further development of the study programmes.

The Study Programme Panels are meant to supplement and contribute to discussions within the boards of studies, which will continue to hold the formal responsibility for the development of the study programmes. In the case of programmes where the main responsibility is shared between two or more departments, the panel consists of faculty from all departments involved.  

Visit omnibus.au.dk to find links to the faculty management team's description of the two proposals which voted on and to the result of the vote.