I have certainly seen it happen, and I understand the skepticism.  I have had every possible range of experience working with consultants, from the very good to the very bad to the simply mediocre and useless.

Why use consultants?

A recent (September 2010) CASE article by Andrea Jarrell called “Help Wanted: Making the most of consultant expertise” identifies the following factors to help universities (or any organisation, really) identify when they might need a consultant:

Four factors generally cause institutions to seek outside expertise: scope, know-how, objectivity, and politics.  The first two are fairly obvious: Is the job simply too big for campus professionals to handle in addition to their regular responsibilities? Is the expertise required to accomplish your goals lacking on campus? If the answer is yes to one or both of these questions, you need help from a consultant. Even if you have the time and expertise on campus to handle the proposed project, you may need the objectivity of outside counsel to ensure success.

I recently helped co-ordinate the work of a branding agency to help Wales’ newest university re-name and re-brand, and despite expected complaints from some at how much was spent developing a “logo,” I know first-hand how much work was involved from the research and benchmarking stages through to the advocacy and lobbying and internal communications and then the part that everyone sees – the brand identity.  It didn’t go perfectly, and everyone learned from the process, which is to be expected.  But I also know for a fact there is absolutely no way either I or my team or even a working group of academic and administrative professionals could have achieved the necessary output without professional assistance, for all the reasons listed in the article above.

Working expectations – beyond the “brief”

And now I’ve moved from briefing and coordinating the work of consultants to being one myself. Reflecting on my experience, I think the key to a successful working relationship is to spent the time at the outset agreeing the terms of the arrangement.  And by this I don’t simply mean the contract and what constitutes breaches, setting deadlines, etc.  But rather a very frank discussion about working styles and expectations. As one of my favourite teachers used to say, “you can’t staple your head to the paper.”  Meaning, it may all be “up there” but if you don’t spell it out, how can anyone possibly know what you mean?

So talk about preferences – email vs. phone vs. chat; experience managing these types of projects (on the client side) – do they need help and guidance?; pros and cons of being fully involved in each stage of the project; time commitments and availability; learning/thinking/feedback styles – do you go with your gut or do you like to digest and think about it first? And so on…this can take place before the contract is awarded even, so that both parties clearly understand what they’re getting into.

I find it strange that so much time is spent hiring permanent or even contract staff in terms of the application process and interviews, trying to figure out if the person is the right “fit” for the organisation, but the same types of consideration aren’t part of the equation in hiring a consultant.  It’s understandable, but I think both the client and the consultant would benefit from similar discussions so that the decision isn’t simply based on previous experience/recommendations or cost/benefit but rather on the interpersonal relationship the partnership brings to the team.

The (near) future of consulting

It’s a tough time to try to work with universities – with massive budget cuts, it’s hard to imagine that financial resources will be made available for consultancy-based projects. However, with the increasing competitiveness and need to source and develop additional revenue streams, given the above criteria, hiring consultants and interim managers is a logical stop-gap measure when longer-term funding is unknown. The options are endless too – it’s no longer just a matter of having someone come in and do a bit of research and leave you with a 100+ page report for you to read and implement (although if that’s all you’re after…!) but rather consultants can be used in house where staffing gaps might exist or to implement particular projects or to train staff on new ways of working – or all of the above!

The right partner can be worth their weight in gold if used effectively, particularly if flexible and as committed to the success of your organisation as you are. In this way, you are not chained to them if it’s not working, but if it is – the link is solid, and they don’t just walk away at the end of the project with no concern for the effectiveness of the implementation of their recommendations and ideas.

The restructure is almost always a cost-cutting measure but rarely if ever is portrayed as such. It is usually a “more effective”, “efficient” or “customer friendly” way of doing things.

This instantly creates an air of anger and resentment in those affected by the dreaded restructuring, with people wanting their employers to simply be honest with them. The extent to which this would help is debateable as I don’t know of any companies that have done this.

When a restructure leads to jobs being ‘at risk’ and in many cases having to re-apply for your own or a similar position leaves people feeling angry, insulted and de-motivated. It also leads to colleagues looking at each other with an air of suspicion, thinking that others are rivals for their job.

However hard it may be, it is important amid all the turmoil to try and stay positive. Being bitter and complaining is highly unlikely to change anything and if your boss and others see you getting on with your job you put yourself in a much better position when applying for a new role.

The restructure may even give you a chance to change your career for the better. This won’t be the case for everyone, but it is very easy to get stuck in a rut and stay in a job that is very comfortable, if that is the case use this as an opportunity to gain more skills and experience and take the next step in your career.

So if a restructure is affecting you try to stay positive, and make sure you brush up on your interview skills and CV writing in plenty of time.

Apart from the obvious impact this uncertainty has on prospective students it also leaves staff in HE facing many questions.

With the increased fees how will students expectations change?

As students could be paying £27,000 or more for a degree, they will surely want more for their money than those who have paid £9,000. The problem universities face is how to meet this increased demand with no more money? How do you improve service whilst making budget cuts?

Will poorer students be put off from applying?

Universities want the best students, not just the richest. With the new fees universities charging over £6,000 will have to take measures to ensure they are widening participation for the poor. Unfortunately, HE institutions and their staff have no idea what these measures will be or how effective they will be. How do you ensure that the best students aren’t put off from applying due to fees?

Will different courses cost different amounts?

In simple, practical terms a course such as chemistry costs more to run than History. Although I’m no chemist, the labs, chemicals and safety equipment must be expensive. Therefore should a Chemistry degree cost more than a History degree? If so does that undermine the History course and make students feel undervalued?

I could continue but each question leads only to further questions that cannot currently be answered.

The point is that an effect of the government’s decision on fees is to create an uncertain atmosphere in Universities for both staff and students. The quicker it is resolved the better it will be for all concerned.

1. Find out what your department’s core needs are and get to know how to cover them as best as possible. These may not always be the “sexy” duties, and they may even be boring or tedious sometimes. However, if you are perceived to be the all-rounder, the person who can run the whole department if necessary, your employers will be much more reluctant to let you go.
2. It is equally important to not isolate yourself in your specific department. Whenever you get the chance, actively seek interaction and co-operation with other departments. Get to know how they work, what their needs are, and how your department can work with them for mutual benefit. Try to gain an understanding of your university as a whole and of its broader activities.
3. Never stop seeking new training opportunities. No matter how senior you may be and how much expertise you may have acquired in your area of work, there will always be new things to learn – be it a new piece of computer software, a new professional qualification, or simply keeping up to speed with developments in your field.
4. Offer something extra than what was asked for. If every once in a while you give away some of your time to assist in university activities where an extra pair of hands is needed, or to do some work on top of what is in your job description, this will no doubt be much appreciated, admired, and remembered.
5. Network as much as you can, whenever and wherever you can. Network with colleagues from your institution and other institutions, with management staff, with industry people, with whomever possible. You never know when a contact may come in handy, and if you ever get to the unpleasant position of being let go from your job, you will already have a wide network of people who you can ask for help with finding new opportunities.
6. Finally, it is worth remembering those simple things, which, if not followed consistently, can ultimately cost you your job. Arrive at work on time, make up for any time lost, listen to your managers, be respectful to colleagues, maintain good working relationships with everyone, and give your best when executing your duties.

Who is affected the most?

It is no secret that inflated staff-related costs are more associated with the academic rather than with the non-academic staff. Yet, academics are there to serve the principal purpose of every university, which is to educate students. They are in charge of a university’s core business, which is teaching and research. Therefore, when redundancies become a necessary measure, it is the non-academic staff who are unfortunately the most vulnerable. That said, academics unfortunately can and do occasionally lose their jobs too, such as when universities decide to remove their modules from the timetables. However, mass redundancies of academic staff, especially of those in permanent positions, are rather unrealistic.

Why are non-academics in more trouble?

The answer is quite simple. While all those specialized modules need somebody with relevant expertise to teach them, it is assumed that, for example, one administrative assistant can carry out the work of two if necessary, or one finance officer can complement the role of another colleague. The demand for specialization is much lower in non-academic personnel. This makes them an easier target when job cuts are considered, simply because they are seen as easier to replace.

So is it all doom and gloom?

I don’t believe so. The purpose of this post is not to add to the general uncertainty of the times, but to analyze a situation that may seem incomprehensible and even unfair to some. Even more importantly, the aim is to offer some suggestions on how non-academic staff can try to “recession-proof” their career. So read part II for hints and tips on how to stay employable.