“We Rely On Own Goals”

Reports suggest that the University of East Anglia (UEA) is in “financial turmoil” and facing a £30m deficit this year rising to £45m within three years.  Clive Lewis, MP, for the constituency in which UEA sits has spoken of the university being in a “death spiral”, is seeking a meeting with the Education Minister and calling for a possible public enquiry.  A deeper dive offers some thoughts for other institutions on leadership, governance, cutting losses and getting the value proposition right. 

Matching Reward and Responsibility

Vice-Chancellor David Richardson, who tendered his resignation last week and left with immediate effect became a university Pro-Vice Chancellor in 2011 and Vice-Chancellor in 2014.  He had been at the university for over 30 years and taught in the famous Lasdun Teaching Wall for much of his career.  It would be difficult to suggest that he is not an insider and has no culpability for long term decision making about the institution and its future.

For that experience the rewards were substantial.  Richardson’s emoluments have increased by around £90,000 since he took office in 2014.  In 2019/20 when the “…mean paid basic salary for the heads of all [university] providers was £219,000”, his salary was 23% higher at £270,000 so exceptional performance was to be expected.  Salary and benefits are also only part of the story with pension contributions rising even more quickly in percentage terms over his tenure to achieve total emoluments of £343,000. 

In addition, the University reported that from 2018 to 2021, when he might have been expected to be focusing solely on the institution’s increasingly perilous financial situation, he was earning an additional £13,000 a year as a non-executive member of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust board.

Another point about the upward trend in his salary is its comparison, as a multiple, to that earnt by others in the University.  The multiple grew every year with the exception of 2021 when the Executive Team “volunteered a 10% reduction in salary for the first six months of 2020-21 with the vice-chancellor volunteering 15%.” The figures suggest the vice-chancellor more than made up for it the year after and just before resigning.

NB: Measure is the multiple of the vice-chancellor’s basic salary on the median pay of staff (excluding student workers who could be paid through a third party) where the median pay is calculated on a full-time equivalent basis for the salaries paid by the provider to its staff.

Most would say that Richardson was well paid and had a long-term understanding of the university, its potential and its challenges.  As far as I can see the resignation announcement and personal statement on the university website contains no sign of accepting responsibility for its financial collapse or the impact on those who had been his colleagues for, in some cases, decades.  When Chair of UEA Council, Dr Sally Howes stated, “I’m sure I speak for the whole community when we thank David for his commitment and service to UEA for these many years” it is abundantly clear that she does not capture all views on his tenure as VC.  

Seeking Good Council (sic)

Richardson was supported on the University’s Executive Team by six pro-vice chancellors, a provost and deputy vice-chancellor, and four senior administrators.  It is not entirely clear how this overlaps with the key management personnel who the Financial Statements describe as “..those ten individuals having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the University.”  What is clear is that in 2017/18 there were nine of them with £1,296m compensation and by 2021/22 there were 10 with compensation of £1,813m.

Other key figures in terms of oversight were Dr Sally Howes, the University’s incoming Chair in August 2021 who became the first Chair of the University’s Council, for at least ten years and possibly ever, to receive remuneration (recorded as £30,000 in the 2021/22 Financial Statement).  On making the appointment the University noted that she brought “… a wealth of experience in strategic roles in the UK space industry.”  Mark Williams had been Treasurer on Council since August 2016 and was previously a partner at Deloitte, one of the UK’s big four professional services companies, so was far from a newcomer.

There were, arguably, quite a few people who had taken positions of responsibility to lead the University.  However, anyone familiar with higher education will recognize the issues raised in a 2020 report “Universities Governance: A Risk of Imminent Collapse” and the urgent need for reform.  It’s summary notes points like, “Council members and VCs rate themselves highly, but in reality are cumbersome and fail to devote adequate time to critical governance issues” and “The office of Vice-Chancellor (VC) has gained tremendous power, while its counterbalance – the university council – is poorly-structured and outdated in approach.”  

Pathed with Good Intentions

The signs that UEA might be sleepwalking over a cliff seem apparent on reviewing the Financial Statements.  In 2018 and 2019 David Richardson and Mark Williams signed off the Business Review including the sentence, “The University remains confident that it has in place adequate funding to support the operational and development plans, and to provide a reserve for managing financial risks, over the next three years.” 

For 2020, 2021 and 2022 the wording changed to, “The University remains confident that it has in place adequate funding to support the operational and development plans, and to provide a reserve for managing financial risks, over the next five years.” (my emphasis).  It is difficult to understand what drove this change in the timescale of their confidence at a point when the world was going through, then recovering from a pandemic where everyone’s future was in turmoil.  Their confidence proved to be ill-placed.

Some of the Council minutes are equally concerning in retrospect.  In November 2021 they report that the “Chair indicated that there is no end-to-end responsibility to management of risk.  It was Council’s responsibility to set the risk management appetite.”  The following sentence, “VC indicated that risks will be managed more closely in future” but a later revelation that the internal audit had found areas for major improvements for the second year suggests a lack of attention to critical detail.

At the next meeting in January 2022 a note from the Audit Committee comments, “concerns about red risks was noted and concerns were expressed about risk management and the extent to which it is embedded in the organization.”  Perhaps prophetically given current circumstances Council “..suggested that staff morale might be considered to be added to the risk register.”  In just three months the approved budget deficit set at £20.8m for 2021/22 had increased to £25m.

There is a sense in going through the set of  2021/22 Council minutes that the risk of failure and a diminishing hold on core management disciplines was being flagged but repressed.  There does not appear to be much sense of mounting urgency over critical issues and while the danger of over-optimistic forecasting is flagged the abiding confidence in having “adequate funding” overwhelms it.  Whether this was just happy talk, an attempt to obscure reality or simply a failure to comprehend is unclear.  

Basics In a Bind

Meanwhile, the basics of running a decent university seem to have been forgotten.  At a point in time when many universities have adjusted their recruitment strategies to secure significant financial advantage UEA seems to have been stranded as a high-priced, non-Russell Group outpost of misguided thinking.  International student income in 2021/22 was lower than in 2016.

Just by way of comparison it is worth considering, say, the University of Leicester’s performance.  In 2016 the income from international students was £52m but in 2022 it had reached £71.8m.  Leicester is of comparable quality optically at 29th in the Complete University Guide compared to UEA’s 27th , it is non-Russell Group and its fees for international PGT are generally higher than UEA.  There seems to be a failure of international recruitment strategy at UEA that management should have addressed.       

Meanwhile the University performance on Research Grants and Contracts has been flat for five years and while the Home Full-Time Student increase looks strong the university notes in its 2021/22 financial statement that it “…fell approximately 8% short (2021:17% short) of entry targets..”.  Taking these alongside the failure to tackle international student recruitment and the continuing decline in the real value of Home student fee tuition suggests an inability to control key revenue lines effectively. 

NB: Research Grants and Contracts are University only to provide a like for like comparison over the period.

Along the way, the joint venture with INTO University Partnerships fell into serious difficulties with losses accelerating and the path to profitability seeming to extend from three years in the 2019/20 Statement to five years from 2021/22.  In 2019/20 the words used were, “..there will be no distribution in respect of 2019/20 nor for the next three years (my emphasis) whilst the joint venture recovers and builds up surpluses for distribution” which implied a distribution by 2023/24 at the latest.  In 2021/22 the words had changed to say, “…there will be no distribution in respect of 2021/22 nor for the next five years (my emphasis) while the joint venture recovers and builds up surpluses for distribution” which suggest no distribution until 2029/30.  The slippage in forecasting recovery is baffling when for the privilege of maintaining the relationship UEA has also become co-guarantor for half of a loan of up to £7m to the joint venture. 

Challenging Times or Chumps in Charge?

Nobody should underestimate the difficulties caused by the pandemic but it is clear that many institutions responded quickly and effectively to changed circumstances.  It should not be a surprise to universities that international student dynamics were always likely to favour Russell Group universities for brand conscious candidates while those from many growth markets are more interested in lower cost tuition and accommodation.  You can’t buck the market and shouldn’t consider your aspirations and ambitions as any guarantee against the cold reality of competitive markets.

Suggestions that problems and costs associated with the Lasdun Teaching Wall have exacerbated the situation are far from new.  However, the 2006 Conservation Development Strategy for the University of East Anglia noted the issues and that solutions would “…require the expenditure of resources by UEA.”  Whether university leadership failed to respond sufficiently at the time or later is a matter that the possible “public enquiry” espoused by local MP, Clive Lewis could consider.

Either way, the recriminations will go on.  In a relatively small community like Norwich the prospect of compulsory redundancies after a £13.5m loss in 2021/22 had already sent shock waves through the city.  The rapid escalation of the scale of loss from £37m in three years to £45m undoubtedly requires action that will be far more draconian than if the problems had been isolated and acted upon earlier.  It is troubling that the lack of confidence in University leadership extends to the interim Vice-Chancellor who has been part of recent decision making.

A UEA Council Minute of November 2021 suggests the VC should bring forward a summary to each meeting of “what was keeping the VC awake at night”.  With the decision to resign we might never know the answer to that question but the difficult times ahead will cause many academics and administrators to rethink their own futures.  It may also be interesting to see if the Education Minister is kept awake at night by the HEPI article in September 2021 suggesting, “Why the Government should never bail out a university” and the past rhetoric of the Office for Students.

NOTES

  1. The headlines is from a quote by ex-Norwich City manager Daniel Farke responding to claims of complacency in October 2020. They were promoted that year. Then relegated the next season with Farke leaving in November 2021.
  2. Financial information about the University, Vice-Chancellor emoluments and other compensation are taken from the University Financial Statements
  3. Information about INTO UEA is taken from the annual returns to Companies House.

Image by Arek Socha from Pixabay 

Amendments

On 2 March the reference in the third paragraph from the end to the constituency MP was amended to Clive Lewis (from Charles Lewis).

SEEING GREATNESS, RADICAL CANDOR AND GETTING PERSONAL

It was a good time of year to be introduced to ‘How I Got Into College’, an edition of This American Life from September 2013. It tells the tale of a student – Emir Kamenica – and how a stolen library book got him into his dream school. Emir is a Bosnian refugee who is now the Richard O. Ryan Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

The narrator and interviewer is Michael Lewis, the author of Moneyball (2003), The Big Short (2010) and The Undoing Project (2016). His introductory chapter in Liar’s Poker (1989) is among the most riveting piece of writing I have ever read. He is a marvellous teller of stories and this is no exception.

My interest was particularly taken by Emir’s memory of a single incident where a teacher took a personal interest in him. He tells how that moment changed his life and set him on the road to a doctorate from Harvard. The programme carries a surprise revelation that makes it a complex tale about belief, truth and memory.

When I read a quote attributed to Edmund Lee a few days later it seemed serendipitous. The end of the quote runs, ‘most of all surround yourself with those who see greatness within you even when you don’t see it yourself’. That does not mean people who show blind loyalty or supine agreement but those who care enough to challenge you and show you new ways of being.

The best leaders are able to see the ‘greatness’ within their colleagues. They recognise what people around them are capable of and have the personal courage and management skill to back their judgement. In doing this they usually give the individuals increased self-awareness and the confidence to more fully realise their potential.

Even in these self-revelatory days people are sometimes shy about telling the stories of how they were inspired, or which moments transformed their life. But these are tales worth recounting and sharing because they can help guide behaviour and are a good way of suggesting why looking for the potential in our friends and colleagues is a responsibility we should take seriously.

Without aspiring to compete with Emir’s extraordinary tale of struggle and achievement I recall my own pivotal moment at school with equal clarity (the irony of that statement will not be lost on those who have heard the programme). As a totally aimless and academically under-achieving 18-year-old I had decided to go to polytechnic to take a business studies course. In those pre-1992 days polytechnics in the UK were decidedly second-class to universities and my ‘choice’ was based upon having no better ideas for avoiding unemployment.

Shortly afterwards an unmistakeable New Zealand accent at full volume cut through the noise of several hundred children changing classes at my large comprehensive school in Essex. My English teacher had spotted me half-way down the stairs and had a point to make. ‘Alan Preece,’ she hollered. ‘You are not going to do business studies. You are going to be a journalist. See me later.’

Yvonne Cull, the English teacher, felt that young people needed to be treated like adults but required intervention, direction and unflinching honesty. Her classes were bracing sessions where the themes of power, manipulation, lust and love in Shakespeare were reinforced by making us interrogate our own teenage desires and passions. Lessons were often provocative and seldom comfortable, but she never stopped trying to help us understand that the stories were about the human condition and people just like us.

When she confronted me with the possibility of becoming a journalist she did not spare my blushes. She was candid about the need to overcome my lack of application, my mistaken belief that native wit was a substitute for research, and my tendency to continue defending positions long after they had been overrun by better arguments.  But she filled me with a belief, based on her personal opinions, that I had the skills to do a job which involved enquiry, balancing opinions, and writing.

Mrs Cull went even further. She had researched the options and found a suitable course run by the National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ). She made me sit in her home one evening to complete the application, she posted it, wrote a letter of recommendation and prepared me for the interview. Having secured a place, I failed my A-levels, but she pushed me to re-take them so I could join the course a year later.

Nowadays, I might consider this moment in my history as an example of radical candor – ‘the ability to challenge directly and show you care personally at the same time’. Kim Scott’s 2017 book on the subject is a good read and captures the subject well. As well as developing the theory it recounts a terrific example involving Sheryl Sandberg who was her boss at Google.

I didn’t go on to be the investigative journalist that Mrs Cull thought I could become. Armed with my NCTJ course award I secured a place in the press office of Tesco which became the stepping stone to public relations, marketing and eventually board level roles as COO and CEO. Throughout those years I was armed with the knowledge that, despite their own busy life, someone had thought well enough of me to share their belief in my potential.

There have, of course, been other ‘sliding door’ moments in my career when senior colleagues have made a firm intervention to show me a different way of being. Most of these occasions have been intensely personal, very direct and driven by their belief that I could do better and be more. For those leaders there was a role for training courses, theories and structure but there were also times when vivid, focused, personal engagement was their way of making a difference.