A Comparative Analysis of the Two Institutions

In the comparison, I follow the same thematic areas discussed earlier, and in this regard, there are three thematic areas discussed in this subsection, which are social interaction and power politics, participation, inclusion and exclusion and reaching and making decisions.

Social Interaction and Power Politics

Several differences and similarities were found relating to this theme. Firstly, levels of social interactions between academic members of staff at KSU were found to be stronger. This was evident, particularly before the meeting commenced, and as attendees were entering the room. Nonetheless, these personal social interactions were absent during the Faculty Staff meetings; although they were present at the other organisation. Social interaction was more present at the Departmental Meetings. This relates to the nature and style of how meetings were conducted. Whenever a large group of staff members attended a meeting, such as the Faculty Staff Meeting, there was not much space for social interaction. The difference was the result that the British culture seemed more comfortable for meeting attendees. Moreover, attendees at the University of Leeds meetings seemed to show certain sympathy to each other. Such feelings were not felt as strongly at the KSU institution.

Relating to the issue of social interaction was the shape of the meeting rooms and the way attendees were seated. At Leeds, participants were seated at one single table and this facilitated better social interaction. At KSU, participants were seated in a lecture theatre style meeting room, which hindered interaction among academic members of staff. Such a seating style might have helped to create an atmosphere of two differentiated parties (those at the front of the room facing those opposite). Nonetheless, this was not the case in departmental meetings. It was found that attendees at both institutions sat in groups as per their preference. This might have helped in creating alliances and poles of power for the attending members of academic staff. The final issue in this section is the role of the Chairperson. It was found that these people at both organisations enjoyed power and authority over others. However, also noticed was that the role of the Chairperson (e.g. the Dean) at KSU, who enjoyed much more power than the Chairperson (e.g. the Dean) at Leeds. This might be caused by the Saudi

114

culture, which offers much power and authority to those members of staff in senior administrative positions. This relates to the idea of difference in the culture and high power distance discussed by Hofstede (2010), where the collegial or democratic model is less evident at KSU.

Participation, Inclusion and Exclusion

There were many differences regarding participation, inclusion and exclusion between the two organisations. The first was that students never attend such meetings at KSU whereas at Leeds, the Student-Staff Forum meetings allow student attendance and participation. This issue reveals the difference in the way each of the organisations sees its students. The School of Education at Leeds believes that such a group of stakeholders are a key group of people that contribute to the success of the organisation. Although, students do not participate in staff meetings at KSU, their complaints and issues are brought to meetings, but this is done by the academic members of staff.

The second important issue relating to participation is that almost every attendee participated in discussions held at Leeds. At KSU, participation was not substantially high. This could show a higher involvement for attendees at the University of Leeds. Participation in these meetings helped in creating discussions, which were extremely helpful in finalising decisions. More input into discussions was brought to the meetings by the academic members of staff. Again, it is not that the Faculty ignores their views totally, or that academic members of staff have some input but this is done in the form of writing proposals and requests. This strategy might be ineffective because it requires time for people to write and send the proposal to particular committees. There are no instant discussions for emerging issues. The Faculty of Education at KSU improvises a solution for this where it allows more discussion at different meetings; and discussion is restricted to limited issues at the Departmental Meeting. The final important issue is the level of influence on different organisational issues. Areas of influence were much broader at Leeds. Academic members of staff were involved in many issues ranging from teaching and learning to finance. It was found that the School involves its members of academic staff in decisions relating to strategy and policy, and this was not found at all at KSU. For example, meeting attendees were consulted on financial issues and spending at Leeds, while at KSU, such an issue was not considered as their business. The

115

final issue relates to gender. Female attendees at KSU attended meetings; however, they were in different meeting rooms (via a video conferencing system). It was noticed that female staff were less likely to participate in decisions.

Reaching and Making Decisions

It was found that there were different levels of academic staff engagement in decision- making. The most important point related to shared decisions. At the School of Education at the University of Leeds, although decisions were generally shared between attendees, there was an informal and implicit voting style, yet not all views were considered. On the other hand, at KSU decisions were not particularly shared. It can be concluded that decisions are discussed in the departments and approved in the faculty meetings. It might be said that members of committees are academic members of staff, and in this sense they participate in decision-making in their specialised committees or departments. This is true; nonetheless their decisions were limited to teaching and supervising issues. They were involved in any administrative, policy or strategy related issues.

Integrating academic members of staff in decisions relating to policy and strategy at Leeds has proved positive, as there were examples where one of the attendees enriched the meeting by sharing an experience gained from another university. In this example, integrating academic members of staff in the meeting proves that this does, in fact, add value to the decision-making process, and ultimately enables the University to receive maximum input and value for money from all members of staff, by fully utilising the organisation’s resources. The School of Education at the University of Leeds has therefore proved to be more resourceful than the other organisation. Another example is that some administrative members of staff are invited to meetings and consulted in order to reach better decisions.

The influence of authority of the Dean in decision-making was felt at both organisations. This influence, however, was more dominant at KSU. Most decisions relating to the organisation’s policy and strategy were made by him, or by the University’s Chancellor. A final remark regarding decision-making from meeting observations was postponing. Whenever the Chair of meetings was not sure about what decision to make, they postponed making such a

116

decision. This strategy could provide them with more time to obtain more information and make better decisions. This was demonstrated in both universities, that the right amount of time, consideration and consultation was given before any decisions were finalised, showing the commitment required to ensure that the best decision was reached.