Human Resource Management in Higher Education - Cases Studies and Future Scenarios
CHAPTER FIVE
Human Resources Management and University Performance:
A Comparative Analysis of Human Resources at Harvard University and University of Wyoming
Ana Godonoga and Laura Gutierrez Vite
Introduction
Higher education systems worldwide have undergone many changes in the last couple of decades. The waves of governance reforms in the public sector, which started in the 1980’s, had their spill overs in the sector of higher education, opening the floor to more decentralization, marketization, privatization and institutional autonomy (Cai, 2010). The increased competition in the university market as a result of privatization, created the need for more accountability, increased efficiency, and improved performance. As these outcomes are highly dependent on the quality of the human factor, increased attention has been paid in recent years to the role of human resource management.
A large body of research has identified that institutionalization of a strong human resource department could lead to improved organizational outcomes. If organizations want to develop a competitive advantage, they must have “the ability to acquire and effectively utilize human resources” (Guest & Clinton, 2007, p.4). The underlying principle behind this concept is rooted in the resource-based theory, which specifies that human capital, unlike technology and finance, is a scarce resource, and the ability of organizations to manage it effectively could result in better performance (Jiang, Lepak, Hu & Baer, 2012, p. 1264).
Extensive research has been done to identify the practices of HR that have a high impact on organizational performance (Patrick & Sebastian, 2012). Such “high impact” practices are believed to influence the motivation, commitment and productivity of employees, which in turn, influence organizational performance (Guest & Clinton, 2007, p. 28). The current literature, which primarily analyzes the business sector, shows that HR practices such as workforce planning, training and development, recruitment and selection, performance appraisal, career planning management, and internal communication are positively associated with firm performance (Beh & Loo, 2013). In the university context, on the other hand, efforts to study the relationship between HRM and organizational performance have been limited.
For that reason, this study aims to extend the research, by showcasing and analyzing the HR departments of two institutions based in the United States: Harvard University and University of Wyoming. As a proxy measure for university performance, the study considers the 2013-2014 Times Higher Education World University Ranking, which places Harvard University at the top of the list of ranked institutions, and the University of Wyoming, at the bottom. Through analysis of HR employee handbooks, communications and reports, obtained from their respective HR websites, this study identifies instituionalized HR practices at each university and benchmarks them against the ones listed by Guest and Clinton (2007) in the Human Resource Management and University Performance report.
The remaining of this study is structured as follows: first, a discussion on indicators used to measure the performance of institutions of higher education is introduced. A more extensive discussion is provided in reference to the Times Higher Education World University Ranking, which is used in this study as a proxy measure of university performance. Second, the study provides a discussion on best practices used by human resource departments in institutions of higher education, as identified in Guest and Clinton’s (2007) report, which examines the links between human resource management and university performance in the UK. Third, the study analyzes the HR departments at Harvard University and the University of Wyoming, identifying their organizational structure, and HR activities and practices, which are compared to the ones listed in Guest and Clinton’s report. Fourth, the study compares the two institutions based on their HR practices, and discusses their potential implication on university performance. Finally, limitations of the study are raised and recommendations for further research are proposed.
University Performance: The World of University Rankings
A report released by Thomson Reuters (2008), after surveying 89 college and university administrators worldwide, shows that the most common measures of performance tracked by institutions of higher education are: grant funding, faculty salaries, research expenditures, patents, research output, graduation rates, private gifts, enrolment growth, faculty reputation, profitability, revenues, and rankings.
The present study specifically focuses on ranking as a proxy measure for university performance. The Times Higher Education World University Ranking is employed as a tool to measure the performance of universities across the following key areas: teaching, research, knowledge transfer, and international outlook. The methodology uses 13 performance indicators, grouped in five categories: (1) teaching, (2) research, (3) citations, (4) industry income, and (5) international outlook.
Teaching
Performance indicators included in this category account for 30% of the total generated score used to rank institutions. This category comprises results from the academic reputation survey, administered by Thomson Reuters, student-to-faculty ratios, which serve as proxy measures for quality of teaching, doctorate-to-bachelor degree ratios awarded by institutions, number of total doctorates, and income per academic staff.
Research
This category accounts for the volume, reputation and income of an institution’s research, and it includes the following variables: university performance for research excellence, income derived from research activities, and research output. This category of variables counts for 30% of the total performance score.
Citations
The citations category, cited by Times Higher Education as the most influential of all, is designed to assess the potential of universities to deliver knowledge. A typical variable listed in this category includes the number of times a university’s published work is cited by international scholars. As the previous two categories, 30% of the total performance score is attributed to this indicator.
Industry Income
Variables included in this category are designed to assess a university’s contribution to innovation, and its capability of transferring knowledge to applied sectors. This category accounts for 2.5% of the total performance score. Income for research activities received from the industry is one variable included in this category.
International Outlook
This category reflects the diversity of institutions and their willingness to collaborate with international actors on research projects and other education-related programs and initiatives. Examples of variables included in this category are: domestic-to-international student ratios, domestic-to-international faculty ratios, and the proportion of an institution’s research publications with at least one international collaborator. The score derived from this category of variables accounts for 7.5% of the total performance score.
As part of data analysis, Z-scores were used to calculate overall rankings for all datasets, except for the academic reputation survey. The score for each observation is calculated based on the difference from the average mean of the whole data set, also presented in the literature as the standard deviation. Further, the derived Z-scores are turned into cumulative probability scores, which are used to identify where institutions stand on the ranking scale.
It is important to note that certain universities are excluded from the data set if they (a) do not teach undergraduates, (b) are teaching only a few narrow subjects, or (c) have produced less than 200 research papers per year for the last 6 years.
Human Resource Practices
In spite of increased attention paid to human resource management and its role on university performance, the available research in this field is limited.
McCormack, Propper & Smith (2014) provide some insight into the topic; however, their study focuses primarily on the relationship between university performance and management practices. The study does provide informative conclusions, showing that the “provision of incentives for staff recruitment, retention and promotion are correlated with both teaching and research performance” (2014, p. 534).
Amongst the few studies that explicitly addresses the relationship between human resources and university performance is the Human Resource Management and University Performance report, by Guest and Clinton (2007), where applications of human resource management in UK institutions of higher education are studied. Apart from analyzing the link between human resource management and university performance, the report also evaluates the perceptions of the university leadership towards human resources.
The report bases its analysis on a set of practices applied by human resource departments in institutions of higher education. A comprehensive list of these HR practices are provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Human Resource Practices (Guest & Clinton, 2007)
The researchers use these practices to evaluate the effectiveness of HR departments of different institutions in the UK, mentioning that “more of these that are present, the higher the performance” (2007, p.5).
To evaluate the HR departments of Harvard University and the University of Wyoming, this study considers the practices proposed by Guest and Clinton as benchmark tools. After providing an overview for each HR department, the study under review synthesizes the information in a tabular form, showcasing the HR practices implemented by each university.
Case Study I: HR at Harvard University
Harvard University, founded in 1636, is the oldest higher education institution in the United States, and currently one of the most prestigious universities in the world. It is recognized for providing world-class teaching, learning and research, as well as developing leaders in a wide variety of disciplines.
The University, located in Cambridge, in the state of Massachusetts, has approximately 2,400 faculty members and 21,000 degree students, including undergraduate, graduate, and professional students. Harvard has more than 13,000 staff members supporting the University’s mission. The faculty of Harvard’s Schools has produced 47 Nobel Laureates, 32 heads of state, and 48 Pulitzer Prize winners. Furthermore, it is the fifth-largest employer in Massachusetts, providing jobs for approximately 18,000 people.
Harvard is governed by the President and the Fellows of Harvard College, the President of Harvard University, and the Board of Overseers. The University is integrated by eleven principal academic units: ten faculties and the extension school Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Each School and department has its own mission, unified, however by an overarching common mission. The Schools are managed by officers and deans, who are responsible for Harvard’s academic programs and curricula (The President and Fellows, 2015b).
This institution has been highly ranked by many international and domestic ranking agencies. Since 2011, Harvard University has been at the top of the Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings for its excellence in teaching and research (Times Higher Education, 2015).
Human Resources Organizational Structure
Harvard University has developed a well-integrated system of Human Resources Management. The system is comprised of a central Harvard Human Resources department and of individual HR units in Harvard Schools. The central HR unit, managed by the Vice President for Human Resources, employs a team of professionals in the field, who support the faculty and the staff across the institution. The local Human Resources units are in charge of assisting leaders, managers, faculty and staff regarding HR issues, in collaboration and coordination with the central HR. The Human Resource department of the institution is believed to have a strong commitment in supporting the mission of the schools and the university as a whole.
Both at the central unit level, and across local units, a high number of HR practices are in place, such as recruitment and staffing, diversity, employee and labor relations, compensation, performance management, employee development, HR information management, employee recognition, and regulatory compliance.
The remaining of this section provides a brief description of the main HR subunits, and the practices they support, according to the information stated on Harvard’s web page.
Human Resources Consulting Group
At the institutional level, the Human Resources Consulting Group provides human resources consulting services to the departments of the central administration. These consulting services include employee and labor relations, talent management, grading and compensation, recognition, training, organization, design/development, change management, and manager effectiveness. Additionally, the group collaborates with leaders, managers and employees from different departments of the university to adopt policies and practices that could lead to increased performance and productivity. Analyzing the activities of this unit, according to Guest and Clinton’s report, the following HR practices are fulfilled: general retention of staff, diversity/equal opportunity, general training and development, managing flexible employment, reward systems, processes of employee involvement and performance management.
Harvard Benefits
Harvard Benefits is the unit focused on ensuring the design, delivery and administration of benefits that Harvard offers to the employees, especially regarding health and financial security issues. Professionals working in this unit are concerned with developing a highly-competitive and attractive rewards system to ensure motivation and satisfaction of employees.
Harvard Compensation
Harvard Compensation provides pay programs to support the University in attracting, motivating, empowering and retaining a highly qualified workforce. The department supervises the alignment of employee incentives with organizational objectives, adapting the compensation models to meet the specific needs of each school. The HR practices advanced by this unit are: the ability to attract and to retain top quality staff.
Center for Workplace Development
HR practices used by the Center for Workplace Development are general training and development, as well as academic leadership training and development, according to the needs of the university. In order to achieve organizational and individual effectiveness, the center offers, among other tools, classroom instruction, online learning, coaching for employees, coaching for leaders, and talent development programs.
Labor and Employee Relations
The Labor and Employee Relations (LER) serves as the University’s chief representative of all labor relations matters. LER provides guidance on employment policies for non-represented staff. Additionally, to ensure the fair and consistent treatment of all Harvard staff, LER also provides advice and support with respect to workplace issues.
Work/Life
Harvard’s Office of Work/Life supports the health, well-being and work/life integration of faculty, staff, and postdoctoral fellows. They offer support for employees regarding their personal matters, provide workplace and work group consultations, tips regarding stress management, and work/life management. These HR practices, which are highly relevant, seem to be missing from Guest and Clinton’s report.
Individual HR Units
There are other specific programs and initiatives institutionalized to help managers grow and develop better competencies, skills, practices and relationships with their employees. These programs have been implemented at various levels of management (supervisor, mid-level manager, senior manager, executive) amongst all schools.
As observed, Harvard University has designed and implemented a robust Human Resources system. The second case study is described in the next section, which provides the background, organizational structure and HR practices at the University of Wyoming.
Case Study II: HR at the University of Wyoming
The University of Wyoming (UW) was founded in 1886 and is located in Laramie, in the southeastern part of the state. UW enrolls approximately 14,000 undergraduate and graduate students, representing 50 states and more than 90 countries.
The HR department at UW (n.d.) defines itself as a “key administrative unit within the Division of Administration”. Its mission is “to serve as the primary human resources unit for the University of Wyoming providing and continuously improving services for employees, students, retirees, applicants, departments and external agencies; thus enabling the University to serve the people of the State of Wyoming” (n.d.).
The HR department is centralized, and it employs 23 staff members. At the top of the organizational chart is the Associate Vice-President (VP) of HR and Diversity, followed by the Assistant to the Associate VP. Below the Associate VP, there are five managers responsible for the following subunits: benefits and training, classification and compensation, employment and employee relations, and manager of records. HR specialists report to HR managers, and the highest number of professionals are working in the Employment and Employee Relations subunit.
Classification and Compensation Department
The Classification and Compensation Department is the HR subunit responsible for the administration of the compensation program of the university. Amongst the main tasks of the unit are: the audit of current positions, provision of training on compensation and salary procedures, implementation of evaluation reports pertaining to salary and individual job performance, and administration of compensation-related surveys to current employees. The Classification and Compensation subunit is directly involved in the following HR practices: rewards system and managing performance.
Employee Relations
The employee relations is the largest subunit of the HR department at UW. Three main practices of HR fall under its responsibility: discipline procedures, performance evaluations, and professional development.
The disciplinary procedures team provides support and guidance to supervisors who want to ensure the discipline of their employees. They display information related to workplace violation practices, and develop appropriate disciplinary actions, which range from oral warning and performance improvement plans to termination of employment contract.
With respect to performance, the department uses online performance evaluations, also called ePerformance, a system which allows supervisors to evaluate the work of their employees. To ensure transparency and a two-way communication, a practice of HR defined by Guest and Clinton (2007), the HR department provides ePerformance guides both for the supervisors and for their employees.
With respect to training and personnel development, the HR department at UW offers a wide range of programs such as the Staff Training and Enrichment Program, the UW Leadership Academy, the Human Resources Employment Law and Policies, etc. Online workplace trainings cover topics related to performance appraisal, workplace etiquette, stress management, customer service, etc. Training programs and online modules for staff development are available both for new employees and for supervisors.
Workforce Management
The workforce management team provides recommendations and support related to hiring personnel. Their activities are particularly oriented towards professionals working in management positions. They provide information and tips regarding all steps of the employment cycle, from advertising new job positions, to termination of contract. They also provide information related to the hiring process of academic staff, advertising of administrative/faculty/academic professional positions, interviewing, onboarding, etc.
An interesting feature of the HR department at the UW is its lack of participation in the appointing process of new academic staff. This function falls under the direct responsibility of Appointing Authority members, who are professionals designated by the President of the university. They are also responsible for the design of job descriptions, and they participate in the audit process of positions that need to be re-evaluated. Other functions, such as promotion, post-tenure review, and dismissal of academic staff, which generally fall under the responsibility of HR, are carried out by the Office of Academic Affairs.
Benefits
The HR department of UW offers a wide range of benefits as a practice of rewards and incentives. The following benefits are covered in the compensation package of full-time employees: campus breast pumping program, employee assistance program, tuition waivers, health and dental insurance, retirement plans, social security, discounts on athletic season tickets, use of UW libraries and gym facilities, etc.
Discussion and Conclusions
Based on the analysis of the HR departments of both universities, the following observations are advanced:
In terms of HR practices, which are summarized in Table 2, the HR department at Harvard fulfills 17 of the 20 practices, and the University of Wyoming covers 14 of the total. At Harvard, gaps were identified with respect to discipline, appraisal of staff and two-way communication. The HR department at UW shows limitations with respect to the ability to attract high quality staff, ability to retain high quality staff, managing flexible employment, the design of the job content, processes of employee involvement, and staff planning.
Table 2. Human Resources Practices-Comparative Analysis
With respect to the role of the HR department inside the institutions, the University of Wyoming seems to fulfill primarily the role of an administrative unit, as mentioned previously. Another supporting evidence is the lack of involvement of the HR unit in the hiring process of academic staff. At Harvard, on the other hand, the central HR unit defines itself as strongly committed “to advance the University's mission of teaching and research” (The President and Fellows, 2015a). By analyzing the mission statements provided by the HR departments of both institutions, it seems that the HR department at Harvard is more closely aligned with the overall mission of the university, compared to the HR department at the University of Wyoming. At the same time, the above analysis seems to indicate that Harvard’s HR department, rather than fulfilling only the role of an administrative unit, it also plays a strategic role within the organization.
Linking these findings back to the ranking of the two institutions, an association between human resource management and university performance does seem to exist. Although the analysis presented above is only at the preliminary stage, with no actual data-driven evidence, to an extent, this study seems to support Guest and Clinton’s claim that the more practices an HR department supports, the higher the university performance will be.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the analysis presented above, complemented with a thorough screening of the literature, it can be stated that human resources are a fundamental element of an institution's organizational structure. The effectiveness and the degree of integration of the HR department with the overall mission and institutional strategy is likely to play an influential role on the work activity of key actors including managers, administrators and academic staff, as well as, on the university performance as a whole.
It is important to note, however, that universities are complex organizations, and measures of performance depend on multiple internal forces and stakeholders. Thus, providing an objective and accurate comparison proves challenging and several limitations have to be considered.
First, the HR practices of both institutions were analyzed based only on the information available on their web page. Therefore, certain HR practices identified as missing could still be applied, without necessarily being documented in written form. In order to gather more reliable data and increase the validity of the results, it is suggested that a study in-situ, where primary data could be collected and analyzed.
Another limitation is related to the use of ranking as a proxy for university performance. The use of ranking tools to showcase quality of institutions has attained criticism from the literature (Raughvargers, 2011). Therefore, the use of alternative measures of performance in similar analyses may lead to more confident results.
Additionally, the team acknowledges that the impact of HRM on university performance can also be influenced by other extraneous factors, such as leadership, organizational structure, availability of financial resources, size of the university, level of development of HR departments and effectiveness of implementation of HR practices.
Last but not least, this study shows that a correlation is likely to exist between human resource management and university performance; however, no conclusions can be made with respect to causality between the two variables. In order to increase the validity and the general applicability of the study, a more extensive quantitative and qualitative research approach is recommended, which includes not only the voice of HR professionals, but also top level managers of a larger sample of higher education institutions.
In spite of these limitations, this study proves valuable and supportive of Guest and Clinton’s idea that “the HR function must be a central player, rather than an administrative side-show” and that “a range of practices should be deployed in a way that is designed to achieve strategic goals” (2007, p.3). However, further research is needed to gain a better understanding on how effective Human Resource Management could influence university performance.
References
Cai, Y. (2010). Global isomorphism and governance reform in Chinese higher education. RTEM, 16(3), 229-241. doi:10.1080/13583883.2010.497391 
Guest, D., & Clinton, M. (2007). Human resource management and university performance. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D., Hu, J., & Baer, J. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating Mechanisms. Academy Of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264-1294. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0088
Loo-See, B., & Leap-Han, L. (2013). Human resource management best practices and firm performance: A universalistic perspective approach. Serbian Journal Of Management, 8(2), 155-167. doi:10.5937/sjm8-4573
McCormack, J., Propper, C., & Smith, S. (2014). Herding cats? Management and university performance. The Economic Journal, 124(578), F534-F564. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12105
Patrick, H., & Sebastian, S. (2012). Human resources management practices’ influence on faculty commitment in higher educational institutions. Asian Journal Of Management Research, 3(1), 125-138.
The President and Fellows of Harvard College. (2015). Harvard's Presidents & Leadership. Retrieved onFebruary 11, 2015 from http://www.harvard.edu/harvards-president-leadership
The President and Fellows of Harvard College. (2015). Harvard Human Resources - About Us. Retrieved on February 11, 2015, from http://hr.harvard.edu/about-us
Raughvargers, A. (2011). Global university rankings and their impact. Brussels: European University Association.
Thomas Reuters. (2008). Finding meaningful performance measures for higher education. Retrieved from http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/m/pdfs/exec_report_provosts.pdf
Times Higher Education. (2015). THE World University Rankings - Home. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/
University of Wyoming (n.d.). Human Resources | University of Wyoming. Retrieved 12 January 12, 2015, from http://www.uwyo.edu/hr/