|
Are we in Trouble ?
|
In a faraway land, the national technology transfer agency ran a survey asking TTOs what they thought about ‘support from institution’s executive/management’. The vast majority (90%) identified this was a ‘Very important’ factor; but only 40% said the support was ‘Functioning effectively’.*
What would the responses be in the UK, and across Europe?
The relationship between the TTO Director and the relevant pro/deputy-rector/vice-chancellor (generically PVCs) is in many cases dysfunctional. I know this from conversations I have with TTO Directors. I don’t know what the PVCs think; they may think it’s all going fine. They may not realise how damaging are their criticisms, absence of support, chipping away.
The relationship is important: if governments want universities to be drivers of economic development and impact (and they do) then TTO staff and other Research Support staff need to be recognised, valued and respected, not got at; PVCs are the formal bridge to university leadership and the research community, what they say and do is important, it gets noticed, amplified, sets the tone.
TTO Directors feel under-appreciated, under attack, also harassed and bullied in some circumstances. My advice is: (a) keep a diary of events and your feelings when this happens; assess the nature and frequency of the events over time, monthly for example (b) consider who you can talk to about the situation – the person themselves, letting them know your feelings; their boss; the most senior non-academic administrator; the HR department (c) consider filing a claim of harassment, bullying under the institution’s procedures. All this of course depends on the severity of the situation. We know the likelihood of the academic leadership criticising one of their own, and supporting an administrator over an academic, is exceptionally low.
I wonder what the PVCs are trying to achieve. I wonder their motivations in moving across from their academic careers into these PVC positions. I think PVCs don’t know much about Technology Transfer, are a little worried about things they don’t know much about, think they need to challenge the TTO to improve performance, and do it in a clumsy way. I think PVCs often have poor management skills, and they do not get much training to help them. As academics, I think they have a lack of respect for non-academics. I think PVCs sometimes use their appointments to claim some experience and expertise in Technology Transfer, and having intervened to ‘improve’ things, enhance their applications for a bigger job somewhere else.
What do you think?
As an act of seasonal goodwill, magnanimity and humility, why don’t all TTO Directors write to their respective PVC and thank them for their hard work and support throughout the year? Or should it be the other way around?
* NIPMO South African National Survey of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer 2nd National Survey 2014-2018, figure 21 p26
What would the responses be in the UK, and across Europe?
The relationship between the TTO Director and the relevant pro/deputy-rector/vice-chancellor (generically PVCs) is in many cases dysfunctional. I know this from conversations I have with TTO Directors. I don’t know what the PVCs think; they may think it’s all going fine. They may not realise how damaging are their criticisms, absence of support, chipping away.
The relationship is important: if governments want universities to be drivers of economic development and impact (and they do) then TTO staff and other Research Support staff need to be recognised, valued and respected, not got at; PVCs are the formal bridge to university leadership and the research community, what they say and do is important, it gets noticed, amplified, sets the tone.
TTO Directors feel under-appreciated, under attack, also harassed and bullied in some circumstances. My advice is: (a) keep a diary of events and your feelings when this happens; assess the nature and frequency of the events over time, monthly for example (b) consider who you can talk to about the situation – the person themselves, letting them know your feelings; their boss; the most senior non-academic administrator; the HR department (c) consider filing a claim of harassment, bullying under the institution’s procedures. All this of course depends on the severity of the situation. We know the likelihood of the academic leadership criticising one of their own, and supporting an administrator over an academic, is exceptionally low.
I wonder what the PVCs are trying to achieve. I wonder their motivations in moving across from their academic careers into these PVC positions. I think PVCs don’t know much about Technology Transfer, are a little worried about things they don’t know much about, think they need to challenge the TTO to improve performance, and do it in a clumsy way. I think PVCs often have poor management skills, and they do not get much training to help them. As academics, I think they have a lack of respect for non-academics. I think PVCs sometimes use their appointments to claim some experience and expertise in Technology Transfer, and having intervened to ‘improve’ things, enhance their applications for a bigger job somewhere else.
What do you think?
As an act of seasonal goodwill, magnanimity and humility, why don’t all TTO Directors write to their respective PVC and thank them for their hard work and support throughout the year? Or should it be the other way around?
* NIPMO South African National Survey of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer 2nd National Survey 2014-2018, figure 21 p26