Opinion / Columnist
State University Toxic Management Culture a threat to Education 5.0
01 Jun 2019 at 08:58hrs | Views
The purging of any toxic management culture, real or perceived, at our state universities is critical to the success of Education model 5.0 being proudly sponsored by the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development captained by our Honorable Minister Amon Murwira.
Developed on the strength of established wisdom that education remains the most powerful catalyst for transformation, Education model 5.0 speaks to the transformation of our state universities to make positive contributions to the delivery of Zimbabwe's Vision 2030, itself, integral to the new dispensation core values focussing on delivering an upper middle-income economy by 2030 via national economy modernization and industrialization.
A thoughtful reading of Education model 5.0 will reveal that it is more about establishing an innovation culture in our state universities ahead of any other culture. This is a culture that encourage the embrace of new technologies, kindle the passion for applied knowledge and development of technological solutions to real-life challenges, and ease barriers to creativity and serendipitous advances. Such a culture thrives well only where there is serious commitment to promoting and providing a positive and enriching work environment.
Therefore, towards a positive and enriching work environment, there is need for internal transformation of any toxic management culture for the innovation culture dictated by Education model 5.0. The major question that must dominate discussions is whether or not the ‘persona' of our state universities sap creativity and innovation drive in our academicians and researchers?
Is state university management standing up for those set of norms, values and beliefs, rituals and ceremonies, and traditions supportive of the growth of the innovation culture? Are our institute of higher learning prepared to also learn and apply habits conducive to the much demanded innovation culture?
Toxic management culture ferments behaviors that go well beyond robust academic discourse, professional rivalries or personality clashes or differences and must be purged. Why? A toxic management culture drive off talented researchers and academicians, stifle innovation and creativity, reduce productivity, and even tempt staff into breaking the law.
The most valuable resource anywhere is human resource. Do our State University Human Resource Units up to the task to overhaul workplace practices by sponsoring policies that counter abuse of office, aggressive behavior, and even career sabotage? What of the toxic culture of secrecy - hear no evil see no evil -where Human Resources and Public Relations functions would choose to avoid negative publicity than protecting staff members?
The innovation culture for Education model 5.0 to thrive demands scientific management of workloads and workloads pressures in our state universities. Therefore an urgent need for work plan policies and workload models cannot be over emphasized. While a university work plan policy aims to provide for transparency, equity, collegiality and comparability it would also provide general procedures for ensuring consistent standards of workload allocation taking into account discipline-specific teaching activity and pro-modernization-and-industrialization research, development and innovation activity thresholds as well as mix of major areas of an academicians work as detailed under Education 5.0. It would be strategic, in those universities without, to form a Work Plan Committee..
The innovation and industrialization missions of Education 5.0 thrives best if our state university management and staff immediately sponsor the development of a sophisticated Intellectual Property (IP) policy acceptable to all staff. This, to ward off the toxic culture of IP thieving and career sabotaging. Experiences elsewhere confirm that an IP Policy backed by Non-Disclosure Agreements, is protection enough from abuse of power in instances the IP leads to handsome financial rewards. It would be unfortunate to ignore the wisdom the love of money is the root of all evil. Elsewhere in universities that are serious with the business of innovation and national economy impact, signing of Non-Disclosure Agreement is a common tradition to protect real and perceived IP from theft.
The good promises of Education model 5.0 as championed by our Honorable Minister Professor Amon Murwira cannot be squandered by toxic culture, real or perceived. Instead innovation culture of Education model 5.0 must take root if our state universities to contribute positively to Vision 2030.
——
Enock Jonathan is a Zimbabwean scientist and technologist contactable at enock10jonathan@gmail.com
Developed on the strength of established wisdom that education remains the most powerful catalyst for transformation, Education model 5.0 speaks to the transformation of our state universities to make positive contributions to the delivery of Zimbabwe's Vision 2030, itself, integral to the new dispensation core values focussing on delivering an upper middle-income economy by 2030 via national economy modernization and industrialization.
A thoughtful reading of Education model 5.0 will reveal that it is more about establishing an innovation culture in our state universities ahead of any other culture. This is a culture that encourage the embrace of new technologies, kindle the passion for applied knowledge and development of technological solutions to real-life challenges, and ease barriers to creativity and serendipitous advances. Such a culture thrives well only where there is serious commitment to promoting and providing a positive and enriching work environment.
Therefore, towards a positive and enriching work environment, there is need for internal transformation of any toxic management culture for the innovation culture dictated by Education model 5.0. The major question that must dominate discussions is whether or not the ‘persona' of our state universities sap creativity and innovation drive in our academicians and researchers?
Is state university management standing up for those set of norms, values and beliefs, rituals and ceremonies, and traditions supportive of the growth of the innovation culture? Are our institute of higher learning prepared to also learn and apply habits conducive to the much demanded innovation culture?
Toxic management culture ferments behaviors that go well beyond robust academic discourse, professional rivalries or personality clashes or differences and must be purged. Why? A toxic management culture drive off talented researchers and academicians, stifle innovation and creativity, reduce productivity, and even tempt staff into breaking the law.
The most valuable resource anywhere is human resource. Do our State University Human Resource Units up to the task to overhaul workplace practices by sponsoring policies that counter abuse of office, aggressive behavior, and even career sabotage? What of the toxic culture of secrecy - hear no evil see no evil -where Human Resources and Public Relations functions would choose to avoid negative publicity than protecting staff members?
The innovation culture for Education model 5.0 to thrive demands scientific management of workloads and workloads pressures in our state universities. Therefore an urgent need for work plan policies and workload models cannot be over emphasized. While a university work plan policy aims to provide for transparency, equity, collegiality and comparability it would also provide general procedures for ensuring consistent standards of workload allocation taking into account discipline-specific teaching activity and pro-modernization-and-industrialization research, development and innovation activity thresholds as well as mix of major areas of an academicians work as detailed under Education 5.0. It would be strategic, in those universities without, to form a Work Plan Committee..
The innovation and industrialization missions of Education 5.0 thrives best if our state university management and staff immediately sponsor the development of a sophisticated Intellectual Property (IP) policy acceptable to all staff. This, to ward off the toxic culture of IP thieving and career sabotaging. Experiences elsewhere confirm that an IP Policy backed by Non-Disclosure Agreements, is protection enough from abuse of power in instances the IP leads to handsome financial rewards. It would be unfortunate to ignore the wisdom the love of money is the root of all evil. Elsewhere in universities that are serious with the business of innovation and national economy impact, signing of Non-Disclosure Agreement is a common tradition to protect real and perceived IP from theft.
The good promises of Education model 5.0 as championed by our Honorable Minister Professor Amon Murwira cannot be squandered by toxic culture, real or perceived. Instead innovation culture of Education model 5.0 must take root if our state universities to contribute positively to Vision 2030.
——
Enock Jonathan is a Zimbabwean scientist and technologist contactable at enock10jonathan@gmail.com
Source - Enock Jonathan
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
