Make higher education institutions places of joy
Creating joy in higher education institutions will make the sector a better place. Our marketised HE system has some positive dimensions, not least the success of massification in widening participation beyond a narrow elite. But the system also has many well-documented failings which have eroded positive elements of working in, and for, the sector. Managerialism has been accompanied by a financial focus with too great an emphasis on efficiency of inputs over positive outcomes. There is a need for joy to redress this balance and prioritise humanity in HE.
This essay, which was shortlisted for the Dr Jonathan Nicholls Memorial Essay Prize Competition 2023, proposes three approaches to promote joy within HE institutions: 1, placing joy at the centre of strategies; 2, building a common language which translates strategy into joyful outcomes; 3, removing barriers to joy. Creating joyful institutions will not be easy, but the actions taken to get there – and the outcomes achieved – will be more than worth the effort.
Introduction
At the height of the Global Financial Crisis, French President Nicholas Sarkozy asked Professors Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi to investigate ways of measuring economic performance. Their report proposed a greater focus on wellbeing alongside production, and on how equitably consumption is distributed. This report hardly marked the death of Gross Domestic Product as the central measure of a country’s economic activity, but it opened up the potential of richer measures of success. The idea resonated with British Prime Minister David Cameron who, in 2010, introduced new measures for national wellbeing. The most recent data from the Office for National Statistics show that happiness ratings are heading back up after a significant dip in the covid pandemic but that they’re yet to return to previous highs. It is time for the HE sector to reflect on whether its ambitions, and its measures of success, have become too focused on instrumental outcomes with too little attention to the affective experience of staff and students.
Joy might sound like too wishy-washy a concept for some. I think of joy as taking pleasure beyond mere satisfaction. Happiness also fails to capture the richness of the emotion. Joy is a state deep in one’s body where the endorphins flow and in the mind where the neurons fire. This is not what one expects of management speak. The case for joy lies in the vocation – the drive to work for something greater than one’s own personal reward – which motivates many, perhaps most, people in HE. In my experience, this vocation is present whether colleagues have a professional role, an academic one, or a hybrid position. Joy is also defined by its absence, and it is arguable that the contemporary university is a place which has reduced joy, or in some cases eliminated it. For HE to be a sector which attracts people, provides the conditions in which they can flourish, and encourages them to stay and contribute for as long as appropriate, more attention needs to be a paid to professional joy. My argument is for a systemic joy, for the conditions in which everyone who works for, or studies in, an HE institution is likely to find joy in their interactions.
The pursuit of joy should also be consistent with well-run institutions which respond to the needs of their communities. One model for thinking about the intersecting motivations which support the academic endeavour is Alice Lam’s model of puzzle, ribbon and gold. This psychological approach, applied to what motivates researchers to engage in commercialisation, has the potential for broader application as it highlights the multiplicity of motivations within one person. It is a model likely to resonate with those across the sector who recognise the motivational qualities of solving problems (puzzle), of recognition of that work (ribbon) and financial reward (gold). This model reflects the attractive qualities of intellectual stimulation which are peculiar to HE institutions. It is because of the intersecting motivations for working in HE that the sector would benefit from conceptions of personal achievement – in my terms, joy – which reflect the distinctive context. While we can draw on the principles of measuring happiness, particularly the emphasis on the equitable distribution of wellbeing, there is a case for recognising the unique context of HE and developing an HE-tailored approach to creating joyful environments for work and study.
This essay first engages with the threats to joy in contemporary HE institutions to make the case that this is indeed a problem worth solving. Innovation for its own sake is not enough: there needs to be a potential solution, and one which can make a material benefit to the sector through change at institutional level. I then make the case that the regulated HE systems in operation in the UK’s nations, and with parallels in many other jurisdictions, are capable of supporting more joyful institutions. It is reasonable to seek innovations which change the operating and environmental conditions for institutions, but they will likely to take longer to implement, and they may never happen at all if the levers for change exist beyond the sector. If we focus on identification of the problem and the solutions within the purview of the institution then we can empower the leaders of those institutions to take action. We cannot wait for a joyful HE system to be bestowed upon us. This essay concludes with specific proposals for increasing the levels of joy within contemporary HE, linking longer-term strategy-making and incentives with tactical actions which demonstrate the commitment to greater joy. These solutions must be human-centred with a focus on how enabling more joyful places of learning and work contributes to the mission for HE.
The threats to joy
I have followed the #leavingacademia discourse with interest. There are people – perhaps only a small number, but vocal – who have shared their experiences of the transition away from academic careers around the world. There are good reasons for their choices. For many in academic careers, the precarious nature of post-doctoral positions is unsustainable. Workloads and expectations are high. The contemporary academic must produce a steady stream of high quality ‘output’ while also seeking impact, satisfying students’ needs and wants, contributing to their institutions and their fields, having a public and social media presence, and generating income to sustain their livelihood. These demands are not all new but there is increasing pressure in each area, and additional layers of scrutiny of performance. We also know that these burdens are unequal depending on where any individual is in their career, by institution, and their personal characteristics. Academic life can be hard, and it’s not fair.
It isn’t simply academic careers which are challenging. The pandemic has had major negative impacts for individual health and for society. Covid is just one factor posing a challenge to institutional funding. In the context of constrained resources, many HE providers have had to become more efficient. Cuts often mean that the remaining staff must do more with less. There is always some efficiency to be gained, but the overall effect is to make working in universities and other HE institutions harder. The commercial and consumer pressures within HE are pervasive, and the implications are felt widely. If we add to this a mental health crisis among students and staff, sexual violence, industrial disputes, media and political criticism, and the wider context of cost of living, global conflict and the existential threat of climate disaster, there is a lot to worry about. Many of these factors affect all areas of society but, rather than accept these conditions, there is an imperative for HE to find solutions (or mitigations, at least) which fit the sector’s context.
There is regular complaint that the marketised HE system, particularly that imposed on the English sector by the Higher Education and Research Act of 2017, is the cause of the sector’s woes. If only one could return to some halcyon days then all these issues would be resolved. First, I don’t think that there are good old days to which one could return, not least that this would likely lead to denying large swathes of the population the many benefits of HE. Second, there are issues in the sector which long pre-date the creation of the Office for Students like securing the sustainability of pension schemes. The serious problems with marketised HE have been explored extensively in the literature and do not need restating in detail here (see Ashwin, Jones or Scott, for example). While the problems have been explored, it is often undervalued that within this quasi-market is a significant opportunity for institutional differentiation. The scope of institutional autonomy allows the sector’s leaders to set and deliver on nuanced strategies which achieve the mission of HE – in research, education and a broader social engagement – in ways which are right for their institutions. It is this freedom of action, within the regulated environment, which provides the space for asserting new and different ways of working such as seeking greater joy. Leaders have the power to address the threats to joy.
Institutions can be more joyful places
During the pandemic, some universities tried – in good faith – to support staff wellbeing through extra leave, and tokens of thanks. Some of these were derided as cynical efforts which failed to grasp the true extent of the challenges facing colleagues. This reaction seems entirely fair given that those same institutions were laying off staff in significant numbers. But, more interestingly, it shows how large the gap is between institutional leaders’ ambition to make things better, if only in comparatively small ways, and staff perceptions of leadership. For HE institutions to be successful, this is a gap which must be bridged. HE institutions which are respectful and supportive environments should also be places of creativity and exploration where people want to make their careers. Joyful workplaces should also be places of joy in learning, and capable of supporting students to achieve joyful lives through the outcomes that they seek from education.
A focus on joy should not be seen as a ‘soft option’ for running an institution. There should be no excuses which prevent tackling bullying or other negative behaviours. Pursuit of one person’s joy should not impinge on others’ happiness. This is perhaps the most crucial part of the mindset shift in seeking joyful HE institutions: joy must contribute to the mission. The ‘employee value proposition’ will be enriched as the institution gains a reputation as a joyful place, great staff and students will be attracted and stay, and the institution will be a place of great outcomes as a result. This is a deep commitment to a positive environment, and outcomes which cannot be achieved with cynicism. The authenticity of the commitment will need to shine through. If it does, and my hypothesis holds, there will be many people better off for the transition.
Here is how they can do it
To reorient HE institutions toward joy, we need radical change. The shift should be worth it, and it is within the gift of institutions to effect the necessary change. But that change will be hard, and it will be difficult to make it stick. The solutions I propose starts with that which is most important for long-term success but which will be unlikely to show results in the short term. Changing cultures through language and actions will take time, and it will be necessary to have some ‘quick wins’ to demonstrate the seriousness of the commitment and to deliver some tangible outcomes.
1. Make joy a foundational and pervasive part of institutional strategy
While university strategies are regularly derided as being too similar, too obvious or too vague, they are the assertion of the institutional goals and they are read. Strategies are signed off by governing bodies and circulated widely to communicate to colleagues, and the outside world, what the university stands for and what it aims to achieve. All strategies need to speak to the mission of HE institutions to promote research, education and engagement, but they do so in the unique and specific context of each provider. The language of joy should pervade strategies by speaking to the personal impact of the overall institutional policy settings and decisions. We do not need a separate ‘pillar’ to promote joy, but we need language – and associated actions – which place joy within each element of the strategy.
A commitment among the senior leaders to systemic joy is the foundation of a positive change. Some time ago I was part of a discussion with senior leaders in a university about proposed pension changes. The majority of the time was spent discussing senior academics’ own personal – and very generous – pension arrangements rather than the substantive question of how the other ninety-nine per cent might be affected. Joy will only come from realising the hard truth that access to joy is inequitably distributed within the institution. Older colleagues are more likely to have secured security of their professional standing, more generous pensions and houses owned outright. More senior jobs pay more, and they also offer greater flexibility. For joy to be lived out for everyone, there needs to be a heartfelt commitment to understanding the realities of life on the frontline, be that in teaching or the tearoom, research or registry.
We do not need a Chief Joy Officer. Senior leaders need to be mandated to seek joy within their portfolios as a leadership approach which they cascade through the organisation. As Michael Shattock puts it in Managing Successful Universities, “No university can sustain success unless it is equipped with a management style which mirrors its ambitions and commands the trust of its community.” The actions which leaders take, and the changes that they need to make, will vary widely based on the current state and the scope for change. This variety should be embraced as experimentation from which other parts of the institution can learn. Ultimately, the strategy document, in itself, changes nothing. It is the actions associated with the document which will make meaningful change to the lives of staff and students. The change must start somewhere, and that place should be the ‘top’.
2. Collaborate to build a common language for joy within the institution
I’ve proposed starting with institutional strategy because if the senior team at the institution fails to get behind the need for joy the plan will go nowhere. Passive resistance is a common phenomenon, particularly in universities, and trying to make a ‘bottom up’ movement for change is easily blocked (if you want to test that idea, ask any students’ union officer about the difference when campaigning for something which senior members of a university think is important and something they disagree with, or don’t care about). However, this strategy approach needs to be complemented by an active process for engaging staff about the opportunities for joy in their respective roles, how that might be described, and how to live out that joy.
Joy is deeply personal. It is not something which the institution can simply hand out. Nor will words ever be enough to give confidence that the institution is systemically a joyful place. The methods for understanding the opportunities for joy should be collaborative and engaging. The principles of human-centred design are very useful here: start with personal experiences and build from there. Not everyone will want to engage, and those who do will have a range of preferences for approach. HE institutions are large, complex and diverse. What matters in one part of the institution, or for one subset of the community, may not be relevant for another. In the context of systemic and institutional racism, the pursuit of joy may sound like a cruel joke. It is not meant to be patronising, nor to diminish the real gap that exists between the experiences of staff – particularly people of colour – and an acceptable state. I recognise that a joyful state is a privilege, and one which should be extended to everyone regardless of their personal characteristics or status within the institution. It is only by engaging widely that we understand the nuances and can therefore build appropriate responses.
The outcomes of the engagement process – which should be ongoing and embedded in staff consultation approaches – should be statements about what joy can, and should, mean at the institution. This may include guidance on how to create a more joyful place for work and learning. Colleagues may benefit from that guidance which shows the actions which they can take to support a joyful working environment. The articulation of joy should also be reflected in staff recruitment and performance assessment, and should pervade institutional policies so that every part provides a ‘nudge’ to creating the better and more inclusive environment. Embedding a cycle of understanding the level, and distribution, of joy within the institution followed by the proportionate actions which promote joy, is vital for achieving transformation.
3. Remove barriers to joy
Long-term approaches to promoting joy are essential if cultural change is to be achieved. However, staff may – reasonably – be sceptical about the motivations and ambitions for a new joyful approach. It is possible, even likely, to be seen as a fad. Engagement approaches will only give confidence that change is possible when they manifest in experiences. For an institution to take on this approach, it therefore needs to find some ways by which to demonstrate a commitment to removing as many barriers to joy in the short term before it sees the fruits of strategic change. Initiatives will likely have cost implications with payoffs only later as the institution benefits from being a more desirable and effective place to work and study. Focusing any additional investment on the lowest earning staff would have the greatest proportionate impact on their lives and give benefits to larger numbers.
Examples of possible actions include:
1. Double-down on celebrating success. Institutions typically have staff awards and other recognition points across the year: these are important ‘ribbon’ opportunities and are a vital component of the motivational model. Ensure that these are made regular occurrences, and that all staff have the opportunity for recognition. Celebrating collective achievements may be even more impactful than individual performance and promote a sense of common purpose.
2. Teach everyone how to give empathetic feedback. Remind everyone what is expected in terms of behaviour to create inclusive environments. Ensure that senior leaders role model institutional values. Empower colleagues to challenge when standards fall short of what is expected, and support them to challenge those in more senior positions. Remind students and staff that everyone is fallible, and that everyone can learn from feedback on their actions.
3. Tackle bullies. Become a place where bullying and harassment are not tolerated and empower leaders and managers to address situations where people display joy-sapping behaviours. As staff see that negative behaviours will no longer be tolerated, their confidence that the institution takes their wellbeing seriously will grow.
4. Make available the full resources of the institution to staff in need. Ensure that all staff are aware of support available for their personal circumstances in times of crisis or for ongoing support. If there are gaps in provision, or evidence that some groups take up less help than expected, investigate to ensure that the right level of support is getting to those who need it.
5. Improve the pay and conditions of the lowest earners by ensuring – as an absolute minimum – that the institution pays a genuine living wage appropriate to its location, and that it has contracts which provide staff with the right amount and level of work.
The actions which institutions take will necessarily reflect their local context and circumstances. In a resource-constrained environment, it may be hard to make the case for further investments in pursuit of systemic joy. I suspect that institutions will find that there are ways of getting better ‘for free’, that is doing the same sort of activities but working in ways which promote joy. I have proposed some low cost interventions which will demonstrate a good faith commitment to promoting a joyful environment. If the theory holds, however, there should also be good value larger investments which improve the conditions and reputation of the institution and deliver significant return on investment. It may be a gamble to focus effort beyond traditional measures, but if we get more joy along the way then that is a risk worth taking.
Conclusion
There is a need for greater joy in HE. The pursuit of joy – systemically and ongoing – will reap benefits which better deliver against the missions of HE institutions for education, research and engagement. But we need to make joy tangible to avoid it being a vacuous platitude. Collaborative and human-centred approaches are needed to ensure that joy is achieved authentically in ways which make a genuine positive difference to the lives of staff and students. Joy is unevenly distributed, and we need to understand how joy is a privilege which should be extended to everyone. This approach will support a positive impact for the wider communities served by HE institutions driving benefits beyond traditional measures of output. Given the challenges facing institutions, and the wider world, this has to be worth a try.
Postscript
I first met Dr Jonathan Nicholls when I became one of the student members of the Council at Cambridge when he was at the beginning of his time there as Registrary, the University’s chief operating officer. Many of our interactions were fraught. There was constant, albeit fairly low level, tension between the Students’ Union and the administrative centre of Cambridge, the aptly named Old Schools. We were campaigning for progress – at least that which we thought of as progress at the time – in an institution seemingly incapable of change. I remember difficult conversations with Jonathan. But he was a gentleman, always polite and professional, and not one to shy away from challenge when it was often needed.
In his manner, and in his actions, Jonathan taught me a lot about what it was to be the professional in a university’s professional services. When we met again a decade or so later, when I was at Wonkhe and he at Shakespeare Martineau, I found Jonathan generous, creative, and full of energy for the betterment of the HE sector. I suspect that I am one of many people with whom he worked over the years who missed a chance to express how important he had been in their own stories of personal and professional growth. I hope that he would appreciate the spirit with which this essay is intended: enabling the best from the professional requires care for the personal.