A C r i t i c a l R e v i e w Marius Meyer Thomas Groenewald Melanie Bushney

1. MERGERS AT THREE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: A C r i t i c a l R e v i e w Marius Meyer Thomas Groenewald Melanie Bushney mmeyer@uj.ac.zatgroenew@unisa.ac.zambushney@unisa.ac.za TUT MERGER CONFERENCE, 8 OCTOBER 2009

2. Our two universities

4. What did we achieve with the mergers? A well-aligned integrated institution A shock or culture shock A fragmented institution All or most of the above None of the above

5. MERGER DEFINED “the extinguishment of an estate … by absorption into another” (Pritchard & Williamson, 2008)

6. INTRODUCTION • Higher education mergers pose several challenges (Blunt, 2005; Harman, 2002; Kilfoil & Groenewald, 2005; Mfusi, 2004; Pritchard & Williamson, 2008; Wyngaard & Kapp, 2004). • Several risks (Bryson, 2002; Welch et al., 2008). • The governance and management of mergers are of utmost importance (IOD, 2009).

7. MERGER CHALLENGES • Management and leadership • Integration of governance structures and systems • Lack of staff involvement and participation • Staff reaction and resistance • Communication • Financial implications • Duplication in academic offerings/restructuring • Institutional identity and reputation • Diverse cultures (Adendorff, 2002; Cannon, 1983; Chambers, 1987; Finweek, 2009; Jack, 2007; Kamsteeg; Martin & Samuels, 1994, Millet, 1976; Patterson, 2007; Reddy, 2007; Rees & Edwards, 2009; Wan & Peterson, 2008)

8. M E R G E R S

9. BACKGROUND • Mergers occurred between universities and former technikons. • Were imposed by the Ministry of Education • Little preplanning occurred due to time constraints (preplanning is vital)

10. PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH To critically review the lived experiences of participants in the mergers of 3 higher education institutions in South Africa. • Traditional university and technikon (2 cases) 2. Technikons being merged (1 case)

11. PARTICIPANTS

12. METHOD Electronic Interview: Questions included 1. Length of merger? 2. Partners treated equally? 3. Major highlights or successes? 4. Major failures or problems? 5. How well merger managed? 6. Impact on staff members? 7. Impact culture of institution? 8. Rate success on scale of 1 (unsuccessful) to 10 (very successful) 9. What could have been done to ensure a more effective merger? 10. Additional comments?

13. RESULTS: DURATION VARIES • Still not complete in that a number of merger related issues are still taking place • Ongoing … • Two/more cultures

14. RESULTS: MERGER vs TAKE OVER • “Larger partner enforced their archaic processes and procedures on the smaller partner” • “Listen to the big boys talking and pray for survival” • “Bigger institution swallowed • the other” • “Us vs them”

15. “It was like merging an elephant with a mouse and squirrel”

16. 32% of the participants perceive that no major highlights or successes were derived from the mergers. However, 68% perceive a range of highlights and successes.

17. RESULTS: POSITIVES Better opportunities for staff. Rebranding or stronger branding. Better resource usage and processes. International recognition. Pooled financial resources gives more negotiating power. Fresh/new institution, with a new identity. Staff learn from each other. Teaching opportunities at different campuses. Pooled strengths and streamlined processes. Access: “Cater for students from all walks of life, even those who don’t have matric exemption”. “An expanded programme offering”. Transformation and redress of the past—disadvantaged students now accepted at previously high profiled institutions. Gradual integration of race and culture; improved racial and gender mix. Transformation of executive management. Party/improved salary and job status. Improved technology and facilities. Uplifting neglected campuses and fair distribution of resources. Consolidation of policies and functions.

18. RESULTS: POSITIVE • NEW IDENTITY Internationally recognised and a stronger brand identity

19. RESULTS: CHALLENGES Absence of well thought through change management strategy

20. RESULTS: CHALLENGES • Exceptionally poor communication strategy “Uncertainty for months on end. I did not know what was going to happen to the campus where I worked. I did not know if I had a job or if I was going to be relocated to another campus.”

21. RESULTS: CHALLENGES • Inadequate human resource management “Lack of HR management as posts and salaries only sorted out this year” “Relocation of staff disrupted people’s personal life and circumstances, especially women with children and family”

22. RESULTS: CHALLENGESInadequate human resource management “Exodus of excellent researchers and academics due to resignations and early retirements ““Time wastage due to travelling between campuses”“Vacant posts were not filled”

23. RESULTS: CHALLENGES • Domination by those that perceive themselves as superior

24. RESULTS: CHALLENGES • Domination by those that perceive themselves as superior “Self interest prevalent”“Unwillingness to create articulation between former technikon and university programmes”“New qualification mix favoured former university qualifications”

25. RESULTS: CHALLENGES Lack of client centeredness

26. Did we achieve merger integration?

27. SUCCESS RATING OF MERGERS

28. HOW WELL WAS THE MERGER MANAGED? Not well managed Wellmanaged “Coercive” “Managed well” “Poorly, inconsistent” “Did its best” “Autocratic army style” “Fairly well” “As good as possible”

29. IMPACT OF THE MERGER ON STAFF MEMBERS • Plunge in morale • Staff members disengaged • More than 75% of the former institution’s staff members resigned five years later • Huge emotional impact • Difficult to consolidate the different teaching approaches • Disgruntled about salaries being capped or positions downgraded • Opportunity – “landed their bums in butter”

30. NEGATIVE IMPACT ON STAFF Relocation Negativity & uncertainty

31. IMPACT OF THE MERGER ON THE CULTURE OF THE ORGANISATION • Uncertainty/confusion, “Us” versus “them” • Distrust, absenteeism, lack of team work • Culture of former institution had been demolished • Diverse culture and positive culture (“performance driven”, “inclusive and vibrant”, “lots of work need to be done”)

32. RECOMMENDATIONS • People issues require more attention (before, during & after) • Leadership needs to play more positive role • Needs of all stakeholders should be balanced during merger • Active staff involvement - buy-in

33. RECOMMENDATIONS • Different cultures, systems & processes need to be aligned & integrated • Clear identity needs to be created – value of different qualifications, programmes • Need more rigorous change management strategies • More resources & time invested in communication are needed

34. CONCLUSION • Some progress has been made to integrate systems and programmes. • Ineffective change management - culture. • Debatable whether mergers contributed to the intended goals of HE transformation. • Unclear whether national higher education and industry needs have been addressed. • Refocus is needed in optimising different philosophies, resources and capacity to the benefit of all stakeholders.