AN OVERVIEW OF NUL's TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE
3.4 NUL' s CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
An organizational structure is an instrument for operationalizing the vision and mission of an institution. The current structure of NUL was adopted in 1975. Key aspects of it are based on the British collegiate style of management. The University was founded with six faculties and later three institutes of research and one of extra-mural studies were created. The University has recently introduced the faculty of Health Sciences. This brings the number of faculties to seven. It also has a centralized administrative structure controlled through the registrar's office. The reporting system is committee-based with the final decision being taken by the office of the Registrar or Pro-vice Chancellor and subsequently by the Senate.
Figure 3.1 NUL's Current Organizational Structure I COUNCIL I
•
, - - - -1 VICE - CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
LIBRARIAN
Departments Advisory Boards Faculty Board Divisions
Building Mechanical Electric Maintenance
University Libraries
-Estate and Property Transport
Stores
ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS
Admissions Senate Senate Exec.
Exams Records
Appointments Promotions Labour Relations
Physical Planning and Development Planning Consultancy, Internal Audit
Information and Public Relations Development and Student Affairs
REGISTRY BURSARY
Budget Central Stores Loans
Pensions Gratuities
CSU COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION Info. Systems Brd. of Finance
Network Services Tenders Helpdesk Higher Degrees
Legal Matters Council Development
Housing Schools Security Bookshop
Sports Printing Tel. And Telex Dom. Bursar
There is growing consensus among stakeholders that the NUL's organizational structure, including the support staff versus core staff ratio, is neither effective nor efficient, and it fails to deliver services that support the core functions of the institution. An observation has been made that the current structure tends to be too centralized and ill-adapted to efficient and effective management of the university. More precisely, the current structure is problematic in that decision making-processes take a long time, there is lack of implementation and accountability, and there is apathy and lack of involvement and responsibility of staff, as well as a general atmosphere of fatalism and paralysis (EYMAR, 200011).
The EYMAR (200011) further notes that in the current structure there had been a tendency for elements of the administration to be too powerful and conservative, thus marginalizing academics in the decision-making process. The report recommends the introduction of a management system with decentralized decision-making support mechanisms, which would have a positive impact on NUL functional structures and operations. It is, therefore imperative to restructure and reform the organizational structure of NUL in order to enable effective management and administration of core business functions, human and other resources of the University.
3.5 NUL's ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
While NUL discharged its role with distinction in producing qualified human resources in diverse fields, addressing the developmental chalienges of Lesotho and her neighbours, it faced increasingly multi-faceted pressures as a result of its failure to respond and adapt timeously to the fast changing national, regional and global environment impacting on higher learning institutions. Studies conducted by various organizations such as the WHO (1984), CHEMS (1994/5) and EYMAR (2000/1), highlighted the structural crisis hindering the efficient and effective discharge of the University's mission. At the root of the crisis was a complacent and cumbersome managerial and organizational system ill-suited to respond effectively and timeously to change imperatives; poor planning; inefficient utilization of resources and low cost-consciousness, and stunted growth in student enrolments contrasting sharply with the surge in the demand for higher education. The reports further noted an institution characterized, inter alia, by staff alienation, lack of implementation of decisions and poor levels of accountability. There was a need to reformulate the University's mission
statement and draft a strategic plan to help restructure the University's activities for improved efficiency and quality of service.
Moreover, the EYMAR (2000/1), found that existing administrative and management systems and decision-making procedures are still centralised thus creating bottlenecks, delays in decision making and implementation with a considerable degree of duplication, and greater degree of responsibility being transferred to faculties, institutes and units without corresponding transfer of authority and responsibility. This has lead to a decline in the relevance of academic programmes, lack of interfaculty cooperation, low staff morale, poor facilities management and lack of efficiency due to delayed decision making on issues of relative importance.
3.6 THE NEED FOR NUL's TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE
It has been clear from the reports of the WHO (1984), CHEMS (1994/5) and EYMAR (2000/1), that new domestic and global circumstances impose new demands and pressures on institutions of higher education to develop the ability to read the signs of the times and to adjust their academic and managerial structures accordingly, with significant decentralization and scaling down of centrally located services. In 2000, the University Council in support of the EYMAR (2000/1), indicated that NUL needed a comprehensive restructuring of its academic, non-academic and administrative structures and functions in order to realise its strategic thrust.
As part of the several initiatives intended to deal with the current dilemma and to address the challenges with which NUL was confronted, a strategic transformation process was proposed and, a strategic plan mapping out the transformation process and its goals was drafted as the initial step in turning NUL around to be a centre of excellence. The transformation process is seen as a course of breaking away from the past inefficiencies. It is hoped to institutionalize a decentralized and devolved managerial system, consolidate teaching and research organs, and break new ground and niche areas for teaching and research as core businesses. Hence, the current strategic plan proposes as key elements of the reorganization and restructuring of the University, the merger of faculties, academic institutes and the devolution of budgetary, planning, administrative and human resources functions to the emergent centres/ units, superintended by executive Deans.