Analysis and discussion of the results
Section 4. Staff members EFFECTIENESS OF LEADERSHIP
Question
Effective information system Contribution to shared goal
Departments complement one another Commitment to continuous learning Team work flows Access to mentors Employees provided with resources
POSITIVE Strongly agree 0
0
0
0
0 0 0
Agree 0
1
2
0
0 0 0
NEUTRAL Not sure 4
1
2
1
3 2 3
NEGATI Disagree 1
3
1
1
1 3 1
Strongly disagree 0
0
0
3
1
1
Staff members do not seem to think that departments complement one another but strongly believe that the institution is dedicated to continuous learning.
Moreover, staff members seem not to be convinced that team-work does flow down the institution. This confirms the earlier responses in Section 3 that staff members do not consider themselves to be part of a team.
4.4 Analysis of the focus group
The focus group was formed by eleven participants who represented different stakeholders at the University. Six were students who were active in student structures. Two of them were first-year students and four were senior students.
The staff members were made up of two support staff members, two academics and one staff member who represented the management of the institution. The facilitator was an independent person who was not directly involved in the study.
Given that the researcher had a close working relationship with mainly the
students and the support staff members, his role in the focus group was simply to introduce the whole session and outline expectations. The discussion revolved around the questions that were contained in the questionnaire.
Regarding the question as to whether the students had a positive attitude towards the institution, one suggestion was that the incremental increase in the number of students that joined the University was an indication of a positive attitude towards the institution. However, the other view expressed was that there were students who perceived the institution to be a located in a
problem-ridden area, as far as reported criminal activities were concerned.
Some students did not have a positive attitude towards the institution because, as one participant put it, "They don't feel ukuthi lana eMangosuthu they are being heard as ama-students...they don't feel that they are part of the institution
ungathi nje bazele for academic purposes kuphela and then they leave." In other words, they did not feel accommodated at the institution, and that created the impression that they were there just to engage in academic activities.
Question: Do students feel that their opinions are taken seriously by the officials of the institution?
According to the respondents, the students expressed their opinions through student structures such as the SRC, the Student Parliament, the Student Affairs Department, and class representatives. One participant explained that he thought that their opinions were taken seriously. If they were not, the institution would have strikes every year. At Mangosuthu University of Technology there had not been a major strike from 2003 to 2007, which indicated that the SRC was playing a mediating role between students and staff members. Another
participant pointed out that the students were represented in all decision-making structures of the institution. For example, when there were decisions to be made about fee increment they were represented, and that also applies to interviews where staff appointments are made. There was a possibility that some students might not be aware of certain structures that they had to approach in order to be assisted. For example, if there was a particular concern that students had about their lectures, there were class representatives who reported to faculty
representatives, who in turn reported to the Student Representative Council.
A counter-argument was that one should not conclude that the students were well represented in different structures if those student representatives did not seek a mandate from the students whom they purported to represent. With regard to some decisions that were made, it seemed obvious that the SRC simply represented itself instead of representing the students. Because of this fact, an impression might be created that the relationship between the
management and students was good when it was not. This has a potential of creating conflict within the institution.
The students who responded expressed unhappiness with the fact that the visitors to their residences were at times denied access because they did not carry identity documents. The students also faced restrictions regarding where
096821
they should go and where they should not go. Their feeling was that the
introduced access guidelines were not negotiated with the students first but were simply imposed on them. Another student countered that there were some good developments that were not negotiated with students, but which contributed much to the wellbeing of the students; for example, the introduction of peer helpers, the appointment of a new cleaning company, and the improvement of the Resource Centre.
One could also identify particular improvements in the performances of sports clubs. For example, the Aerobics Club and the Dance Club have won accolades at national level. Regarding financial support, the respondents agreed that there were very few institutions that allowed their students to register despite owing fees. They also alluded to a bursary that was referred to as a Dean's
Commendation. That financial support was made available to those students who had scored an overall percentage of 75% in their respective programmes.
This indicated the level of support that the institution was ready to provide to needy students.
With regard to a question about the joint vision of the future of the institution, participants agreed that there were cases where one received the impression that particular staff members just wanted to receive their salaries at the end of the month. There were participants who felt that there were no signs of a
collective vision of the future of the institution. One participant referred to a staff member who said he wanted to work at the institution for two years in order to gain experience and then move on to greener pastures. He went on to suggest that there should be an ongoing programme where different departments or staff members were compelled to evaluate themselves at certain intervals.
Question: Are students and staff members are kept informed about what is happening in the institution?
Various communication channels that are available at the institution, including e-mails, notice boards and meetings. A majority of students did not have access to the e-mail facility because of to few computer rooms and tended to rely on notice boards or meetings convened by the SRC. However, there were cases where certain departments did not seem to know what the other departments were doing. For example, some students were sent from the Registrar's office to the heads of departments, and consequently it took a long time to find relevant information or to have applications approved on time.
A respondent who was a former SRC member referred to a period in 2004 when students gave the SRC a mandate to resist the attempt by the institution to eliminate squatting on campus. Intensive consultation took place between the management of the students and the management of the university with regard to the suggestion that some students had to be transferred to external
residences. The other issue was that they had to pay for transport from those external residences to the main campus. This was a difficult period for the institution, largely because of the resistance from students that the institution encountered, and there were also certain staff members who were opposed to the decision.
This chapter has presented both qualitative and quantitative data for analysis.
The focus areas were observations, the questionnaire and the focus group. It leads to the last chapter, which outlines findings and conclusions.