# 1. BILP Introduction circa 1,000 words. Present tense ## 1.0 Introduction The 1994 Education Act requires each Higher Education Institution (HEI) in the UK to recognise a Students’ Union (SU). In the case of the University of Salford a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) outlines the adherence to the provisions of the 1994 Education Act, and how the University and its Students’ Union work in partnership to achieve their mutual goals. While Students' Unions often have their own commercial sources of income the University supports them through an annual ‘block grant’ payment. This facilitates all of the Union’s charitable objects (see Box 1) and services, often including provision of student representation and advocacy, sports activities, student societies, social opportunities, advice and campaigning. The Union is dependent on this funding, and alongside the 1994 Education Act, the MoU and the organisations' relative sizes this clearly establishes the SU as the junior partner in the relationship. >[!Box 1]+ >Box 1 – USSU’s Charitable Objects >The advancement of education of Students at the University of Salford for the public benefit by: >- promoting the interests and welfare of Students at the University of Salford during their course of study and representing, supporting and advising Students; >- being the recognised representative channel between Students and the University of Salford and any other external bodies; and >- providing social, cultural, sporting and recreational activities and forums for discussions and debate for the personal development of its Students. ## 1.1 Background to Research UK Higher Education has undergone significant changes over the past few decades, including massification through increased student numbers, the introduction of tuition fees, new management approaches, and new regulatory regimes. This has created increased pressure on HEI senior leadership teams to respond in a more marketised environment. It has also caused Students' Unions to respond to their partner University's adjustments, given that SUs role is to deliver changes to the student experience to the members, and be a 'critical friend' to the University (see Box 2). In his seminal work on the structuring of organisations, [[The Structuring of Organisations|Mintzberg, H. (1979)]] states that universities are hybrid organisations that include elements of both Professional Bureaucracy and Adhocracy. The former is the way in which the teaching function is structured, and the latter research. However, neither of these two competing bureaucracies have outputs that are easily measured. For example, it is difficult to ascribe learning gain to any particular lecturer or pedagogic approach, particularly when so much learning at the tertiary level is self-directed. This therefore puts the government's approach, including using New Public Management (NPM) principles, at odds with University bureaucracies, as they are not designed to accommodate this type of supervision, particularly as universities are based on collegiate decision making principles. This has given rise to managerialism and, somewhat ironically, this has shifted the focus and purpose of higher education away from the student, and towards the needs of government and industry. In turn, this has focussed the attention of Univeristy staff members away from students and towards regulatory compliance (==wonkhe article on B3 bear?==). ## 1.2 Introduction to Company Many aspects of USSU's approach do not adopt a managerialist approach, as the organisation's mission is student empowerment and it embraces democratic values (Box 2). Each year students are elected into positions of authority, leading the organisation's policy positions, aims and objectives. While permanent 'career' staff in the organisation run the SU services listed above, the elected student officers deliver create change for the benefit of students, including by delivering on their manifesto promises. This democratic and empowerment approach continues throughout elements of the organisation. As an example, the SU's student societies are not led by or controlled by the organisation in any meaningful way. The SU provides a legal framework, banking facilities, and training and support, but the aims, objectives and activities of each group is determined by locally-elected student leaders. This allows for significant scalability; there are two staff members who provide support for around 500 leaders of student groups, each of whom works with others to add significant value to the student experience. Some of their activities are complex; for example one society designs, builds and races a Formula 1 car at Silverstone each year, another performs musical theatre to professional standards. The current approach to creating change through the University-Union partnership is one of co-identification of issues and co-production of responses (Adebayo, Grogan and Moloney, 2021). This speaks to the quality of the partnership in place. However, in order to be able to work effectively in this environment, colleagues must be able to move across organisational boundaries fluidly as part of their individual dynamic capabilities- to 'sense and seize' opportunities. Where there is friction caused by differences in the organisational design principles or cultures of either organisation this could lead to reduced performance of the partnership, and therefore reduced efficacy of both organisation. It could also undermine the partnership principles that have been laid out through both convention and through the organisations' MoU. ## 1.3 Rationale for Research Both the Union and the University have developed their organisation design according to the pursuit of organisational goals. Bureaucratic systems have emerged as a byproduct of that development. Given their close partnership over more than 50 years, being financially dependent on, and co-located with the University, some aspects of the University bureaucracy will have suffused across organisational boundaries and into the Union. However, both the the University and the Union come from different organisational backgrounds and philosophies. They are both also influenced by commonly-held approaches to organisational design across their sector(s), which includes bureaucracy [[Source - Humanocracy|(Hamel and Zanini 2020)]]. Evaluating and improving the efficacy of organisational design in pursuing organisational goals is essential to meeting the evolving demands of HE students. The long partnership between two organisations, in pursuit of improved student experience and outcomes, should also be analysed given its importance to the organisational change processes described above. Even increased understanding of the bureaucratic drivers of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the partnership will allow mitigations to be implemented and improvements made. ## 1.4 Aim and Objectives This project aims to discover the perceived impact of bureaucracy on satisfactory partnership performance between a UK University and its students' union. This will be achieved by evaluating levels of bureaucracy in each organisation, including perceptions of aspects such as personal or team autonomy, decision making authority, ability to generate novel approaches, and the prevalence of political behaviours. These aspects will be analysed alongside a measure of partnership satisfaction, to uncover any correlation(s) between bureaucracy and partnership satisfaction. Finally, the project aims to provide recommendations for improving organisational design through enabling and enhancing the partnership between the two organisations, especially at the macro level. In order to be able to achieve this, the project will review the literature on organisational design and challenges associated with traditional design types such as bureaucracy. The project will analyse qualitative and quantitative data collected from Students' Union staff on their perceptions of the bureaucracy and the impact this has on the partnership with the wider university. ## 1.5 Structure of Research Project This research project first reviews the literature available on HEI organisation design, Students' Unions and their partnership with HEIs, criticisms of bureaucratic organisation design, and the ==collegiate leadership approaches== present in Higher Education. It then goes onto introduce a mixed-methods approach to answer the research questions, before revealing the results and drawing the analysis to a conclusion.