External Pressures on Human Resources Management in Higher Education

Required Reading Below:
Setting the Stage: Funding Realities and Talent Resources. (2012). ASHE Higher Education Report, 38(1), 1–27
Optional Reading below. Brennan, J., & Magness, P. (2018). Are adjunct faculty exploited: Some Grounds for skepticism. Journal of Business Ethics, 152(1), 53-71.
Describe external pressures on human resources management in higher education. Write on the issue below (Accreditation requirement) an issue to you as an educational leader and elaborate my experience in working in a hospital requiring (Joint Commission/Accreditation).
Accreditation requirement
Accreditation Requirements Accreditation is a catalyst creating external pressure for internal change and represents the ultimate litmus test for the continuing viability of institutions of higher education (Chun and Evans, 2010). The accreditation standards of the six regional accrediting bodies are systems-based approaches that address accountability, integration, integrity, quality, and sustainability in organizational processes. Criteria within the processes of all six regional accrediting bodies evaluate the effectiveness of the HR infrastructure in the delivery of educational programs and attainment of learning outcomes. Reform-based changes to accreditation processes have recognized the importance of enhancing organizational capabilities through intangibles that lead to high-performance organizations. For example, efforts supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts resulted in the creation of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools’ Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), an alternative accreditation vehicle that presents a web of common principles of high-performance institutions. These common principles include intangibles such as focus, collaboration, involvement, agility, leadership, foresight, and integrity and their relation to institutional performance (Higher Learning Commission, 2011). As another example of these reforms, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) refocused its accreditation standards on two core commitments: institutional capacity and educational effectiveness. The core commitment of institutional capacity examines resource issues from a holistic viewpoint and considers capacity as an institutional attribute beyond a review of assets and minimum compliance (“WASC Core Commitments and Standards,” 2008). One of WASC’s four accreditation standards addresses the sustainability of institutional resources. All of the regional accreditation standards include comprehensive evaluation of an institution’s financial, physical, and human resources that require Creating a Tipping Point 21 integrated planning, budgeting, and assessment to evaluate the outcomes of programs and investments. The accrediting bodies also require evaluation of whether the institution has adequate and qualified faculty, administrators, and staff to execute its institutional mission. The standards typically address the sustainability of the HR infrastructure; assessment of ratios of full-time, part-time, and temporary faculty and staff; consideration of professional development needs and opportunities; and establishment of equitable personnel processes that promote the recruitment and retention of qualified, credentialed administrators, faculty, and staff. For example, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) emphasizes the need to maintain an adequate number of faculty and to avoid undue dependence on part-time faculty, adjuncts, and graduate assistants to conduct instruction (Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, n.d.). Proposed language to the NEASC standards would also require periodic review to ensure that the full-time/part-time composition of the faculty reflects the institution’s mission, programs, and student body (“Standards for Accreditation,” 2011). The warning is particularly important given the growth in part-time faculty at public research institutions from 14 to 16 percent between 1997 to 2007 and the unparalleled growth in the use of graduate assistants (higher than in all other institutions, from 37 to 41 percent in the same time period; see Kezar and Sam, 2010, for review). NEASC’s standards also identify the need for reasonable contractual security for faculty for appropriate periods to allow the institution to fulfill its mission (“Standards for Accreditation,” 2011). Similarly, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (2009) identifies the importance of an adequate core of faculty and qualified professionals, as well as an administrative structure that is properly staffed and supports the institution’s organization and governance.
Include and answer all the essential components below:
 Introduction
 Briefly discuss the relationship between funding and personnel decisions and how it impact leadership decisions
 Discuss external pressure
a. Demonstrate your understanding of the issue by focusing on how it impacts educational leaders and their personnel decisions
b. Use examples from a healthcare workplace setting, i.e. hospital
c. Reflect on why this issue is important to you
d. Conclusion