How to keep an eye on the truth

Picture: The Three Wise Monkeys, a Japanese pictorial maxim which in the West is often used to describe those who deal with impropriety by turning a blind eye.

Picture: The Three Wise Monkeys, a Japanese pictorial maxim which in the West is often used to describe those who deal with impropriety by turning a blind eye.

Recent news stories such as the #MeToo campaign to end sexual harassment in the workplace have highlighted the prevalence of institutional ‘wilful blindness’. This is when people choose to ignore when something negative is happening – even when it is common knowledge. Ahead of the Wilful Blindness Executive Masterclass, Vijaya Nath explains why learning to tackle institutional blindspots is vital to great leadership.

Great leadership requires the integrity to act on and live our values. As a leadership development practitioner and an experienced team leader, like many reading this, I know there are few new leadership secrets or ‘secret sauces’ left. Many leaders who I admire have the ability to act on their integrity, that is, give voice to their values. But this capacity and capability requires thinking space and practice.

One individual who has most enabled me to really reflect on my own practice is former CEO and TED speaker Margaret Heffernan. I’m looking forward to working with her at our upcoming Executive Masterclass on March 15 where she will share her extensive expertise on wilful blindness.

Among other hands-on activities we will be practising building our ‘ethical muscle memory’ which is one remedy for overcoming this important problem. Inspired by the work of Darden Professor Mary Gentile, we’ll explore and strengthen our ability as individuals to not only lead with integrity but act on and live those values we believe are critical to providing ‘just’ cultures in higher education. A culture in which staff and students flourish. Role-playing ethical dilemmas in this way helps us rehearse how to respond and go through appropriate processes.

Margaret’s work over many years has led her to the conclusion that while organisations may be ‘blind’ to their faults, people are not. As leaders, you know intimately what the issues are, so when you come to the masterclass, as well as having personal contact with Margaret, you’ll be able to work in real time on actionable interventions which you can use back in your institutions to change the culture.

Margaret and I share the belief that talk without action does little to bring positive change and this ethos underpins the design of this masterclass. We also know from our work with leaders at all levels that taking time out from the busy world is essential to enable thinking time, talking with leaders who are sharing similar challenges, practising helpful techniques and critically nourishing your leadership muscle strength!

We look forward to welcoming you on Thursday March 15.

Vijaya Nath is director of leadership development at the Leadership Foundation. 

Find out more about the Wilful Blindness Executive Masterclass

The final masterclass of the series, Mindful Leadership is now booking. Find out more here.

Is your governing body biased?

Is cognitive bias and the use of heuristics responsible for poor decision-making in higher education? Do members of the governing body have unconscious biases? These are some of the issues explored by new research published by the Leadership Foundation.

The authors of the report The Quality of Board Decision-Making Processes in Higher Education Institutions: UK and European Experiences examine the question of “heuristics and biases in board decision-making”, which raises some interesting questions.

Major board decisions typically involve complexity, and governors making judgements reflecting uncertainty. Limitations of time and processing power typically mean humans use simple rules of thumb – heuristics – to help guide their judgements. These are often helpful, but can sometimes lead to severe biases. This risk, together with cognitive bias – influencing individual preferences – is the subject of this newly published report.

When making decisions governors are unlikely to be aware of their own biases, and how these influence their judgements. Aside from action to reduce unconscious bias on equality and diversity, the report suggests no work has been done to raise awareness of others biases likely to be present in higher education governance. As a result, poor decisions may have resulted.

The risk of bias is increased when there a dominant decision-maker(s), complacent or intransigent attitudes, and group think. All of these, the report suggests, are commonly found in higher education governance.

Compared to the governing body or senate (or academic board), the power of heads of institutions (“personalised leadership”) and executives has increased. There is typically an imbalance in the frequency by which governors support and challenge the executive, and some governing bodies are too compliant in accepting of the view of the executive. Equally, the “voice of senate” should be heard. Overall, in most institutions a growing “management culture” is seen to have reduced the checks on the power of the executive.

The governance system, revolving around the relationships between a governing body, the senate, and the executive are critical if institutional governance is to be effective. The system involves “shared governance”. Recent studies on academic governance found, in too many cases, senates and governing bodies didn’t fully understand each other’s role and responsibilities. This is potentially a critical weakness. Faced with a more disruptive operating environment, resulting in increased risk and the need for faster decision-making, this raises the question of how the system of governance should evolve in the future?

Removing all biases to decision-making is difficult (and maybe impossible). The situation will be made worse if there is group think. Would changing the composition of the governing body address this issue? Is there a need to recruit from a more diverse base (in the widest sense) to enrich the membership of governing bodies beyond those groups who have traditionally been represented?

Similarly, as the boundaries between academic and corporate governance blur how does this affect the membership of the governing body? In addition to governors bringing intelligence, good judgement and commitment, is domain knowledge of higher education important? Does the Board need members, independent of the executive, with a background in higher education? If so, what proportion of governors should have higher education expertise, and what expertise? Do you need someone with expertise in, say, higher education policy or quality assurance or university management or administration?

What other issues require attention? Few would argue with the idea of providing sufficient time and (relevant!) information to allow governors to make informed decisions. But how easy is this in practice given the number of times governing bodies typically meet, and the size of most agendas when they do? Is a fundamental rethink to the model of governance required?

The idea that governing bodies should review past decisions, focusing not just on the decision made, but on the process, is to be promoted. This would establish a feedback-loop, enabling the governing body to reflect on the decision-making process and decisions made. However, a “full public disclosure” of the effectiveness reviews of governing bodies is likely to produce documents placed in the public domain that say very little.

Having raised the issue about the quality of Board decision-making, the authors of the report acknowledge that there is the need for more detailed research on how governing bodies make their decisions. Given a lack of sound and recent field research on the topic, this is arguably pressing. Not least there is a risk that cases of poor governance are highlighted in the media, while the many cases of effective governance remain hidden. Perhaps now is the time for the sector to undertake the necessary research and produce evidence to counter hear-say and ill-informed statements? If this happens, the authors of the current report will have served the sector well.

David Williams edits the governance section of the Leadership Foundation’s website. News alerts and notices of forthcoming events for governors and professional staff working in governance are regularly posted on the website. The website also contains an information repository, offering a range of resources to governors and those who support their work.

The Quality of Board Decision-Making Processes in Higher Education Institutions: UK and European Experiences is one of our Small Development Projects. Access the report hereThe 2018 Small Development Projects will be announced shortly. For more on all the Leadership Foundation’s Small Development Projects visit: www.lfhe.ac.uk/SDP

For more information on our governance work visit: www.lfhe.ac.uk/governance 

If it’s not working…

In the second of our series of posts for our spring 2018 Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Retreat for higher education leaders and governors, Roger Kline author of The Snowy White Peaks of the NHS and former joint director of the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard, compares and contrasts approaches to race policy between higher education and NHS.

Eighteen years ago, the Macpherson Report explored institutional racism in the Metropolitan police with implications for UK public services. Research from the time showed that in higher education, black and minority ethnic (BME) staff were disadvantaged in terms of recruitment, employment status and career progression  while BME students were more likely to be found in new universities, were more likely to drop out, were less likely to be awarded good honours degrees and less likely to do well in the labour market.

The Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000) set out specific duties for universities on both widening participation strategies for students and strengthened equal opportunities for staff. Despite the initiatives this prompted, progress for both BME staff and students (and in senior governance across the sector) has remained glacial. The NHS faces similar challenges. It had not applied to itself the rigour it expects when analysing clinical challenges. There had been no serious evaluation of existing strategies, and a flawed approach to improvement, underpinned by denial of the scale of discrimination.

There is no shortage of evidence about what does and doesn’t work in workforce equality. The Audit Commission (2004) set out a framework of “what works”, our own literature search (2015) came to similar conclusions and informed a three-pronged approach to NHS workforce discrimination:

  1. Reducing workforce race inequality became part of the national NHS commissioning contract making it mandatory for NHS providers (including private sector ones) to demonstrate they are starting to close the gap between the treatment and experience of White and BME staff as captured by nine indicators.
  2. Such progress (or lack of it) became part of the Care Quality Commission regulatory inspection framework, specifically a significant part of the evidence as to whether NHS providers were “well led” or not.
  3. The data is all published, and benchmarked.

The focus was on measurable outcomes not just on improved processes, and the details of such progress (or otherwise), are published every year. In 2016 we then drew from both the literature and best practice across the public and private sectors the “shared characteristics of effective interventions”. We noted how NHS funding sanctions (and incentives) linked to measurable Athena SWAN progress became an effective means of challenging gender discrimination in STEM subjects in higher education.

We noted six key characteristics, as applicable to higher education as they have been to the NHS:

  1. Acknowledge and name the problem. In the NHS, avoidance and denial became no more acceptable in equality than in other NHS challenges such as infection control or mortality rates. In higher education, the post MacPherson Hefce funding letters were not explicit about race or ethnicity and the performance indicators used related to social class as a proxy instead. As early as 2005 Hefce reported that the initiatives ‘appear to have had the greatest impact on the role and reward of women in the majority of institutions’ and as a result ‘the role of minority ethnic groups.. has received much less emphasis…compared to the emphasis on gender equality’.
  2. Insist on detailed scrutiny of workforce and staff survey data to identify the specific challenges that NHS Trusts as a whole, or individual departments or services or occupations may have on race equality. Don’t hide from uncomfortable facts. Crucially, listen and act on what BME staff and students say.
  3. See workforce equality as integral to service improvement not just to compliance – as part of providing better services and improving staff well-being, not as a separate discrete task. The Leadership Foundation and the Equality Challenge Unit are working to demonstrate the links between treating BME staff well and the benefits to students and the organisation, not just the BME staff. We learnt it is essential to have a powerful evidenced narrative that explains how discriminatory recruitment, development and appointment systems, for example, waste talent and impact adversely on service provision whether it be patient care (or on the teaching and support of BME students, the talent pool for research, and the effectiveness of the university).
  4. Learn from previous failed approaches to workforce equality which relied excessively on policies, procedures and diversity training (including unconscious bias training). The literature demonstrates such approaches (as in tackling wider cultural challenges) will not work in isolation and excessively rely on individual members of staff being brave or foolish enough to raise concerns, complaints or grievances about discrimination. Senior institutional leadership must take prime responsibility, for example, for talent management and career development and be proactive in developing staff and challenging discrimination, in a radical break with the culture of allowing departments to recruit, often developing and promoting “people like us” or those who might “best fit in”. 
  5. Strategies and specific interventions must be evidence driven and be able to answer the question “why do you think this will work?”
  6. Above all, accountability is crucial. Unless leaders model the behaviours expected of others, face uncomfortable truths, are held to account and hold others to account, insisting on evidenced interventions with locally developed targets, even the best intentions will not bring about change.

This approach has shown some early and significant progress. For example, some 2000 additional BME nurses and midwives appear to have gained more senior positions in 2014-2017 whilst the relative likelihood of BME staff being disciplined has started falling.

Despite the best efforts of the Leadership Foundation, Equality Challenge Unit and others in higher education institutions I sense similar challenges to those the NHS faces. The Civil Service have recently adopted a completely new strategy using similar principles. The Leadership Foundation’s Retreat (for senior executives and governors in universities) in April might usefully consider whether the time has come to consider adopting similar principles, including whether Hefce funding should be linked to HEIs demonstrating measurable improvement year-on-year in the treatment and experience of both staff and students from BME backgrounds compared to that of White staff and students. Ministers are supporting that approach in the NHS and the civil service. Why not in higher education?

Roger Kline is the author of The Snowy White Peaks of the NHS and was joint director of the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard for its first two years (2015-2017). He is Research Fellow at Middlesex University Business School.

Read the first blog in this series, Diversity – are universities sincerely up for change? by Simon Fanshawe, Leadership Foundation associate and partner at Diversity by Design. 

Diversifying Leadership alumnus: ‘I realised I’m a strong asset’

Lawrence Lartey, student employability and progression practitioner at University of the Arts London, took part in Diversifying Leadership in 2016. Diversifying Leadership is the Leadership Foundation’s programme for BME early career academic and professional services staff. Two years after finishing the programme, Lawrence reflects on his experience.

What made you apply to be a participant on the Diversifying Leadership programme?
Initially I applied because I felt I was stagnant at my place of work, and I could not see ways that I could further my career. I applied as I knew I would be around other academics in similar situations. I wanted to pause, learn and explore ways to help myself develop as a person, and also look at strategies to develop my career.

What were your key leadership takeaways?
There were so many takeaways. One that was key for me was learning that the way I lead is authentic and credible in an academic setting. I embody everything I do naturally and channel it through my work. I completed the course feeling empowered and more confident than when I started.

One of the unique elements of the programme is that participants work with a sponsor. How did this relationship help you increase your influence in your institution?
My sponsor was incredible, he really invested in me. He took a real interest in my progression and coached me into demonstrating my value to my employers. What I mean by this is that I was doing such important and innovative work, he helped me see how the work had tangible research potential and how I could publicise the project in order to make the right people aware.

Many participants speak about a “lightbulb moment” on the programme when they have a real sense of clarity about their strategy for progression. What was yours?
There were two really. The first was when I decided a PhD was not my priority, even though 70% of the participants on the course with me had or were studying for one. Deciding against a PhD really freed-up my thinking. My second lightbulb moment was realising that I’m a qualified academic, engaged in the creative industries with a thesis of mine having been turned into a BBC documentary. I realised I’m a strong asset, the right people at the institution need to know this.  

How would you respond to those who criticise programmes like Diversifying Leadership because they are based on a deficit model?
How you measure the impact of any programme is dependent on one’s definition of success. How do you quantify success? There is a real issue around representation and leadership in higher education. As a result of the programme I’m now in a contracted position in my establishment. There has been significant distance travelled, and I’ve been leading high profile projects. My response to those who criticise the programme is that, there are representation issues in higher education (gender race etc) and Diversifying Leadership is making attempts to address the issues, and sometimes focussing on the issue and unpicking it provides a resolution.

Tell us about your current role
My role at University of the Arts London as a student employability and progression practitioner really allows me to use my industry contacts to ensure our students are equipped to progress into the creative sector. I also explore ways to open up exchange opportunities for students to study in other countries via projects such as the NYLON exchange project (in partnership with entrepreneur and music producer Jay Z’s Shawn Carter Foundation).

What are you working on at the moment?
I’m working with Jay Z and his Shawn Carter Foundation on another international exchange taking place in summer 2018. The project is going from strength to strength with some of his scholars spending part of their semester at University of Arts London colleges. I’m also working on a great initiative with global creative agency Exposure, looking at how we prepare the next generation of creative leaders. For the last year and a half, I’ve also been developing a cultural leadership programme with the Obama Foundation, we’re looking to enrol the first cohort of students in 2018, on a bespoke creative sector leadership programme. The programme will take place in Boston and London.


Diversifying Leadership

The Diversifying Leadership programme is designed to support early career academics and professional services staff  from black and minority ethnic backgrounds who are about to take their first steps into a leadership role.

Limited spaces remain on Diversifying Leadership 7 which runs from April-June 2018. Find out more.

Equality and Diversity

Diversifying Leadership is part of our Equality and Diversity programme. Join us at our BME Summit on May 16find out more hereLearn more about our other diversity programmes by following this link. 

The Longitudinal Study 

The Diversifying Leadership programme is the subject of a longitudinal study, “Cracking the ‘concrete ceiling'”, which is due for publication later this year. Find out more. 

 

Lessons from Higher Education Insights

On her second day at the Leadership Foundation, Alice Hargreaves, senior marketing and communications coordinator attended our Higher Education Insights programme for leaders new to the sector. In the run up to the April 2018 cohort of the programme, she reflects on the impact the programme had on her as a participant. 

When I joined the Leadership Foundation last May I had only worked in a university briefly while overseas, so had little understanding of the context in which higher education sat here in the UK. As well as meeting new colleagues who I would be working alongside, Higher Education Insights provided me with the opportunity to better understand the complexities, nuances, and politics in the UK.

Start with why

In order to understand where the sector is now and where it is going it is of course vital to know where we have come from. One of the first sessions of the day summarised the history of higher education and how this history has shaped it in a way that is different in other parts of the world.

I like the analogy that Christine Abbott recently used in her blog post about this sector being much like a tube system where sometimes it is hard to know how we got to where we are and feel that this session really went some way towards answering this.

Learning from others

I’m a natural networker so found the opportunity to sit and work with a small table of new faces really exciting. I learnt about roles in the sector I didn’t even know existed and also learnt about private universities which I must admit I had been unaware of previously. I was sat with someone from Regent’s University and found the opportunity to ask direct questions about the differences in their student body and how they operated fascinating.

Having the opportunity to get to know the challenges colleagues are also new to the sector faced was a fantastic way of better understanding how a range of universities worked (including pre and post 1992 as well as private universities), and how different the experiences were for professional services staff vs academic staff. It struck me how open my table were to discussion and it spurred me on to apply to take part in Aurora.

The shape of the sector, right here, right now

I found the talk hosted by Nicky Old, director of communications and external relations at Universities UK a fantastic way to understand policy changes. Nicky explained who Universities UK were, who the sector is, and who the key decision makers are. In May 2017, we were just a month away from a general election, and the big issue facing UK universities was the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) as well as the ongoing repercussions following Brexit. Gaining information so relevant and of the time was invaluable. When the TEF results were released some six weeks later I could much better understand the context and how this might impact universities.

Now, having worked in the sector a bit longer I am able to see how things develop over time but this really put me into the here and now, or rather the then and there.

The many faces of higher education

Knowing much more about the Leadership Foundation and our programmes and events now than I did last May, Higher Education Insights truly is a unique opportunity to meet the many faces of the sector. As well as the range of participants it attracts the speakers had a huge range of perspectives and experiences. As well as voices from the Leadership Foundation and Universities UK I was lucky enough to hear from; a futurist from JISC, a dean from Canterbury Christchurch, a student engagement consultant from The Student Engagement Partnership and an ex NUS president.

The day really buoyed up my enthusiasm for my new role and it was reassuring to know I was not the only person so new to the sector. The day I think is equally as valuable for someone brand new to the sector, as someone who has simply been stuck underground in the tube system of higher education for two long and needs to reconnect and get up to date with the ever changing environment that we are faced with.

Higher Education Insights will take place on Tuesday 17 April 2018 in London. Nicky Old, director of communications and external relations, Universities UK and Ellie Russell, student engagement consultant, National Union of Students will return as contributors to this year’s programme. Find out more: www.lfhe.ac.uk/heinsights

Alice Hargreaves is a senior marketing and communications coordinator specialising in promoting our programmes for senior leaders and equality and diversity, including our acclaimed Aurora programme. 

Why Values based Leadership?

Gary Reed, assistant director membership, Wales, discusses the two drivers for developing this years Wales conference topic: Values based leadership. The Annual Wales conference will be taking place on Tuesday 20 March 2018 in Cardiff.

People and values
The first driver was a very emotive one. Whilst facilitating the final day of the six-day Welsh Crucible programme developing the future research leaders for Wales, we did the usual around the room feedback on what Welsh Crucible programmes had meant to people. Pleasingly many said insight, clarity of direction and purpose in their research, and confidence to name a few. One delegate started to feedback and suddenly became very teary and said ‘this is the first time I’ve felt valued and I’ve felt that my research is valued’. This was a very emotional response and other delegates agreed. Whilst this is very pleasing that our work as facilitators had been done in building the confidence of the delegates (we only tell them that they are the future research leaders of Wales a maximum of seven times a day!), it saddened me that I work in a sector in Wales where every university has a set of values that usually include a statement like ‘our people are our most valued asset’ and yet some employees don’t feel ‘it’. While there are many good leaders and managers in Welsh universities who do value their team, there are obviously some individuals who don’t. They probably don’t come to work each day with the intention of not valuing people, but somehow those high level values have not penetrated into the modus operandi of these individuals.

So, my first question to explore as part of the conference was ‘how can we make these behaviours and values in the strategic plan feel real for people of all levels in the organisation?’

To answer this question, I arranged for Leadership Foundation, key associate, Mark Trezona to develop and inspirational session which would explore what we mean, both individually and organisationally by ‘Values Based Leadership’.  James Moore from the Welsh Ambulance Service NHS Trust will also join the conference and share their journey in making their organisational values and behaviours real.

Distinctiveness of Welsh universities
The second driver influencing the conference theme was the uniqueness of Welsh universities and how they differ to their competition across the border and further afield. Many Welsh universities were founded from local communities collecting and donating funds to establish a university. This creates a real sense of community ‘ownership’ and consequently drives the Civic Mission and Leadership of Place in a more profound manner than some universities. Wales as a devolved nation is politically slightly ‘left of centre’ and this socialist essence can be felt in some of the education values such as equality of opportunity for everyone. This was one of the drivers for the Diamond Review’s restructuring of student funding from covering course fees to providing a means-tested maintenance grant of various levels. It’s pointless having your course fees paid if you cannot afford to live! Another example is the expectation of Welsh universities are a driver for local and national economic development. Both these requirements are highlighted by the Education Secretary’s commitment to a Civic Mission agenda and initiatives such as ‘Be the Spark’.

To me, Wales’ higher education seems to have a different feeling and some of its ‘rasion d’être’ is different to English universities, and yet we are competing in the same marketplace for the same students. Can we collectively recognise the values at the heart of Welsh universities? Would a more compelling articulation of Welsh higher education values add anything in differentiating and attracting more students to Wales? Would making these values more visible strengthen the attraction to those of a certain mindset to come to Wales to be a part of the Welsh sector, and retain the people who are already committed to it.

My second question to explore was ‘does the Welsh higher education sector have distinct values and is there any benefit to promoting this to attract students to study in Wales, and to attract the best staff?’.

To provide input to this discussion, Huw Morris, Director of Skills, Higher Education and Life Long Learning, Welsh Government will share his perspective on the underpinning values of education and higher education in Wales before creative exploration of the subject.

Come and join me on Tuesday 20 March 2018 at the Clayton Hotel in Cardiff and contribute to the Values Based Leadership debate.

Croeso cynnes i bawb / A warm welcome to everyone

To book a place at the Wales Annual Conference: Values based leadership, click here.

Gary Reed is assistant director, membership (Wales), his role involves liaising with all higher education institutions in Wales, developing relationships with Leadership Foundation members, and coordinating and developing events and leadership development initiatives that support and complement individual institutions’ strategies and needs and the national Welsh higher education agenda. The role also involves undertaking consultancy and facilitating leadership training.

Why explore Integrated Thinking and Reporting?

Ten universities are participating in a year-long project to explore Integrated Thinking and Reporting. Kim Ansell, managing consultant, Leadership Foundation asks Richard Dale, executive director of finance, Newcastle University, why they are taking part, what they have already learned and what they expect to gain from it.

What was the main driver which prompted you to explore integrated thinking and reporting?
Participation in a BUFDG review in early 2016 of a sample of financial statements for 2014/15 stimulated an internal discussion about the opportunities that Integrated Reporting could bring in providing a more holistic view of the University’s performance and plans. Our journey towards Integrated Thinking and Reporting has continued since then and has informed our approach to developing a new vision and strategy for the University. This will place increased emphasis on inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary work and the importance of joined up thinking both across the campus and between academic and professional services teams. We see an Integrated Thinking and Reporting approach to how we work as adding value in taking forward the vision and strategy.

Selected as one of the pilot universities for external review by the IIRC we wanted to understand how well our 2015/16 report met the International Integrated Reporting Framework and to understand how far we had to go.

What impact has your journey so far had at the University?
The IIRC review was, rightly, a challenging review and pointed to a number of areas where the University needed to do more, including the articulation of our business model and clearer identification of how we create value for a diverse range of stakeholders. With that in mind, our annual report for 2017 has been designed as an Integrated Report.

Although we recognise, as others outside the sector have advised, that this is a three year journey, we believe the report is a significant step forward from the approach in previous years. It has been particularly well received by our Finance and Audit Committees as well as Executive Board for its holistic approach.

What has been the most valuable part of the integrated thinking and reporting journey so far?
Engagement with the IIRC has enabled us to take advice from a number of successful UK and non-UK organisations who are further ahead in adopting Integrated Reporting.
We have been able to learn from their experience of how Integrated Reporting has facilitated discussion among their leadership teams on key strategic issues in a new and more innovative way. For us, the development of a value creation model in 2016-17 was a significant step forward for the University on the journey to adopting Integrated Reporting. It brought together a number of different perspectives on the relevance of Integrated Reporting to the higher education sector and shaped our approach to developing a new vision and strategy.

What has been your biggest challenge so far?
Within our Business School we have a particular link between practitioner and academic interests which helped us to articulate a single business model for the University – or rather a value creation model. This was a challenge partly due to the multi-faceted nature of university operations, but also because we view students and external partners as co-creators in the process of generating and transmitting new knowledge. The development of a value creation model in 2016-17 was therefore a significant step forward for the University on the journey to adopting Integrated Reporting. We believe, however that the model can be refined in future iterations to reflect value creation over different time horizons to promote a long-term sustainable approach to strategic decision making.

What advice would you have for anyone starting the integrated thinking and reporting journey?
It is important to recognise that integrated thinking and reporting is a journey that will take minimum of three years to complete. The advice we received from others outside the sector was to engage the leadership team very early in the process and to seek an explicit statement from the governing body on their commitment to complying with the Integrated Reporting reporting principles. The measures of success here at Newcastle are the feedback from internal stakeholders on the usefulness of our reporting and also from external peer review exercises which provide a more objective evaluation.

How do you plan to include colleagues across your institution in the use of Integrated Thinking and Reporting?
As we take forward our new vision and strategy, we are hoping to embed some of the principles of integrated thinking and reporting – for example to elicit better understanding of how value is created and potentially diminished over different time horizons. This will help us in our strategic planning to identify how we invest for the future in terms of our human capital, and also our infrastructure and natural environment. A first step will be to encourage key budget holders to think more holistically about all the resources available to them – not just the financial envelope available to them in the short-term. This, we hope, will help us to develop a deeper understanding of the factors that drive long-term sustainability and build value for all stakeholders.

The 10 universities who are taking part in the Integrated thinking and reporting project are; City, University of London; Leeds Beckett University; Abertay University; University of West London; Newcastle University; University of Winchester; SOAS; Sheffield Hallam University; University of Exeter and the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama.

The next workshop of the Integrated Thinking and Reporting project will be on 8 March in Sheffield. You can find out more about the Leadership Foundation project here: Integrated thinking and reporting project