Introduction
The United Kingdom is fast becoming an international education hub. Consequently, the issue of education quality is fundamental in these universities’ operations. Students normally enter these institutions with certain expectations concerning their level of satisfaction and these together with their experiences make up their perceptions. The paper will look at the type of HR tools that can be used by educational service providers to increase student perceptions of service quality in UK universities.
HR tools
Before examining some of the HR tools that can be used to increase student perceptions in a UK university, it would be essential to first understand the meaning of service quality in higher education (Trochim, p. 86). The latter concept is sometimes treated as an abstract concept because measuring and defining it can be rather difficult. (Pascarella & Pierson, 128) However, studies conducted in this area have shed some light on it as they have dealt with five major factors as follows:
- Tangibles
- Reliability
- Responsiveness
- Assurance
- Empathy
Tangibles consist of all the physical components of the university such as its buildings, equipment, communication materials as well as other teaching materials. (Boulding et al, 27) Reliability refers to a university’s ability to accurately keep its promises (Donahue, p. 77). Responsiveness is a measure of a university’s rate of service provision and assistance to its students. (Long et al, 272) Assurance refers to staff members’ knowledge in various faculties as well as their ability to emanate confidence in their areas of interest (Tam, p. 54). Empathy on the other hand refers to a faculty or staff members’ ability to offer care and attention to various individuals in the institution (Westbrook & Greiner, p. 17).
After understanding what service quality entails within universities then university administrators and HR personnel can therefore have a direction against which to increase perceptions of this service quality. Since student perceptions are a combination of their expectations prior to entry into universities and their actual experiences in universities, then the latter institutions have two avenues to increase these perceptions. The main focus is on student experiences as their expectations are formed outside university settings and fall outside the university’s scope of influence.
First of all, in order to increase student perceptions of tangibles as an aspect of service quality, it would be essential to think of working with independent contractors. Human resource experts assert that independent contracting can go a long way towards boosting infrastructural aspects in an organization. Universities can embrace this on an annual basis. To do this effectively, only those contractors with a lot of experience and expertise need to be sought. The school physical environment should be a priority as this often makes the difference between a first-class university and one that is not (Carl, p. 341). Students will often notice when equipment and facilities are lacking or have been ignored. This will definitely increase their perceptions.
Since independent contracting involves hiring a business or a person whose services are specified in a contract, then a university may have to specify everything that they require from the business in a contract. (Ramsden, p. 3). Once this detail has been taken care of, then a university can be well on its way to boosting its service delivery levels. For instance, it can save on taxes and other business-related regulations that are all handled by the independent contractor; this implies that such savings can be redirected towards service delivery and hence a university’s responsiveness. Independent contractors often bring their own tools and possess their own insurance plans; pension plans as well other employee incentives. A university can be in a position to provide numerous incentives to their students if they can be spared from such expenses. For instance, they may provide a number of technological forums to ease student processes. Or alternatively, they could use these savings to purchase more equipment and facilities in their universities. All these changes will be noticed by students and their perceptions of a university’s service quality will definitely be increased (Long et al, p. 77),
HR personnel needs to make use of motivational tools. HR studies have shown that in order to motivate staff members, then organizations need to boost rewards or increase job satisfaction. (Justin, par 11)Rewards need to be done through monetary means or through other incentives such as insurance and holiday provisions. Alternatively, a university can increase job satisfaction by allowing decision-making, by training their staff members, or by allowing interdisciplinary collaboration. Motivating university employees can go a long way in increasing their responsiveness and assurance (Sander, p. 309). For instance, a lecturer would be encouraged to acquire more knowledge and become competent in what they are doing if they know that they will be rewarded monetarily. (Millson & Kirk-Smith, p. 88). Also, a faculty accountant would be encouraged to assist students with their fees schedules if he /she finds his job enriching and challenging enough. In other words, staff members’ output would increase if they are motivated and this will be reflected in the way they deliver services to stunt. This will eventually increase student perceptions of service quality.
Motivation through financial rewards is often a combination of national legislations of minimum wage as well as negotiations and agreements between university staff and employees. In order to use this motivational tool effectively, universities must make sure that payments are seen as just and fair. Even the technicalities surrounding payment must be looked into. For instance, they need to be done in a timely fashion and the systems of disbursements need to be user-friendly to university staff. The latter is particularly instrumental to those university jobs that are repetitive (Perry & Smart, p. 86). However, professions that need diverse skills and talents may not rely on money as the sole motivator. Instead, such groups look towards more involvement in decision-making and job satisfaction. When a university finds a way of meeting the different motivational needs of its staff members, then this can boost their productivity level and hence their overall service performance. Student perceptions will therefore be heightened.
Team building is another essential HR tool that can boost student perceptions of service quality. When a faculty or an entire university’s staff works towards common goals then chances are that services will be synchronized and that their reliability can be enhanced (Zeithaml, p. 38). For example, a university library is a combination of IT networking, team synchronization, literature prowess, organizational activities, and communicating mechanisms. It is particularly essential for all members of this team to work together in harmony in order to bring out the best results (Strange et al, 247) However, student perceptions are likely to be negative once teamwork lacks in such an area. If the receptionist’s enthusiasm is much higher than that of other members, then students are likely to perceive this service negatively (Ramsden, 130)Additionally, if there is no rapport between different sections of the library, then students will not receive top-quality service and their perceptions will be lowered. Besides that, the various departments within the library need to appear as though they all have the same level of organization; otherwise, students will notice the difference and will be unsatisfied with the quality of service on offer (Perry & Smart, p. 236). All the latter examples highlight the importance of team working in any particular UK university. Staff members need to realize that their actions both within their respective departments and outside have a direct influence on overall student perceptions. (Justin, par 19) This realization can best be addressed by imprinting teambuilding ethos within these team members. HR administrators can do this by carrying out workshops on teamwork, team communication as well as team-building in general (Creswell, p. 13).
UK universities can benefit from team building because it leads to greater levels of communication; it motivates staff members to achieve their goals. Team building also creates a problem-solving atmosphere in a university and this can contribute towards greater reliability, assurance, and empathy. (Trochim, p. 86). All the latter issues make up perceptions of service quality. Besides this, team building can lead towards high levels of trust, better work policies, and job satisfaction; all concepts that contribute towards high service quality.
Recruitment is one of the most fundamental aspects of any human resource department as this determines who enters into a university in the first place (Barr & Desler, p. 59). This is therefore an important tool that can change students’ perceptions of service quality within their university. In other words, UK universities ought to adopt a rigorous recruitment procedure for each of their staff members’ positions in order to ensure that only the best persons for the job are selected (Schreiner & Juillerat , p.309). This can be done by first attracting a large applicant base i.e. through public advertisements of job vacancies (Glow & Vorhies, p. 29). Thereafter, universities need to look through general aspects of the application such as numbers of degrees earned or level of experience attained. Afterward, there should be a rigorous procedure for revealing applicants underlying talents, skills, abilities as well as character or personality through panel interviews (Bolton & Drew, p. 381). All these aspects will be essential in determining how staff members perform their tasks or how they interact with their students. Issues such as assurance and empathy can be assessed during recruitment and UK universities can therefore ensure that their staff members already possess personalities that can facilitate such issues if they get recruited (Fox & Beltyukova, p. 172).
It should be noted that in order to achieve the latter goals, a university should go through a number of steps. First, it needs to develop a thorough recruitment policy that is properly understood by its human resource personnel as well as other members of the university staff who may be involved in recruitment (Glow & Vorhies, p. 98). Secondly, it needs to analyze all the jobs in the institution and then determine priority issues in each of these jobs. Thirdly, universities should then determine how wide the human resource pool is and how skills or knowledge required in the university can be lost to the university’s competitors (Nadiri and Hussain, p. 302). Fourthly, a university needs to carry out job evaluations and job analyses in order to determine how important certain jobs are. This step should then be followed by an assessment of all qualifications profiles. Thereafter, a university needs to outline all the approaches that will involve actual recruitment and examples have been mentioned earlier. After going through this seven-step process, a university can be well on its way towards attracting a competent workforce to its institution. In so doing, they can heighten their reliability, responsiveness, and assurance through recruitment.
Employee evaluations can also go a long way in enhancing student perceptions of service quality (Long et al, p. 22). This is because employee evaluation can improve university performance; it can also identify hidden talents in the university that may be useful for filling vacancies in the future. Besides this, evaluation can go a long way in linking one’s performance to payment. Universities can do this through the creation of evaluation goals and objectives intended on outlining what the university hopes to achieve through its evaluation system (Justin, par 21) Thereafter, the evaluation exercise should then be clearly outlined and publicized to its members. Supervisors and human resource personnel in universities should be given training based on performance evaluation or appraisals. This will then prepare them for the next step which is setting up the actual reviews; they can be done biannually. When universities make performance evaluation a standard component of their operations, then their staff will strive for excellence. Such outlooks can be reflected on service quality and student perceptions will go up tremendously (Trochim, p.106).
Conclusion
HR tools provide a diverse array of options for enhancing student perceptions of educational qualities in UK universities. This starts through a rigorous recruitment policy that ensures persons with the right qualities enter a university. The latter can then be combined by motivational aspects that need to be backed up by team building and independent contracting as well as job assessment. All these tools can contribute towards improving service quality (tangibles, assurance, reliability, and responsiveness) and hence the perceptions of students within those universities.
References
- Fox, C. & Beltyukova, S. “Student satisfaction as a measure of student development” Journal of College Student Development, 43. 3 (2002):172
- Boulding, W., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A dynamic process model of service quality. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 7 (1993): 27
- Creswell, J. Research design.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002
- Donahue. L. “Creating a positive learning environment for first-year students.” Students in Transition and First-year Experience Journal, 16.1 (2003): 77
- Westbrook,T. & Greiner, K. “Academic service quality and instructional quality.” Students in Transition and First-year Experience Journal 14.2 (2002): 7-30
- Barr, M. & Desler, K. The handbook of student affairs administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003
- Perry, R. & Smart, J. Research and practice: Effective teaching in higher education. New York: Agathon Press, 2002
- Pascarella, E. & Pierson, C. T. “Explaining student growth in college.” College Student Development Journal 44.3 (2003): 122-133
- Schreiner, L. & Juillerat. S. Sample student satisfaction inventory. Iowa City, IA: Noel Levitt, 2002
- Strange, A., Millner, S., Walker. E. & Williamson, R. “Student study activities and beliefs associated with academic success.” College Student Development Journal 43. 4 (2002): 246-266
- Trochim, W. The research methods knowledge base. Albany: Cornell University, 1999
- Zeithaml, V., Parasuraman, A. & Berry, L.. “Control processes and communication in the delivery of service quality.” Journal of Marketing 52.4 (1988): 35-48
- Tam, M. “Measuring Quality and Performance in Higher Education.” Quality in higher Education Journal. 7.13 (2001): 47–54
- Ramsden, P. “Performance Indicators of Teaching Quality in Higher Education.” Journal of Studies in Higher Education. 15.8 (1999):129–150
- Glow, K. & Vorhies, D. “Building competitive advantage for service firms.” Services marketing Journal. 13.9 (1993): 22–32
- Bolton, R. & Drew, J. “A Multistage Model of Customers’ assessments of service quality.” Consumer research journal. 45.7 (1991): 375–83
- Long, P., Rangecroft, M. & Gilroy, P. “Measuring the Satisfaction gap in Education.” Total quality management journal. 10.5 (1999):272
- Sander, P., King, M. & Coates, D. “University students’ expectations of teaching.” Journal of Studies in Higher Education. 25 (2000): 309
- Carl, A. “Assessing Satisfaction using SERVQUAL.” NASPA Journal. 35 (1998): 331–341
- Millson, F. & Kirk-Smith, M. “The Effects of quality circles on service quality perceptions in financial services Marketing.” Journal of Applied Marketing Science. 26.4 (1996): 75–88
- Justin, A. Students’ perception of quality at Durban University. 2007.
- Nadiri, H. and Hussain, K. “Students’ perceptions of service quality in higher education.” TQM and Business excellence Journal 20.5 (2007): 523