Redundancies: The Responsibility lies with KCL’s negligent management of the IoP (Statement by Sir Robin Murray)
In the 50 years in which it existed as an independent organisation, the IoP never had to resort to mass redundancies. However, since the IoP merged with KCL, this has happened twice. Once might be regarded as unfortunate; twice in 5 years can only be seen as reflecting very badly on the quality of KCL management of the Institute.
As we at the IoP know from our experience of 5 years ago, compulsory redundancies have at least three very unfortunate consequences. Firstly, they ruin the academic careers of some promising researchers who are misclassified as failures. Secondly, they destroy the morale of the staff and consequently some tenured staff are so dismayed that they leave, while some young colleagues take their Fellowships elsewhere. Finally, they damage the reputation of the institution, making it very difficult for the Dean to recruit first-rate academics to join us.
The result of the latter two factors has been that the previous steady rise in IoP research income stalled. So, paradoxically, one of the reasons for the present crisis lies in the financial damage brought upon the IoP by the last round of redundancies.
Of course, adverse financial pressures are affecting many universities. However, other “Russell Group” universities have not generally adopted the drastic action proposed by Kings College. This raises two questions. First, how did KCL management get themselves into this mess? We all know that any competent university asks its finance officers to make projections for the medium term, as well as well as the year ahead. Either the Health School financial projections were inaccurate or they were not acted on in time to avoid the present crisis. The second question is why were other remedies such as freezing posts, seeking voluntary redundancies or seeking help from other financially stronger parts of KCL not tried first, before leaping into compulsory redundancies?
The above views are obviously my own. However, a large number of IoP staff have contacted me expressing their dismay at the situation. A quote from a very able colleague illustrates the risks that we are running: “I must admit that despite the fact that I should be OK thanks to my grant income, the whole thing is making me wonder whether KCL is the right place for me or whether I should look for greener pastures elsewhere, as indeed many other people are ...”
Professor Lechler and KCL Council need to realise that it has not been the work of individual academics that has been inadequate but rather KCL’s Management of the IoP. It is not too late to stop, or at least ameliorate, this self-destructive policy, and seek a more constructive solution to the current financial difficulties.
Sir Robin Murray, FRS
Professor of Psychiatric Research