（a) The senior management of Universal University （UU) intend to develop both quantitative

正确答案：

(a) (i) Agency theory considers the relationship between a principal and an agent. The problem is how the agent can be
motivated and monitored. The key requirements are that the agent must have to account for his/her performance to the
principal and that the principal must be able to hold the agent to account. The agent performs a task through the
application of judgement and skill. The outcome depends on the efforts and methods adopted by the agent.
In the context of Universal University, the lecturer is the agent in using his/her skill and judgement in the creation,
delivery and assessment aspects of the department/school on behalf of the university (the principal). The lecturer may
be seen as adopting a risk seeking stance in using new/innovative approaches to the teaching/learning process or a risk
averse stance where he/she continues with currently used approaches to teaching and learning.
The observability of the role of the lecturer as agent may be measured, by observing outcomes achieved. Examples of
such measures may include the pass rates in assessments or levels of future choice of a module by students. The effort
of the lecturer may be observed insofar as all lectures took place. However, the level of effort applied by the lecturer may
be more difficult to measure in the short term. It could be observed retrospectively through patterns of attendance,
feedback from students or pass rates achieved.
(ii) Expectancy theory focuses on the view that the individual (or group) chooses to act on the basis of a level of preference
and expectation. Expectancy theory may be illustrated by the formula:
Force or strength of motivation to do X = (Valence or strength of preference for outcome Y) x (Expectation that doing X
will result in Y)
In the University example: X may be, for example, the publication of articles by the lecturer. Y may be the wish by the
lecturer to achieve promotion (extrinsic preference) or a feeling of ‘achievement’ (intrinsic preference) from the
publication recognition.
In considering the suitability of the process, it may be asked to what extent the lecturer will be motivated in publishing
regularly (X), through the expectation of promotion (Y). The level of motivation will be affected by the strength of
preference of the lecturer for promotion. If promotion is a relatively insignificant aspect in relation to the overall objectives
of the lecturer, there may be little strength of preference. If promotion is a significant incentive, there may be a high
strength of preference.
(b) Hard accountability may be viewed in the context of three specific areas. It will require (i) the accounting for the numbers,
(ii) ensuring the numbers are accounted for and (iii) the group being held accountable for the events and circumstances
leading to the numbers.
In the context of the application of hard accountability to the lecturing staff, it may be pursued through:
(i) ‘accounting for the numbers’ may be implemented by monitoring the number of articles published, role in new courses
developed or innovations in methods applied. Feedback from students and the number and type of comments received
about the lecturing quality and lecturer support to students. The combination of these in the context will determine its value.

(ii) ‘ensuring the numbers are accounted for’ may be addressed by reporting on the reasons ‘how’ and ‘why’ the figures
have occurred. For example will the publication of a specific quality of articles (X) lead to the achievement of a high
choice of a module by students (i.e. HOW?). Will a high level of student complaints occur through an inability to achieve
the desired quality of lecturing when it is implemented and lead to a lower level of attendance or uptake of a module
(i.e. WHY?).
(iii) ‘being held accountable for events and circumstances leading to the numbers’. For example, where the lecturer is
deemed responsible after attendance at lectures is poor or student pass rates achieved are unduly low. It may be deemed
that the quality of the lecturing is inadequate. Senior staff may be held accountable where there is a failure to ensure
that all lecturers are adequately trained, briefed, motivated.

The motivation and application of lecturing staff may be monitored on an ongoing basis in order to determine whether the
work structure/environment is ensuring that the accountability of the team is being equitably reflected in areas such as rates
and levels of publication OR student numbers enrolling for, and achieving success, in a module.
(Alternative discussion points and illustrations would be accepted.)