Staff Engagement Forum: You Said, We Did

We held our first Staff Engagement Forum of the year on 11 September 2026, and 30 colleagues attended. We recapped on key findings of the Staff Survey (already shared through the Staff Engagement Forum in July) and we invited feedback. The EG leads in attendance were Umar Zamman, Interim Chief People Officer (CPO); Juliet Fern, Executive Dean of Technologies, Education and Social Sciences (TESS); along with senior leaders: Sarah Mackintosh, Assistant Director, HR Operations and Angela Johnson, Assistant Director, OD, Culture and Inclusion. Feedback from the session, along with actions we have taken as a result, are below.

You said: We need further information about what learning and development opportunities are available. We specifically need technical learning support e.g. Power BI/ we may have staff in-house who can do this through peer learning.

We did: People and Culture will develop an intranet page showing Learning and Development opportunities for the coming semester by end of November 2026. We will try to ensure a range of times and date options for sessions. We will explore the possibility of a PowerBI in-house workshop.

You said: As well as opportunities for L&D, we need the time available in our calendars for it.

We did: This is agreed. We will ask ULF members and line managers to support colleagues to make space for L&D initiatives – we have included this as a Staff Survey action. This is also about individuals making L&D a priority for themselves (within their working day).

You said: On wording, it feels a bit wordy/ unclear.

We did: This is agreed, we have attempted to simplify – Staff Survey actions are now more succinct and include timeframes.

You said: On leadership engagement opportunities, it’s important that feedback is really listened to. For example feedback was given from ULF that PDRs should be paused, and this was not implemented.

We did: It is agreed that feedback should be truly listened to and considered. Sometimes it is not possible for everything that is fed back to be implemented, or there might be good reasons as to why it can’t be. In the case of PDR implementation, a detailed discussion was held by EG following feedback from ULF, and the decision was made to go forward with PDRs (this was communicated through the ULF Teams channel on 15 July 2026). We may need to improve our communication channels, to ensure it is clear feedback has been considered/ heard. We will consider ways to do this.

You said: Should feedback from faculty and directorate meetings inform university-level actions? Also why are there more than three actions being considered now?

We did: Yes. Deadline for completion of faculty/ directorate actions was extended to end October following request for more time from ULF. We agreed to stick to the end of September deadline for completion of university-level actions, and we will review these once more, following completion of faculty/ directorate actions, to ensure they are aligned with feedback.

We have asked faculties and directorates for between 1-3 actions each, to ensure manageability. However we have not stipulated the number of university level actions.

We will do more to communicate this with staff widely over the coming months.

You said: The actions we’re considering wont really change culture, you’ll need much more time for that, and these actions may appear tokenistic.

We did: We agree that culture does not change overnight, and that we can’t fix everything. However it is important to identify what we can change, and actions we can take. We agree we need to make limitations clear, and that these might be small steps, but hopefully steps in the right direction.

You said: In the review of the work-load planning tool, we need to consider – is it really an accurate reflection of our work?

We did: This is agreed, and evaluation of this will be built into the review phase of the new system – this has been included as a Staff Survey action – see below.

You said: What about workload of Professional Services Staff? Some things are impossible to do “more efficiently” (example given about supporting a student in a crisis situation).

We did: It is agreed that workload of professional services staff also needs to be managed well. EG leads for Professional Services teams will be asked to review workloads with their managers to ensure they are realistic. The review of the PDR process should also support development of clearer, more realistic objectives for all colleagues. Staff Survey actions have been amended to include listening sessions for all staff on impact of workload management (not just academics) – see below.

It is agreed some things cannot be done more efficiently. However, not all work is the same, and not all ways of working are efficient, and so there may be some things we can do to create more space and time.

You said: What about systems and processes? Some of our systems and processes are very inefficient – can we address those?

We did: This is agreed. The PDR system and workload planning system/ process will be reviewed as key actions emerging from Staff Survey findings. We ask all colleagues to continue to identify processes which can be simplified and made more efficient.

You said: This needs to be an ongoing conversation, we want to continually feed in to how actions are progressed and developed, and we need to celebrate what we do achieve.

We did: This is agreed. We will use Staff Engagement Forums this year to “spotlight” on different teams across the university, in regards progress against Staff Survey actions, and their wider achievements as a team.

On the basis of this feedback, university level actions have been refined as follows:

Revised Staff Survey Actions following the Staff Engagement Forum

Enhance career development and learning opportunities:

1. Review the PDR process to ensure it delivers value for colleagues, where success is recognised and colleagues are coached to learn, grow and improve performance (2026/27) – EG lead and ULF members responsible: Umar Zamman and Angela Johnson
2. Communicate learning and development opportunities more clearly through an intranet space dedicated to opportunities available over the next few months (by November 2026) – EG lead and ULF members responsible: Umar Zamman and Angela Johnson
3. Managers to support and encourage colleagues to carve out time for learning and development opportunities. – EG lead and ULF member responsible: all

Strengthen leadership communication and engagement:

1. Embed regular engagement opportunities for colleagues to hear directly from senior leaders on institutional priorities and change initiatives. Ensure time is given for real listening, and that feedback is given following sessions to show how comments have been considered, and what action, if any, will be taken. Timeframe: ongoing. – EG lead and ULF members responsible: Umar Zamman and Angela Johnson; Adrian Dutch and Ulrika Meegolla
2. Create more opportunities to celebrate the achievements of the University, its teams, and individual colleagues. By increasing visibility of success, we will strengthen pride, recognition, and connection to the University's purpose and strategic ambitions. Timeframe: ongoing. – EG lead and ULF members responsible: Umar Zamman and Angela Johnson; Adrian Dutch and Ulrika Meegolla, and, all EG members.

Wellbeing and workload management:

1. Evaluate the updated approach to academic workload planning with academic staff, informed by meaningful colleague engagement. By end February 2027. EG lead responsible: Julie Brunton
2. Engage staff in meaningful colleague engagement about wellbeing and workload management, seeking to support the enhancement of overall staff wellbeing. By end of March 2027. EG lead and ULF member responsible: Julie Brunton, Umar Zamman and Angela Johnson
3. EG leads will work in partnership with ULF members and managers to review workload demands, priorities, and resource capacity across their respective areas. This will include an assessment of activities that can be stopped, paused, streamlined, or simplified to ensure workloads remain realistic and aligned with institutional priorities. EG leads and ULF members responsible: all

We held our ninth Staff Engagement Forum on 26 February 2026, and 36 colleagues attended. We shared information about the restructure process and timeline, along with our Stress Management Policy and Corporate Stress Risk Assessment – both have been redrafted and we invited feedback. The VCEG lead in attendance was Unji Mathur, Director of People and Culture, along with senior leaders: Claire Suanders, Interim Deputy Director for Health and Safety; Angela Johnson, Assistant Director, OD, Culture and Inclusion. Feedback from the session, along with actions we have taken as a result, are below.

Feedback from the session, along with actions we have taken as a result, are below.

You said: The Stress Management Policy is too long, and it may be difficult to find key information. Can we use flow charts/ checklists to clarify/ simplify the information, and Copilot to summarise key elements.

We did: We will revisit the policy and procedure, and seek to simplify and shorten it. We will consider use of flow charts and try to make it easier to digest and navigate.

You said: The policy document alone will not be enough – we will need to support and train staff and managers on how and when to perform a stress risk assessment.

We did: This is agreed – we will need to accompany launch of the revised policy and procedure with training for staff and managers, including on how and when to perform a stress risk assessment. We propose this be mandatory for line managers to ensure consistency of understanding and application.

You said: Can we be clearer on what stress is, that it can be work/ non-work-related, and state it can manifest in different ways for different people, and that demographics (e.g. minority groups) can impact the stress felt by colleagues.

You said: We would like improved work/life balance. Is it possible to consider a 4-day working week?

You said: We need to clarify that stress is not just an individual issue – we all play a part (including at university level) in managing stress.

We did: This is agreed and we will ensure the policy clarifies responsibilities to manage stress at senior manager, manager, and all staff levels. We will also build this into training.

You said: A key issue feeding into stress right now is capacity and workload, and what feels like unreasonable expectations (demand) – this needs to be addressed at root cause/ university, team and individual level.

We did: We will address this issue with the University Leadership Forum and VCEG. If workload is being cited as stressful within teams this will need to be addressed through local analysis and stress risk assessments.

You said: The academic restructure caused a lot of uncertainty and stress, for managers and all staff. Can we improve our support/ communications about changes at university level.

We did: It is acknowledged that the restructuring the university has gone through has been unsettling and for some, stressful. We will look to ways to further improve communications at university and team level. We will roll out training for line managers on the support available to them in their role in managing stress, and in how to assist with regular and clear communication.

You said: What happens if people don’t follow the policy? How will we hold people to account?

We did: We expect all managers to follow the new Stress Management Policy, as it’s an important part of creating a healthy and supportive workplace. Where a manager isn’t meeting those responsibilities, we would address it in the same way we would with any other policy or performance concern: through constructive feedback, support, and, if needed, formal performance management processes. Our aim is always to help managers meet the standards expected of them, while ensuring all colleagues feel safe, supported, and able to raise concerns.

You said: There are digital tools which can help colleagues conduct their jobs more efficiently, which might help to reduce stress, however training and support is needed to ensure colleagues can use these tools (e.g. Copilot).

We did: This is agreed. Training in use of AI is already available to academic staff and we hope to roll out training on how to use AI and Copilot to professional services colleagues later on this year.

On Friday 5 December Unji Mathur, Director of People and Culture, Andrew Church, Pro Vice Chancellor (Research and Innovation) and Chris Marshall, Executive Dean, UBBS met with 32 colleagues through the Staff Engagement Forum.

We presented key findings from the Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) which had been performed as a stage one EIA on the restructure proposals. Download the document below for questions and feedback received, along with answers, and subsequent feedback from VCEG.

Equality Impact Assessment – Feedback from Staff Networks [DOCX]

We held our sixth Staff Engagement Forum on 19 November 2025, and 58 colleagues attended. We shared information about the restructure consultation process, timeline and voluntary redundancy scheme, and invited questions and feedback from colleagues. VCEG leads in attendance were Matt Higgins, Chief Finance and Resources Officer; Alison Tressider, Executive Dean for HCLS and Chris Marshall, Executive Dean for UBBS. Apologies were sent from Unji Mathur, Director of People and Culture as she was unwell.

Feedback from the session, along with actions we have taken as a result, are below.

You said: What is the long-term strategy for the university, where are the opportunities for growth?

You said: Our admission and registration process is problematic, may be causing students to go elsewhere, and this needs to be focused on.

We did: The typical turnaround time for Admissions decisions is around five working days, which aligns with sector norms. The University has recently invested in its new online application form (OLAF), and our Home UG applicants continue to apply through UCAS. We have also enhanced our online registration process, which can now be completed within minutes.

To support students during registration, we monitor progress and proactively reach out to anyone who appears to be experiencing difficulties. During peak periods, registry and academic colleagues meet regularly to review progress and ensure a smooth experience for applicants and students.

For 2026 entry, we have also implemented a new CRM system designed to further enhance the applicant experience and strengthen conversion.
If there are specific aspects of the process that feel challenging, we would welcome further feedback so we can continue to improve.

You said: Feedback that our marketing strategy is ineffective for student recruitment, and a question: Why are other universities successful at student recruitment?

You said: Why are job descriptions being standardised now?

We did: Some of our job descriptions are very old and do not reflect current jobs. We are taking this opportunity to review and refresh as appropriate.

You said: Will the new VC's pay reflect the new smaller university they will be getting?

We did: The new VCs pay will reflect the significant responsibility of the job and the calibre of the successful person. Our new VC will be responsible for leading our whole university to sustainability and success, and their pay will reflect that.

You said: Is the University considering moving to a four-day week for all staff and how might that impact on staff that are on PT contracts?

We did: We are not considering moving to a four-day week. A big part of the reason for this is that our students need us to be open to them 5 days /week, so it is not a suitable operating model for us. 

You said: Will this be the last restructure/ the end of change?

We did: The University is budgeting for a financial deficit this year – even with the proposed staff reductions – and while we are seeking to improve student recruitment and proactively developing future growth opportunities, we must acknowledge the need to operate within our means. Following the proposed staff reductions, we still need to take further actions to ensure long term financial sustainability.

We held our fifth Staff Engagement Forum on 22 October 2025, and 35 colleagues attended. We shared information about the University Mental Health Charter, and how we can use it to drive further improvements in staff wellbeing. We welcomed 16 new Mental Health First Aiders (trained in July 2025). We sought feedback on a draft Wellness Action Plan – a tool that colleagues can use individually or with their managers to promote conversations about staying mentally healthy at work.

Feedback from the session, along with actions we have taken as a result, are below.

You said: Several colleagues were upset at the closure of the online yoga sessions from Get Active. The way in which this was communicated was upsetting, it felt like we didn’t matter.

We did: The decision was taken to cease these sessions due to licensing issues with the online provider and potential increase in cost from an alternative supplier. The Get Active programme continues to be free to staff, however, there is a cost to the University which must be considered on a regular basis to ensure best value. We do acknowledge, accept and apologise as communication should have been better and have taken all comments onboard.

You said: We just don’t know what support is available for colleagues (e.g. Get Active) and need more help to understand this.

We did: We will include a wellbeing focus in staff newsletters going forwards. We will promote services available through wellbeing awareness weeks across the year. We will hold awareness raising sessions with our EAP provider for line managers and all staff.

You said: We need to know more about what's going on at the university, what different teams do and how to collaborate with them. Lack of connection hinders wellbeing.

We did: We are considering ways in which we can raise awareness of teams and initiatives at the University through this Staff Engagement Forum and may in the future, alternate between sharing information about team updates and seeking feedback on a particular issue.

You said: We think the Wellness Action Plan could be a helpful resource and we would like to see it used more proactively/ as a preventative measure, as well as reactively/ when times are tough. PDRs, 121? Important to support the line managers too.

We did: We will refine the document in line with feedback and launch it before Christmas, asking line managers to use it through normal touch points with staff such as 121s. As well as our usual support to managers through our People and Culture Business Partners, we will support line managers through our monthly Line Manager Support Sessions, Manager Bulletins, and highlighting what EAP support managers can obtain in particular.

You said: Colleagues in new roles need more time to settle in and support to learn new skills require.

We did: We have extended the deadline to complete PDRs, knowing that managers and teams may need more time to understand team goals and for individuals to settle into new roles, before objectives can be set. We will focus our next Line Manager Support session on how to support your team, and we’ll hold an additional session in November about ways in which managers can support learning and development.

You said: Issues like lack of heating when it’s cold, and increases in cost of lunches, can influence wellbeing at work.

We did: There have been some issues with heating in A, B & C blocks in Luton due to the construction works. The heating is now coming back on in these blocks and we apologise for inconvenience. Staff are encouraged to log a helpdesk request if there are issues with heating and we will aim to resolve as soon as possible. At this time of year we actively monitor the weather forecasts and ensure the heating is turned on when required, unfortunately it does take time for our buildings to warm. Like other sectors the food industry has experienced rising inflationary costs. We work with our catering partner to manage costs and offer the best value for money deals we can for our students and staff.

You said: It can take months to get expenses paid back – this doesn’t feel very supportive.

We did: Providing expenses are submitted and authorised within the published deadline and with appropriate supporting evidence (i.e. valid receipts), staff will receive reimbursement in their next month's pay. See the published payroll deadlines

You said: The Chaplaincy/ Treehouse offer some fantastic support for wellbeing but it’s not always known about. E.g. they have a memorial room which teams can use for when they have suffered bereavement of a colleague.

We did: People and Culture will work in partnership with the Chaplaincy to raise awareness of Chaplaincy services and to collaborate on wellbeing awareness initiatives.

You said: Can we build in alternative ways for staff to be inducted into the university such as a Quiet Welcome.

We did: We are looking to improve our approach to induction for new staff this year. For example we will build a more interactive eLearning journey for all new starters on our People Development Hub, and we are exploring ways to bring new starters together in smaller groups (in addition to Welcome Day). We will consider different communication preferences through this work.

We held our fourth Staff Engagement Forum on 23 September 2025, and 98 colleagues attended. We shared information about new teams, and people who are leading those teams. We sought feedback on what had gone well with communications in the last restructure, and ideas for what might be improved.

Feedback from the session, along with actions we have taken as a result, are below.

You said: Did action get taken to address findings from last Staff Culture Survey? And there should be another one.

We did: Yes, senior leaders from all teams considered the last Staff Culture Survey and developed the Leadership Framework (which we ask all managers to apply) to address the areas we needed to improve. VCEG supports running another Staff Culture Survey and is considering when would be the right time to run it.

We did: We will continue to use the central hub through our intranet as the single source of accurate and up to date information, supported by regular communications.

We are embedding our Leadership Framework in training which we hope will be available for all managers and all staff soon. All new manager job descriptions and interviews include reference and questions about the Leadership Framework

You said: More support for staff at risk please (previously staff sometimes didn’t find out they were at risk until it was shared in a public space which felt impersonal)

We did: We recognise how important it is that colleagues hear directly and sensitively about any proposed changes. Where possible and when the scale of change allows, we commit to ensuring staff at risk are informed personally and before wider communications are shared.

You said: More support for staff who remain please. There is concern some staff are overworked, experiencing change fatigue and lack support.

We did: We will focus our next Staff Engagement Forum on support available for staff and seek views on how to make it more effective. We will communicate more about the support for staff available over November and going forwards.

You said: Going forwards, can we please have better, more regular communication about leadership decisions and opportunity to feedback. The last restructure came as a surprise to some.

We did: In addition to central communications, through newsletters and Town Hall meetings, we commit to holding the Staff Engagement Forum regularly, which will give colleagues an opportunity for dialogue with senior leaders and an opportunity to feedback. We are also increasing the opportunities for informal engagement, such as ‘Coffee Chats on Campus’ sessions with VCEG leads.

You said: Participation in networks is low because staff don’t have the time with increased workloads. Those leading networks often lack the time needed to do this well.

We did: The Head of EDI will review the role and purpose of the networks along with Network Chairs.

You said: We would like to understand the business case (for example, lack of opportunity for growth) on why roles are at risk. Please can this be made clear.

We did: We understand colleagues want clarity about the rationale behind proposed changes. This feedback has been passed to those leading the forthcoming review, who will ensure the underlying context and reasons are clearly explained in future proposals.

You said: Staff became frustrated at preparing for interviews that ultimately weren’t required. However, we suggest P&C provide ongoing training on interview techniques to help staff maintain their skills for promotions/ career progression.

We did: We will provide ongoing training on interview techniques throughout the consultation period and ensure robust career development support is in place going forwards.

You said: Lots of information but could be contradictory. Ie, the restructure is done, but here is more change. It was clear more was coming so felt disingenuous. The entirety of the restructure should have been surfaced from the start.

We did: We understand this feedback. Now that Clearing and Confirmation are coming to an end, we can see that enrolments will be lower than target, which enforces the need to review the academic staffing position.

This is a challenge affecting much of the higher education sector. We are committed to being transparent about what we know, when we know it, while ensuring decisions are based on accurate data.

You said: Some issues with letters to colleagues at risk: incorrect information, could have been worded more empathetically, some not receiving their letters until days later: creates uncertainty and worry/ anger

We did: We have reviewed our approach to producing letters and commit to a more compassionate approach in future. We will ensure quality checks and timeliness remain a priority.

You said: There was confusion about which staff remained and who had left. This made future work/ collaboration difficult.

We did: We are hoping we can regularly thank leavers publicly in our Staff Newsletter, as well as welcome new joiners. We are putting plans in place for this with the Communication Team.

You said: Lack of communications for Hourly Paid Lecturers, creates worry for them and division with other staff/ a sense of unfairness.

We did: Hourly Paid Lecturers (HPLs) are valued members of our community. They are included in all our central communications, and have the same level of access to our intranet as all our staff. We will look into any challenges within teams that may hinder communication with HPLs.

You said: Some staff who were at risk, applied for VR and were rejected, only to be told they had to interview for a post. This was very upsetting. Sometimes the reason as to why VR applications were rejected was not made clear.

We did: If a Voluntary Redundancy process is used again, we will ensure managers are involved earlier in conversations and that clearer feedback is provided about decisions and next steps.

You said: We need to embed a sense of belonging, and build connections, over the next year (across staff and students)

We did: We will continue to create opportunities that bring staff and students together, for example through cultural, wellbeing, and community events, where resources allow. A sense of belonging and shared purpose remains central to our culture.

We held our third Staff Engagement Forum on 15 July 2025, and 98 colleagues attended. We sought feedback and ideas from staff about how to support our leavers, prepare teams for when they are gone, and how to support new teams to get off to a good start.

Feedback from the session, along with actions we have taken as a result, are below.

You said: We need more communications: who is leaving and which staff have been appointed to which roles? We need to know this as soon as possible.

Action: We will share new organisation charts with names on 4 August in a message from the VC. They will be hosted on the intranet. We will signpost again in the Tuesday bulletin.

You said: It's important staff document processes they are responsible for before they leave.

We did: We held a Line Managers Support Session on 18 July focusing on line manager responsibility to support those who are leaving, and issued written communications to managers asking them to ensure they ask team members who are leaving to do a good handover note.

You said: We need to help staff to understand the changes, for example, which schools are in which faculties?

Action: We will include this information in the Tuesday bulletin and reinforce in the newsletter when it starts again in September.

You said: Can we make our wellbeing services available for staff who have left the university?

We did: Yes, we have agreed to make our Employee Assistance Programme available to all staff who are leaving the university for three months from their leaving date. We sent an email to all leavers letting them know this and how to access the service.

You said: There needs to be more and better communication at team level, to help teams understand each others’ roles and get to know each other. For example, events and team-building days.

We did: We held a Line Managers Support Session on 18 July focusing on line manager responsibility to set new teams up for success, and help team members get to know each other.

We have offered to work with VCEG Leads to support new faculties and teams to set clear goals and build a good level of rapport quickly.

You said: Can we improve university-wide communications to help us understand the changes. For example, can we consider a staff conference, and “Meet-the-team” features in newsletters.

Action: We will include ‘meet the team’ and ‘get to know’ features as regular items in the staff newsletter when it starts back in September.

You said: We need to support staff to settle into and perform well in new roles. Ideas include mentoring/ buddying and training.

Action: We will focus out next Line Manager Support Session (25 Sept) on how to help new team members settle in, and team building activities. We will include a section on mentoring and buddying, and learning and development opportunities.

You said: We need to be mindful those moving into new roles may need time to settle in, a compassionate approach is needed and managers need to consider their wellbeing.

Action: we will focus our next Line Manager Support Session (25 Sept) on how to help new team members settle in, and team building activities. We will include a section on mentoring and buddying.

We will consider development of a tool to promote conversations between line manager and team members about wellbeing, to improve managers’ ability to provide support. We propose focusing our next Staff Engagement Forum (22 Sept) on this topic.

We held our 2nd Staff Engagement Forum on 20 June 2025, and we shared findings from our second Equality Impact Analysis (EIA) for the restructure. 26 staff members attended. Following the close of the Voluntary Redundancy Scheme, and the outcomes of the consultation period, we analysed again the demographics of staff in roles at risk, to see if we were affecting some groups more than others/ disproportionately. Feedback from the session, along with actions we have taken as a result, are below.

You said: It is important to monitor whether the actions we are taking to be more inclusive and support staff are having an impact

Questions about the way in which we'd presented the data in the EIA in percentages

We did: We have agreed with VCEG that we can include numbers along with percentages for the last EIA, which are >5. We communicated this along with the revised EIA to staff in the weekly restructure update on 29 July. Read a summary of the findings [PPTX]

You said: It is important to make sure our support for staff is bespoke to their individual needs. Just because someone shares a demographic characteristic with another, it doesn't mean the support they will want is the same.

The point was raised about staff in roles where it's hard to step away and access support - do they have support from their managers to do this?

We did: We have communicated with VCEG leads to ask that they continue to consider the individual support needs of all people in their department at risk (as part of the departmental EIA) and ask their managers to do the same, so that support is tailored to individual needs. Feedback indicates this is happening.

You said: A few concerns were raised regarding data:

Some examples where data is missing

Questions about whether the data we use for the Equality Impact Assessment is accurate?

We did: We have included religion in the demographic break down in the EIA

We have communicated with staff to raise awareness that the EIA data is pulled from iTrent staff profile data, explaining if staff profiles aren’t accurate/ complete, the EIA data will not be accurate/ complete.

We have shared info on how to update staff profile on iTrent.