gender differential paper IJCRB

ijcrb.webs.com
JUNE 2011
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 2
Seeking accreditation from other agencies other than CEO elicited a variety of opinions. Those
advocating accreditation from other bodies spoke of JCC’s growth and improvement in all fields.
The institution was becoming more organized and efficient in terms of output and delivery.
Accreditation from other organizations would only strengthen the institution further. More value
would be added to courses e.g. CISCO, Microsoft ABET, etc. Other respondents felt there was
more need for program accreditation rather than institutional accreditation. Program
accreditation would perhaps be more beneficial to students. One participant proposed that since
accreditation focuses on the same issues, the internal Accrediting Agency within Saudi Arabia
(NCAAA) should be sufficient for national purposes.
Institutions needed to be more circumspect in deciding whether to pursue accreditation or not.
The issue was whether accreditation should be a means to an end or an end in itself. As one
responded aptly put it: “Accreditation has become a fashion (or we can say a virus) and all
institutions are copying each other regardless (of) the real need for accreditation.”
Item 8: Were you satisfied with the procedure used to define your role in the accreditation
process?
The procedure adopted by senior management was to list the names of all standards on the
whiteboard and faculty were asked to indicate their choice. The chairpersons of standards were
appointed by management. One person who was dissatisfied with the procedure for assigning
roles stated that he had no choice but to complete the tasks given to him. He felt that the process
was “rushed” and was unhappy with the administration work involved, e.g., filling in application
forms. Another commented that the choice of people for specific roles was based on
management’s perception of people’s abilities. Some members of faculty were not sure about
their exact roles in the process at the time of choosing standards. It was felt that a brainstorming
workshop at this time might have helped to provide more information and clarity. Almost half
the number of participant feedback suggested that choices were made on the basis of insufficient
information or guidelines. Even one respondent who was satisfied with role allocation conceded
that the procedure should have been more systematic.
Item 9: Were you satisfied with the level of teamwork within the entire process?
Although there were different levels of involvement amongst staff, there was general satisfaction
with the level of teamwork during the entire process. Standards shared key information with
other standards e.g., budgets, contracts, structural layout plans, etc. At this point a distinction
between teamwork within and between standards needs to be made. While the latter seems to
have been good the former was fraught with problems. A major complaint was that the workload
was not evenly distributed. In one case, the teamwork in a 4- member standard involved just the
chairperson and one member. The other 2 incumbents were not active at all, prompting the rather
cryptic remark in the questionnaire: “(In terms of teamwork in my standard, it would have been
more appropriate to say we had) pair-work rather than teamwork.” Management was informed
about this imbalance in workload but no action was taken. Other comments on intra-standard
teamwork referred to standards with more members. The teamwork in these larger standards
could have been better. A final observation regarding teamwork was that the process shouldn’t
have been so “rushed”. The frenetic pace could have had a negative impact on teamwork.
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 691