Best University Workplace 2016 survey open

Tell us what you love (or loathe) about your institution

August 19, 2015
Best University Workplace logo

Take part in the Times Higher Education Best University Workplace Survey 2016

What’s the best thing about working at your university? How do your colleagues and managers make you feel valued? In what areas do you need more support?

These are among the questions we will be asking in the third annual Times Higher Education Best University Workplace survey, which is online now.

In the 2016 survey, we want to find out which UK universities excel when it comes to keeping employees content – from pay levels to recognition of the extra hours staff put in. We also want to know how the experience of working in a university differs according to role, discipline, level of seniority, age, gender, terms of contract and other variables.

The independent online survey was developed after consultation with Rob Briner and Yiannis Gabriel, professors at the University of Bath School of Management, as well as professional bodies and trade unions, and is open to all university-employed academics and administrators.

Take part in the 2016 survey.

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (2)

At my former employer, I suppose what the most dangerous practice was that the Head of the School was there until he/she left (often for promotion). This meant that the selected few continued to receive favourable treatment for the rest of their careers as well. I suppose that this also encouraged "empire building". It is far better for Heads of Department to have limited tenure in the post. There were two ways to tell how the Head of the Department was lying: The first way was there was a slight flinch in his left eye that lasted a fraction of a second. However, this was only accurate 50% of the time. The second way to know how they were lying was when he opened his mouth. This, invariably, was the more accurate method.
There seems to be a rivalry between the humanities' and the scientists' departments of the subject of macroeconomics. The humanities have a sort of double-think here and would like their subject to become more scientific, and the scientists would certainly welcome this new baby to their ranks. However at the same time, the humanities are not honestly trying to make this transition. They make no effort to develop macroeconomics into a science, and are they clearly more satisfied to continue to control the biased amount of knowledge (however out of date) that filters down to their students, to the point where the students see a need for a revolution and a new syllabus. Recently a new start has been made at explaining of what our social consists and about how it works in my new book "Consequential Macroeconomics" (write to me at for a reviewer's e-copy) which applies systems engineering to the national organization of society. This is important because it at last turns macroeconomics into a true science instead of the pseudo version that is current. I would (joyfully) like to share this knowledge and I suggest that my working paper about using a mechanical device to teach the basics of macroeconomics would be a good introduction for those who initially lack intensive thinking skills (see SSRN paper id 2600103).