- These inefficiencies at the registry level reduce the pool of candidates for consideration and undermine public confidence in the recruitment process.
- Professors, as the highest rank in academia, provide a unique perspective that is crucial for assessing candidates’ scholarly contributions and understanding of academic culture.
- The PSC’s expansive workload, spanning various government departments, has overstretched its capacity, resulting in inefficiencies and questionable recruitment outcomes.
The Public Service Commission (PSC) in Kenya is entrusted with the crucial task of recruiting and placing human resources in government institutions, including the recruitment of Deputy Vice-Chancellors (DVCs) and Vice-Chancellors (VCs) for public universities.
Previously, this responsibility fell under individual university councils. However, the increasing number of public universities and government departments has significantly stretched the PSC’s capacity, exposing inefficiencies and raising questions about its ability to meet the specific needs of higher education institutions.
The challenges begin at the registry, which is the first point of contact for applications.
Despite being an ISO 9001:2015-certified entity, the PSC registry is plagued by manual processes and chronic understaffing. Interestingly, PSC still insists on hard copy applications in this era, despite having a versatile online application system.
Handling large volumes of hard copy applications has resulted in errors, such as the omission of applicants’ names from the long list—a record of all who applied for a given position. This has caused significant frustration for candidates, particularly those who receive no formal acknowledgment of their submissions.
Applicants often report submitting their applications well ahead of deadlines only to find their names missing from the long lists.
The current system is indeed much inferior to the email system used during the COVID-19 period, when long lists used to be accurate.
A few times when delivering applications in person at the registry, I encountered lack of professionalism, with casual instructions like “just leave your applications on that desk, ‘zimefika’ (they have been delivered).”
The absence of digitised tools, lack of acknowledgement slips or received book of records to sign, further exacerbates the situation, raising questions about transparency and accountability.
These inefficiencies at the registry level reduce the pool of candidates for consideration and undermine public confidence in the recruitment process.
Remain Unclear
The shortlisting stage suffers from the cascading effects of errors at the registry. Missing names on the long list mean fewer qualified candidates advance to this stage, reducing both the quality and quantity of applicants under consideration.
Additionally, the criteria for shortlisting candidates remain unclear, particularly for high-ranking university positions.
While having served as a Dean or Director is a prerequisite for DVC roles, and prior experience as a DVC is required for VC positions, there have been instances of underqualified individuals making the shortlist.
Questions have arisen about how classroom lecturers with no administrative experience or individuals with dubious credentials progress through the process.
These anomalies suggest lapses in due diligence by the PSC. The absence of thorough background checks allows candidates with questionable qualifications to bypass more deserving applicants.
To restore credibility, the PSC must enforce strict, transparent criteria and conduct comprehensive background verifications.
Improving the rigour of the shortlisting process is critical to ensuring that only the most qualified individuals advance.
The final stage—the interview panel—also faces critical weaknesses, particularly in its composition.
The panel often lacks former university leaders, such as VCs, who bring invaluable experience in managing academic institutions.
Highest Rank in Academia
Without such expertise, the panel may struggle to evaluate candidates’ strategic vision and leadership potential effectively.
Equally, the absence of professors on the panel undermines the academic rigour of the evaluations.
Professors, as the highest rank in academia, provide a unique perspective that is crucial for assessing candidates’ scholarly contributions and understanding of academic culture.
It is problematic for professors, to face panels composed entirely of individuals with lower academic qualifications or less relevant experience. This arrangement not only diminishes the credibility of the process but also affects the confidence of candidates.
To address these shortcomings, the PSC should include at least one former successful VC and a relevant professor on the panel.
A former VC would contribute valuable insights into the complexities of university management, while a professor would ensure that academic standards are upheld.
This balanced composition would result in a more comprehensive and credible assessment of candidates.
One of the most significant challenges in the PSC’s recruitment of university leadership is the lengthy timelines involved.
There have been cases where it has taken up to a year from the submission of applications to the conduct of interviews, with another year often passing before a substantive appointment is made.
These prolonged delays create uncertainty and anxiety for candidates, leaving institutions in prolonged states of limbo that negatively affect governance and operations.
Moreover, such delays open the door to potential corruption. The long wait times may encourage backdoor dealings or favouritism, eroding public trust in the PSC’s ability to conduct fair and transparent recruitment.
Capable Leadership
For leadership positions in universities, where timely decision-making is critical, the consequences of these delays are particularly severe.
To improve efficiency and maintain transparency, the PSC must streamline its recruitment timelines.
Setting clear deadlines for each stage of the process—from application review to final appointment—would reduce uncertainty for applicants and ensure that institutions receive capable leadership in a timely manner.
On another front, the PSC must improve its record reconciliation processes. Instances where the names of candidates already appointed to other positions reappearing in subsequent shortlists are highly embarrassing and unacceptable.
For candidates seeking DVC or VC positions, thorough preparation for the interview stage is crucial.
Typical questions posed by the PSC include: Can you tell us about yourself and why you think you are fit for the position you applied for?
What is your toughest management situation you had to deal with, and how did you manage it? What new things are you bringing to the position and institution if appointed?
Other questions focus on strategic planning and alignment with institutional and national goals, such as: Describe the current universities funding model and how will you leverage it to get more students? What are the agenda items of the government of the day, and how will you lead your university to push for them?
Applicants must demonstrate their leadership skills, strategic thinking, and understanding of stakeholder management.
Familiarity with budgeting processes, performance management, and governance structures is essential.
Candidates should also align their vision for the university with national development priorities, such as Kenya Vision 2030 and the SDGs.
By anticipating these areas of inquiry, applicants can position themselves as well-rounded leaders ready to address the challenges facing Kenya’s higher education sector.
Given the challenges faced by the PSC in recruiting university leadership, as a University education expert, I vouch for reverting this responsibility to individual university councils.
Effective, Transparent System
University councils are better positioned to address the specific needs of their institutions, timely appointment and ensure that candidates possess the requisite skills and vision to tackle unique challenges.
The PSC’s expansive workload, spanning various government departments, has overstretched its capacity, resulting in inefficiencies and questionable recruitment outcomes.
Returning this critical role to university councils would allow for a more focused and effective recruitment process.
At the same time, urgent reforms within the PSC are necessary to address the inefficiencies that undermine its recruitment systems.
From the manual and understaffed registry to the lack of transparency in shortlisting and the composition of interview panels, every stage of the process requires comprehensive improvement.
Strengthening these areas is crucial not only to restore public confidence but also to ensure that Kenya’s public universities are led by capable and visionary leaders.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Accountability in Academia: Roles of Internal Governance in Tackling Fraud, Scandals in Universities
Encouragingly, the government is in the process of vetting new PSC commissioners. This presents an opportunity for far-reaching reforms that could enhance the Commission’s efficiency and credibility.
However, lasting solutions require a dual approach: implementing internal reforms within the PSC while re-evaluating its role in university leadership recruitment.
By balancing these measures, Kenya can build a more effective and transparent system that aligns with the evolving needs of its higher education landscape.
