Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

TTS as a recipe to enhance the performance of academic staff in public sector universities of Pakistan

  • Published:
Journal of Management and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study reviews the tenure track system (TTS) as a performance management system in Pakistan’s higher education sector. It aims to understand the factors that contributed to the success or failure of the system by considering structural, cultural, political, and institutional aspects of performance management. The researchers adopted a multiple case study approach involving five public universities in Pakistan. The data was collected through 70 semi-structured interviews, including face-to-face individual and focus group interviews and document analysis. The study moved away from traditional approaches that focus solely on rational instrumental analysis of performance data, instead considering contextual, institutional, and cultural factors influencing the behaviors of individuals involved in the performance management process. The study’s findings reveal several challenges and issues in implementing TTS. There is a need for more congruence between the disciplinary and contextual realities within organizations regarding difficulties in aligning the TTS model with the specific needs and characteristics of different disciplines and universities. Political tensions and power struggles are rampant, undermining the effectiveness of the performance management system and hindering its ability to achieve its intended objectives. A one-size-fits-all approach to performance management systems may be unsuitable for different universities due to the difference in professional discipline requirements and the underlying political and contextual logic. Recommendations are provided to improve the implementation of performance management systems in the higher education sector. Overall, the study shed light on the complexity and nuances involved in implementing performance management systems in Pakistan’s higher education sector and highlighted the need for a more contextualized and adaptive approach to ensure the effectiveness of such reforms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.leru.org/files/Tenure-and-Tenure-Track-at-LERU-Universities-Full-paper.pdf

References

  • Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, N. E., & Harzing, A. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.37012181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argento, D., & Van Helden, J. (2022). Are public sector accounting researchers going through an identity shift due to the increasing importance of journal rankings? Critical Perspectives on Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2022.102537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, M., Batterham, R., Braithwaite, V., Graham, R., McCalman, I., Peacock, J., & Watts, B. (2004). Measuring excellence in research and research training: Proceedings of a conference held at the Shine Dome, Canberra, on June 22 2004. Dept of Education, Science and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley, P. (2006). Research dissemination in creative arts, humanities and the social sciences. Higher Education Research and Development, 25(3), 215–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley, P. (2010). Conceptualising research performance. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 889–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903348404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beime, K., Englund, H., Gerdin, J., & Seger, K. (2023). Theorizing the subjectivizing powers of market-based technologies: Looking beyond coercion and seduction. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogt, H. J., & Scapens, R. W. (2012). Performance management in universities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems. European Accounting Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2012.668323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and job performance. European Journal of Personality (Print), 17(1_suppl), S5–S18. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.481

  • Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. M. (2006). Faculty publishing productivity: Comparisons over time. College & Research Libraries, 67, 230–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadez, S., Dimovski, V., & Groff, M. (2015). Research, teaching and performance evaluation in academia: The salience of quality. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1455–1473. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1104659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, T. (2014). Access to finance’ and the death of development in the Asia-Pacific. Journal of Contemporary Asia. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2014.907927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. (2011). Higher Japanese University reform—hybridity in governance and management. Higher Education Policy, 24, 127–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2001). New public management: The transformation of ideas and practice. Ashgate eBooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Røvik, K. A. (2020). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture and myth (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367855772

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T., Laegried, P., Roness, G. P., & Rovik, A. K. (2007). An instrumental perspective: Organization theory and the public sector (20–36). Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. R. (2004). Delineating the character of the entrepreneurial university. Higher Education Policy, 17(4), 355–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coke, P. K., Benson, S., & Hayes, M. (2014). Making meaning of experience. Journal of Transformative Education, 13(2), 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344614562216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crainer, S., & Dearlove, D. (1999). Gravy training: Inside the business of business schools. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creamer, E. G. (1998). Assessing faculty publication productivity: Issues of equity (Vol. 26). ERIC Digest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design. Choosing among five different approaches. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, H. F., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00632.x

  • Dimaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egeberg, M., & Trondal, J. (2018). An organizational approach to public governance: Understanding and design. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engwall, L. (2007). Universities, the state, and the market: Changing patterns of university governance in Sweden and beyond. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(3), 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, L. (2015). A changing role for university professors? Professorial academic leadership as it is perceived by the led. British Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 666–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. S. (2002). The mythologies of faculty productivity: Implications for institutional policy and decision making. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gornitzka, Å., Maassen, P., Olsen, J. P., & Stensaker, B. (2007). Europe of knowledge’: Search for a new pact. In P. Maassen & J. P. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 181–214). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gulick, L. H. (1987). Notes on the theory of organization. In L. H. Gulick & L. F. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration. Institute of Public Administration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardré, P., & Cox, M. (2009). Evaluating faculty work: Expectations and standards of faculty performance in research universities. Research Papers in Education, 24(4), 383–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520802348590

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2009). Rankings and the battle for world-class excellence: institutional strategies and policy choices. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (2009). Foreword. In J. Huisman (Ed.), International perspectives of the governance of higher education, alternative frameworks for coordination. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallio, K. M., Kallio, T., Tienari, J., & Hyvönen, T. (2016). Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities. Human Relations, 69(3), 685–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karakhanyan, S. Y., Veen, K. V., & Bergen, C. M. (2012). What do leaders think? Reflections on the implementation of higher education reforms in Armenia. Educational Management Administration & Leadership., 40(6), 752–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143212456914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, T. A., & Nasira, J. (2011). Tenure-track system in higher education institutions of Pakistan: Prospects and challenges. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(9), 605–621.

  • King, R. (2009). Governing universities globally: Organizations. Regulation and rankings. Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maassen, P., Moen, E., & Stensaker, B. (2011). Reforming higher education in the Netherlands and Norway: The role of the state and national modes of governance. Policy Studies, 32, 479–495.

  • Macfarlane, B. (2005). The disengaged academic: The retreat from citizenship. Higher Education Quarterly, 59(4), 296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manes-Rossi, F., Mussari, R., & Cepiku, D. (2022). Introduction to the special issue: “Performance measurement systems in universities: Threats or opportunities for governance?” Journal of Management and Governance, 26(2), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09638-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McNay, I. (2003). Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the U.K. research assessment exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to research in education. Science and Public Policy, 30(1), 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M. S., & Schapiro, M. O. (1999). Tenure issues in higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merlo, A. V. (2016). The pre-tenure years: Survive, succeed, and thrive. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 27(2), 175–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2015.1128704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1936). ‘The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904.

  • Meyer, J. S., & Rowan, B. G. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (2004). Work intensification and emotional labour among U.K. university lecturers: An exploratory study. Organization Studies, 25(7), 1185–1203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. P. (1988). Administrative reform and theories of organization. In C. Campbell & B. G. Peters (Eds.), Organizing governance and governing organizations. University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1980). Job choice: The impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on subsequent satisfaction and commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(5), 559–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.5.559

  • O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. A. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492

  • Park, S., Sine, W. D., & Tolbert, P. S. (2011). Professions, organizations, and institutions. Work and Occupations, 38(3), 340–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888411412725

  • Parker, M., & Jary, D. (1995). The McUniversity: organization, management and academic subjectivity. Organization, 2(2), 319–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2016). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietilä, M. (2015). Tenure track career system as a strategic instrument for academic leaders. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(4), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1046466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pietilä, M. (2017). Incentivizing academics: Experiences and expectations of the tenure track in Finland. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1405250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilonato, S., & Monfardini, P. (2022). Managerial reforms, institutional complexity and individuals: An empirical analysis of higher education. Journal of Management and Governance, 26(2), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-021-09621-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramassa, P., Avallone, F., & Quagli, A. (2023). Can “publishing game” pressures affect the research topic choice? Journal of Management and Governance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-023-09667-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reilley, J., & Löhlein, L. (2023). Theorizing (and) the future of interdisciplinary accounting research. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 93, 102578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2023.102578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice, R. E., & Sorcinelli, M. D. (2002). Can the tenure process be improved? In R. P. Chait (Ed.), The questions of tenure (pp. 101–124). Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(10), 2089–2113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02065.x

  • Rowlands, J. (2012). Accountability, quality assurance and performativity: The changing role of the academic board. Quality in Higher Education, 18, 97–110.

  • Samaratunge, R., Alam, Q., & Teicher, J. (2008). The new public management reforms in Asia: A comparison of South and Southeast Asian countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852307085732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, H. M. (2006). Promotion & tenure & the scholarship of teaching & learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(2), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3200/chng.38.2.38-43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioural model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. (2004). Changing research practices in the digital information and communication environment. Measuring excellence in research and research, training, National Academies Forum, June 22 (pp. 61–71). The Academy of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C., Butler, L., & Kingsley, D. (2006). The publishing imperative: The pervasive influence of publication metrics. Learned Publishing, 19, 277–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Striver, J. (2006). I will bring the salad. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52, C3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sultana, R. G. (2012). Higher education governance: A critical mapping of key themes and issues. European Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 345–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2012.719672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tandilashvili, N., & Tandilashvili, A. (2022). Academics’ perception of identity (re)construction: A value conflict created by performance orientation. Journal of Management and Governance, 26(2), 389–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-022-09627-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tann, J. (1995). Managing transformations in university departments. In M. Slowey (Ed.), Implementing change from within: Universities and colleges (pp. 44–55). Kogan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, F. W. (1998). The principles of scientific management. Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilak, J. B. G. (2015). How inclusive is higher education in India? Social Change, 45(2), 185–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049085715574178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanner, R. A., Lewis, L. S., & Gregorio, D. I. (1981). Research productivity in academia: A comparative study of the sciences, social sciences and humanities. Sociology of Education, 54(4), 238–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelvys, R. (2004). Development of education policy in Lithuania during the years of transformations. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(5), 559–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.002303

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Administrative Sciences, University of the Punjab, Punjab, Pakistan

    Tayyeb Ali Khan & Nasira Jabeen

Authors
  1. Tayyeb Ali Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nasira Jabeen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tayyeb Ali Khan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table 1.

Table 1 Theortical perspectives
Full size table

Appendix B

See Tables 2, 3 and 4.

Table 2 Profile of participants according to their official ranks
Full size table
Table 3 No. of participants in each case
Full size table
Table 4 Profile of participants according to their faculties
Full size table

Appendix C

3.1 Documents

  • Official Correspondence of Consultant Quality Assurance to All Vice Chancellors/Rectors Public University

  • Model tenure track statutes, version 2, January 1, 2008.

  • Report about Tenure track funds released to Universities from 2005 to 2014.

  • Minutes of the meeting held to discuss issues and challenges in the adoption/implementation of the tenure track system on July 15, 2019.

  • University of New Mexico, Faculty Handbook, February 16, 2017. Section B: Policy on Academic Freedom and Tenure

  • Higher education medium-term development framework -11 (MTDF II), 2011–15 issued by Higher education commission, Pakistan

  • Higher Education in Developing Countries, Peril and Promise, 2000, World Bank

  • Recurring Grant Released to Universities/Institutes/Centers from 2002 to 2016 issued by the Higher education commission.

  • Report on Quality Assurance and Accreditation Organization, Mechanisms and Practice, July 2016, Consultant, Prof. Dr. Riaz Hussain Qureshi, Higher education commission, Islamabad.

  • Tertiary Education Support Program.

  • Taskforce on the improvement of higher education in Pakistan, 2002, by Taskforce

  • Tenure track faculty Strength, April 2016, issued by HEC, Pakistan

  • Statistics about the number of TTS faculty members in all public universities, TTS faculty discipline-wise, the number of TTS faculty according to titles, and the number of TTS faculty according to gender.

3.2 Compensation on TTS

The maximum salary of a professor on TTS is Rs. 684,450/-, an Associate professor is Rs. 493,590/-, and for Assistant Professor, it is 356,475. They will also get one month’s salary as a gratuity yearly; however, they do not have a pension benefit. A gap of 35% would be maintained between the salaries of BPS and TTS. 15% of TTS faculty members would be eligible for a 100% increase if they have an ‘h index of 25’ and 5000 citations. The revisions to the TTS salary package will remain under Rs.3.5 billion per annum.

Appendix D

4.1 Procedures for focus group discussion

  • Focus group discussion questions were sent to collaborators through email

  • Time and place were decided as per the convenience of the participants.

  • A collaborator sends the names of the participants, their academic titles and their department. One collaborator did not share the names and departments of the participants.

  • Researchers reached out on location before the time for the focus group discussion. Participants were seated around an oval-shaped table. The recorders were positioned at a place where the voices of all participants could be recorded. The voice recorder was checked for voice audibility at the location.

  • The purpose of the research was to brief the audience.

  • The first round was the introduction of participants.

  • Subsequent rounds consisted of research questions.

  • Anyone can start answering discussions. Researchers probed the participants, who were not participating in the discussion. During the focus group, some participants engaged in discussions with each other. This discussion encouraged us to have a better understanding of the phenomenon. Field notes were noted down during discussions.

  • Participants were facilitated to share their experiences with reforms.

  • The average time of the focus group discussion was 90 min. The number of participants varies from three to seven.

  • The focus group discussion ended with a note of thanks. Participants were given time to share their experiences of the focus group.

4.2 Procedures for interview

The important challenge of the interview was to gain access to case study sites. Initially, some leaders of the university were not comfortable with the topic of research. TTS has become a topic of debate among faculty on some case study sites. There was written correspondence with the Head of the Institution before conducting field studies. The letters were posted through the mail, and the same letter was sent to official email addresses.

There have been numerous follow-up calls and emails to leaders of public universities. Once the researcher got a positive reply, he contacted the focal person of the case study site to arrange the interviews. After getting permission from the head of the institution, prospective respondents were contacted through emails, telephone, and personal visits to their workplace. Interview time and focus group discussion time were scheduled at the convenience of the respondents. Focus group discussion topics were sent to collaborators. Focus group participants were recruited through the Vice Chancellor’s Office. The researcher communicated the criteria of the participants to the Vice Chancellor's Office. There might be an influence of the Vice Chancellor on the selection of participants. These participants met the criteria for the research study.

For the Skype interview, the request was forwarded to the Director and IT of the university for the arrangement of the interview in the video conferencing room. There were numerous emails shared with the respondent before finalizing the date of the interview. Internet connection and video quality were checked before conducting the interview. This Skype interview video was recorded through special software for recording Skype interviews. This interview was also tape-recorded. Video quality and voice were tested twice before starting the interview. The video recording was interpreted during the interview. This was urgently addressed by the support person in the video conferencing room of the university. The duration of the interview was one hour and ten minutes. There was one telephonic interview. The duration of the interview was 35 min. The interview was recorded through a recorder. There were some interruptions due to noise in the line.

Each one-on-one interview was preceded by 4–5 min of rapport building. When participants were comfortable, interview questions were asked. Some supplementary questions, which arose during discussions, were asked to enhance understanding of the phenomenon. Participants were informed that the interview activity took about 30–40 min. Most of the interviews went overboard due to the keen interest of the participants. The interviews ended with a note of thanks. Field notes and observations were noted during and after the interview. This was noted on the side of the interview protocol. Observations about the location and interviewee were noted during the interview. Field notes described artefacts of the location of the interview. Researchers maintain field journals and personal journals. Field journal entries consist of memos written about different areas of the research project. Field notes and observations were recorded in the field journal. Personal journals were maintained to document the thoughts and feelings of the researchers. The personal journal depicted the path of personal development of the researcher.

4.3 Data analysis

There were a series of steps involved in data analysis. This starts with moving raw data to code and then to themes at a larger level. Coding involves reviewing the text, bracketing a segment, and assigning a code label. Then the code is aggregated into themes. Rich descriptions of themes followed by rich interpretations. This formed answers to research questions. The transcribed text was coded in Word and then transferred to Excel. This text was organized according to emerging themes from research questions in Excel. The data was sorted in Excel and transferred back to Word. Then the text was organized under the main theme and sub-themes. All quotes of the same theme were put together in words. Significant statements were kept and the rest of them were deleted. This was also called the winnowing of data. This method includes the following steps:

  1. 1.

    Collect the data.

  2. 2.

    Transcribe the audio files.

  3. 3.

    Code in word

  4. 4.

    Transfer quoted statements along with code in Excel.

  5. 5.

    Identify similar themes among cases

  6. 6.

    Identify unique themes among cases

  7. 7.

    Sort the data according to the themes.

  8. 8.

    Transfer significant statements and themes to Word

  9. 9.

    Analyze the data

  10. 10.

    Describe themes with quotes

  11. 11.

    Add a thick interpretation of themes

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khan, T.A., Jabeen, N. TTS as a recipe to enhance the performance of academic staff in public sector universities of Pakistan. J Manag Gov (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-024-09701-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-024-09701-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation