## I. INTRODUCTION ### a) Background of the Study In every year, employees of an organization enthusiastically wait for rewards of their efforts and achievements during the previous year(s) which would be evaluated and appreciated. Incentives such as rise in salary, employee benefits etcetera given to employees, give them a tremendous sense of satisfaction. But the most important motivating factor, which rejuvenate an employee with more enthusiasm and responsibility is "Promotion." (Employee Promotion; the ladder of motivation, published on $19^{\text{th}}$ May 2011). Fairweather, (2005) and Young, (2006) stated that promotion is the most important incentive used to motivate academic staff of universities. Also, Heathfield (2016), talked about Promotion as the progression of an employee from one job position to another of a higher service range, with a higher-level job title, with higher-level job responsibility in an organization. The economists - Baker et al (1988) stated that promotion system served two main purposes. First, it selects able people for higher positions of greater responsibilities and secondly, it motivates employees of lower level to strive harder to reach a higher level (Lazear 1981). According to an article shared by Chad (2016), there are three types of promotion namely Horizontal, vertical, and dry promotion. Horizontal promotion is lateral promotion. This is because the individuals remain in the same position, but their pay, rewards and benefits increase (Mathur, 2010). Dry promotion occurs when the statuses of individuals increases but not their salaries (Chad 2016). Vertical promotion is where employee advance from one rank to a higher rank with increase in responsibilities and salary. Promotions in organizations is common but since our project focuses on academic institutions, we will limit ourselves to promotions in academic institutions, especially universities. A study conducted on Promotion system on Malaysian Universities by Azman et al (2016). Malaysian Universities rank system is of four career standings thus from lecturer to Senior Lecturer, Senior Lecturer to Associate Professor and from Associate Professor to a Full Professor. The findings of the study revealed six common criteria Malaysian public universities uses for academic promotion: Research and Publication, Teaching and Supervision, Academic Leadership, Consultancy, Conference Participation, and Service to University and Community. The promotion process in Malaysian public Universities starts with applicants submitting their curricula vitae. Their applications were reviewed by a faculty or university promotion committee and after that, the Curriculum Vita's of each of the shortlisted candidates were assessed by external assessors. The candidates are interviewed by a university committee headed by the dean. The University committee will make decision on whether the candidate is qualified for promotion based on the report form of the external assessor and the interview performance report (Omar et al, 2015). Also, another study was conducted on promotion in South African university called University of KwaZulu-Natal. This study was conducted by Vithal et al. (2013) and the study revealed that the academic ranks start from Lecturer to Full Professor. University of KwaZulu-Natal's academic promotion policy was that promotion applicants should be evaluated in areas of Teaching, Scholarship and Research, Community Service and Development, and University Service. Furthermore, for one to be promoted to a professor, the person must be excellent in two of the areas mentioned above. The study showed that teaching activities do not receive same recognition as research - related activities (Young 2006). The process for which application for promotion in the year is conducted starts with either the Department or at the Faculty Academic Promotion Committee who are responsible for such promotions evaluate each candidate's application based on the relevant criteria and passes a recommendation to the College academic promotions committee. Teaching portfolios submitted by candidates are being assessed by the faculty teaching portfolio assessment committee together with the sub-committee of faculty promotion committee and a member from the Quality Promotion and Assurance Department. After all these assessments, the college academic promotion committee makes the final decision on academic promotion and records the evaluation outcome of both approved and unapproved applications of the candidates, and these are recorded by the Senior academic promotion committee. The University of Science and Technology succeeded Kumasi College of Technology which was established by a government ordinance on $6^{\text{th}}$ October 1951. It was officially opened on 22 January 1952. The Kumasi College of Technology was transformed into Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) under an Act of Parliament on $22^{\text{nd}}$ August 1961. The school is in Kumasi in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. It has six Traditional Halls for residence. They are Unity, University, Independence, Republic, Africa, and Queen Elizabeth II. The Vision of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology is "Advancing knowledge in Science and Technology for sustainable development in Africa." The vision entails providing an enabling environment for scientific and technological teaching, research and entrepreneurship training for industrial and socio-economic development of Ghana, Africa, and other nations. Some of their core values include Leadership in innovation and Technology, culture of excellence, diversity and equal opportunity for all and Integrity and stewardship of resources (University's website). Kumasi Technical University (formerly called Kumasi Polytechnic) is in the heart of the Garden city of West Africa, in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. Kumasi Technical Institute was established in 1954, but became polytechnic on $30^{\text{th}}$ August 1963 and in 2016, it became a Technical University. The vision of Kumasi Technical University is to be a Centre of Excellence for tertiary level training of technical and professional human resources with entrepreneurial skills. It has the mission of providing a serene environment to for teaching, research, skills acquisition and entrepreneurship training in science, technology, applied arts and social sciences for industrial and community development. This was done to attract students and scholars from local and international communities and to provide consultancy services. Some of the core values are Leadership by example, good stewardship, pacesetting, integrity, and institutional patriotism (University's website). Based on our research on other universities, we found that most of the universities have academic ranks. According to the Azman et al. (2016) study, the academic ranks of Malaysian Public universities start from Lecturer and ends at full professor. We also found that, for university staff to get promoted, they must meet certain criteria. Examples of such criteria have been illustrated in the same study, and it revealed six criteria for promotion i.e., Research and Publication, Teaching and Supervision, Academic Leadership, Consultancy, Conference Participation, and Service to University, and the University Community. Universities do not just promote staff; they have processes that their staff follow to get promotion. The Azman et al. (2016) study showed that staff of Malaysian Public universities apply for promotion, they are being interviewed, they are assessed by external assessors and based on the report from the external assessor and interview reports, the right staff get promoted. Many studies have been conducted on promotion systems, but none of them have made comparison of promotion systems between two institutions. Therefore, the reason for this study is to take two institutions of higher learning and make comparisons between their promotion systems to know whether there are differences or similarities between these two institutions. ### b) Statement of the Problem A study was conducted in 2003 by the Scottish Council for Research in education showed that, procedures for promotion in institutes of higher learning are "shrouded in secrecy" and lack of transparency but the "benefit of transparency" depends on who is talking" (p.2). Another study was conducted by Azman et al (2016) and National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN, 2010) on Academic promotion in Malaysian public universities. This study was focused on the critical issues and challenges faced by Malaysian Public universities during promotion of academic staff. A further study conducted by Omstein et al (2013) on Promotion at Canadian Universities, The Intersection of Gender, Discipline, and Institutions. The study revealed that, male and female gain promotion to associated professor the same time but men get promoted to full professor one year faster than women. Furthermore, Oforiwaa and Broni (2013) carried out similar study in Ghana on Gender and Promotion at the Workplace. This study was conducted at the University of Education, Winneba and the result revealed that, same promotion criteria used for both male and female senior members, but the female faces more challenges when it comes to promotion. A study was conducted in University of KwaZulu-Natal by Vithal et al (2013), titled Valuing Teaching in University Academic Promotions and the study revealed that men are more likely to apply for higher ranks than women because of family responsibilities and gender discrimination. It also revealed that applying for a position of lower rank was more successful than applying for a senior rank position. Many studies have been conducted as far as Promotion system in universities is concerned, some of the studies conducted so far touch on the issues and challenges in academic promotion and Gender discrimination in promoting academic staff but none of them have done a comparative study of two universities. Despite previous studies, our study is still important since it focuses on comparative studies of two traditional universities and polytechnics which are now technical universities. ### c) Objectives of the Study ## i. General Objective To compare and analyze the requirements for promotion in the traditional universities, using Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) and Kumasi Technical University (KTU) as comparative cases. ## ii. Specific Objectives The specific objectives of this study are as follows: a. To determine the requirements for the promotion of academic and non-academic staff to the various ranks in the comparative cases. b. To determine whether there are differences in the qualification requirements for promotion of academic and non-academic staff in the comparative cases. c. To assess the challenges confronting academic and non-academic staff in meeting the promotion requirements in the comparative cases. d. To determine the effects of the promotion requirements on career progression of both academic and non-academic staff of the comparative cases. ### d) Research Questions a. What is the promotional requirement for academic and non-academic staff in comparative cases? b. What are the differences in the qualification requirement for promotion of academic and non-academic staff in the comparative cases? c. What are the challenges confronting academic and non-academic staff in meeting the promotion requirement in the comparative cases? d. What are the effects of the promotion requirements on career progression of both academic and non-academic staff of the comparative study? ### e) Significance of the Study This study is important in the sense that it will create awareness to the public on how promotion requirements affect their career progression of both academic and non-academic staff in traditional universities. Every prospective employee wants to move forward in terms of their career when they are employed, and this study will help them know what is required of them to get promoted and encourage them to advance themselves to meet the promotion requirement in institutions of higher learning. Another significance of the study is to point out the difference between qualification requirements for the promotion of both academic and non-academic staff in the two traditional universities. This study will also help outsiders who would like to work in such institutions know what is required of both parties thus, the academic and non-academic to gain promotion so should in case they get employed there, they will know what to do to get promoted. Also, the findings of this study will show the challenges both academic and non-academic staff go through in meeting the promotion requirement in the two institutions. The study will help prospective staff know the challenges the staff faces to meet promotional requirements in these two traditional universities. Finally, this study will serve as springboard material for researchers who want to conduct further research on promotion systems, especially in institutions of higher learning since many studies have not been conducted in that area. ### f) Scope of the Study This study is focused on two traditional Universities in Ghana; Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) and Kumasi Technical University (KTU) and both are geographically located in the Kumasi Metropolis in Ashanti Region of Ghana. In these two traditional universities, our target group is the academic staff (Lecturers) and non-academic staff (non-lecturers) and within the non-academic staff, we have targeted the Registrars, and the administrative staff. This study is engrossed in finding promotional requirements in these two universities. In recent years, these Technical Universities used to be called polytechnics and our study is to find out if there have been changes in their promotion requirement since they are called technical universities now as compared to the old traditional Universities. The study also seeks to find out the challenges the staff faces in meeting the promotional requirements and the perception these staff have on the current promotional requirement in the two traditional universities. ## II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK This section presents the literature review and conceptual framework on the study. It focused on defining promotion and underlying theories, definition of motivation and theories, career development and its dimensions or elements and definition of performance. The study also highlights the promotion requirements in higher learning institutions, the challenges relating to these promotion processes and effects of promotion requirements on career progression. ### a) Review of Relevant Concepts ## i. Promotion "Promotion is the progression of a worker in the ladder of an organization from position of lower level to a position of higher level at the workplace with greater responsibilities, better salary, higher status and better working condition at the workplace" (Gupta; 2011, Heathfield; 2016, Chad; 2016). According to Mathur (2010), promotion is not always about increase in ranks or status but one is seen to be promoted when there is increase in their job responsibilities, increase in their tasks, work with core management and increase in the field of work without them moving from their current rank to a higher rank. The promotion of faculty members of universities is a major mechanism in improving and maintaining the quality and efficiency of higher education and research activities in a country (Gilavand, 2016). We talk of Promotion as the most vital incentive employed by universities to motivate academic staff (Diamond, 1999; Fairweather, 2005; Young, 2006). Among the various approaches that organizations use to motivate their employees is promotion. This is the practice of placing employees from lower grades in the organization into higher grades with subsequent increase in salary on one hand and responsibilities on the other (Peters, 2014). Chruden and Sherman (1980) view promotion as the means to ensure effective utilization of skills and abilities those employees have been able to develop. Promotion can be viewed as a reward for what an employee has contributed to the organization. Owing to the merit an employee has to the organization; promotion might be a necessity to retain that employee. ## ii. Motivation Motivation is the force within individuals that arouses, directs, and sustains behaviour towards a goal (Bagraim; 2003, Greenberg; 1996; Kinicki; 2004). The Society for Human Resource Management (2010) defined motivation as generally the psychological forces that direct a person's level of effort, as well as a person's persistence in the face of obstacles. Badu (2005) defined Motivation as a human psychological characteristic that adds to an individual's degree of commitment. Maurer (2001) stated that rewards and recognition are key factors in developing employee job satisfaction and work motivation is sincerely correlated to organizational achievement (June et al; 2006). Motivation is a planned managerial process which kindles employees to work to the best of their competences, by providing them with motives which are based on their unsatisfied needs (Chad, 2016). "To be motivated is to be moved into action or to decide on a change" (Schopenhauer, 2003). Human resources are essential to the prosperity, productivity, and performance of companies. Chavakkad (2010) asserted that motivation forms the core of management. Employee motivation is one of the tools and strategies employed by managers to increase effectual job management among employees in organizations (Shadare et al., 2009). According to the expectancy-valence theory of motivation (Vroom, 1964), people are motivated to put forth effort if they expect that the effort will lead to good performance, and that the effort will be instrumental in attaining valued outcomes (Katzell and Thompson, 1990). Expectancy-valence theory applied to work settings suggests that employees put forth more effort in performing their job tasks if they believe that the satisfactory performance will result in both intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. We have a lot of motivational theories that influence organizations in managing employees to maintain a motivated workforce. These theories have explained in one way, or the other, the reasons for the behaviour of people at workplace and the application of these theories on employees brought out the best in them enhancing commitment to work. However, because of the complex nature of the issues arising in motivating people, it has never been an easy task for organizations to motivate workers for effective performance. In support of this argument, Vroom and Deci (1970) stated that what motivates workers to perform effectively is not an easy one to answer. Certainly, a motive is something that triggers a person to act the way he did, being the reason for his/her behaviour. Whereas motivation is the force within an individual that accounts for the level, direction and persistence of effort expended at work (Schermerhomet al; 1985). Motivation is not the same for top management and employees, as different factors influence different levels of employees and that rewards influences motivation to enhance productivity (Mills and Walton, 1984). ## iii. Performance Aguinis (2009) states that, performance is about behaviour of employees and not the results of their work. Also, Campbell (1990) defined performance as Behaviour. Baldrige Criteria (Business performance improvement resource, 2007), states that performance refers to output results which outcomes obtained from processes, products, and services causes evaluation and comparison relative to goals, and standards set, past results of employees, in comparison with other organizations. Performance is expressed in financial and non-financial terms. Performance Appraisal is a systematic and periodic process that measures the productivity and performance of employees based on the objectives of the organization and certain established criteria (Muchinsky 2012, Flippo 1984). "Performance Appraisal is the formalized means of evaluating employee performance in comparison to certain recognized organizational standards" (Riggio 2008: p 125). Performance appraisal is an integral part of performance management" (Aguinis, 2011: p3). Performance Management is said to be a continuous process of recognizing, rating, and developing the performance of individual workers in teams and allying performance with strategic goals of the organization (Aguinis, 2007). Armstrong (2006) opined that Performance Management is a systematic process for improving organizational performance of individuals and teams. According to Prasad (2010), Promotion is the reward for better work performance at the workplace. According to Foschi (2,000), Employees who are due for promotion are to work harder. Effective performance forms part of the criteria used for promotion so therefore, employees turn to increasing their performance by working harder knowing that their outstanding performance will lead to promotion. Performance is therefore relevant as far as promotion is concerned. ## iv. Career Development According to Gibbons (1995), career development involves "helping people to choose organizations and career paths and to attain career objectives. In a narrower sense, a career development programme helps employees to analyze their abilities and interests to better match their personal needs for growth and development with the needs of the organization. By either definition, career development was founded upon the goal of matching individuals' needs and desires with the need of an organization to meet its mission. Christiana (2014) was of the view that career is a sequence of positions in an organization occupied by an individual during his employment. Consistent with recent studies, career success can be defined in terms of objective and subjective dimensions (Judge and Bretz, 1994; Judge et ah, 1995). Real career success is a visible career achievement that can be measured as pay and promotion rates (London and Stumpf, 1982). Given this definition, career progression can be said to mean the upwards movement or advancement made by people in a particular job including higher remunerations and promotion rates. Judge et al, (1995) talked about career success as the feelings of accomplishment and satisfaction of an individual over his/her chosen career, that was partially resident upon one's objective indicators. In relation to this definition, one subjective indicator of career success is the individual's or subordinates self-report of career satisfaction, with features including career advancement, salary growth, and professional development (Greenhaus et al, 1990). Research has also proposed that applicable others may make judgments about an individual's career success based on objective indicators (Jaskolka, Beyer and Trice, 1985). In most cases, a subordinate's supervisor or the human resource manager usually makes the final recommendations for pay raise and promotion decisions, the supervisor's judgments of the subordinate's career success are very crucial in the career success assessment. Thus, the supervisor's assessment of the subordinate's promotability is a second subjective indicator of career success. Lalith (2003) saw Career development as the process where individual career plans encounter organizational realities. Individual development interacts with the organization and its development through the individual's career. Career development, therefore, is of significance for both individual and organization and for human resource development. Lalith concluded that career developmental activities include all the off-and-on-the-job training techniques. ### b) Review of Theoretical Literature There are number of theories which have been used to explain the concept of promotion in organization. The following are some of the theories that underpin promotion: ## i. Herzberg's Two Factor Theory (1959) Herzberg (1966) two factor theory states that, there are some factors in the workplace that cause job satisfaction, while others causes dissatisfaction at the workplace. The factors that cause satisfaction are known as motivators while the other factors are desirable as the hygiene factors. Herzberg said that humans live at two levels: physical and physiological levels. He asked workers to record why they felt extremely good or bad. The Motivators place emphasis on the actual job itself with how much opportunity it gives for additional recognition, responsibility, and promotion. The Hygiene factors are factors which surround the job rather than the job itself. A worker will show up early at work only if a company has provided a rational level of pay and better working conditions, but these factors will not make him work extra hard at his job once he is there (Knights and Willmott, 2007). Herzberg et al (1959), proposed some methods Management can use to achieve the theory and they include job Enlargement, job enrichment, and empowerment. Job enlargement is concerned with an employee being given distinct kinds of tasks to perform which should make the job more exciting. The job enrichment is a management concept that involves restructuring jobs so that they are more challenging to the employee and have less monotonous work and the Empowerment is giving employee more power to make decision concerning the job. ## ii. Equity Theory John Stacey Adams, a workplace and behavioural psychologist, introduced the equity theory in 1963, and he introduced the idea of fairness and equity as the key components of a motivated individual. Equity theory states that if people perceive unfairness when they compare their work situation to others, they are likely not to be motivated to do something about their job and will find other means to create a better sense of fairness. (Contemporary Theories of Motivation-Equity Theory). The theory distinguishes between felt negative inequities and positive inequity. Negative inequity occurs whereby an individual feels that he or she is less paid in terms of compensation, recognition, or advancement when compared to others are, in proportion to work input. On the other hand, felt positive inequity occurs when an individual feels that, compared with others, he or she is getting more (Commonwealth of Learning, 2003). Adams (1963) believed that people value fair treatment which causes motivation to keep the fairness maintained within the relationships of their fellow colleagues at the workplace and the organization. Adams (1965) went on to say that anger in a place of work is in most cases not induced by underpayment inequity, While Spector (2008) stated that guilt in the workplace induces overpayment equity. Studies have demonstrated that, when individuals perceive that compensation and reward systems are equitable, they have greater levels of job satisfaction and are keen to commit to organizational objectives (Commonwealth of Learning, 2003). ## iii. Expectancy Theory In 1964, Victor H. Vroom developed the expectancy theory through his study of motivations behind decision making. The Expectancy theory assumes that behaviour results from conscious choices among substitutes whose purpose is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain (Vroom and MacCrimmon, 1968). Vroom theory stresses the needs for organizations to link rewards directly to performance, which should be provided to those that deserved it and equally needed by the recipients. The expectancy theory is of the opinion that individuals have different sets of goals and are usually motivated when they see a positive link between efforts and performance; while favorable performance evokes desirable reward; which satisfy an important need to satisfy the need that is strong enough to make the effort worthwhile. Vroom developed three key variables in the expectancy theory, and these are Valence (V), Expectancy (E), and Instrumentality (I). Expectancy (E) variable is the belief or trust that a person's efforts will lead to the attainment of his/her desired performance. Instrumentality (I) is the belief that a person is rewarded if he/she meets the performance expectation and the Valence (V) is the value an individual places on rewards. ## iv. Theory X and Y Douglas McGregor in 1960 propounded "The theory X and Y" at the MIT Sloan School of Management. This theory describes two contrasting models of workforce motivation, and they are Theory X and Theory Y. These two models are general assumptions of motivation of workers because of two different managerial styles. Under the theory X, employees in this category inherently do not like work and they will avoid work if they could do so and they also avoid responsibility and only achieve goals when there is a reward or an award attached to it. Most workers dislike work and must be controlled and strictly supervised before they work harder. It is normally associated with the autocratic management style. Under theory X, McGregor meant that managers assumed that some employees are lazy and preferred to be told what to do. Also, managers here believed that achievements, advancement, recognition, and responsibility were not important motivational attitudes held by a worker and because of that they believed that employees are only motivated by money, fringe benefits, good working conditions, and threat of punishment for failure to work. Theory Y is the opposite of theory X and according to McGregor, this was a better belief for managers to give workers the autonomy to do their work. The theory Y assumes that employees enjoy working, they love to assume responsibility and are taking initiative to complete tasks. Employees here have need for achievement, and they also view work as fulfilling and challenging. Under this theory, employees want organization to succeed so they help solve problems relating to their job in a creative manner to achieve organizational goal. Employees under this theory are not controlled by their managers. McGregor argued that managers who believe in theory Y as a basis of motivation for workers would get the highest productivity from their employees. Managers here believed that achievements, recognition, and responsibility are good motivational attitudes held by employees. ## v. The Three Needs theory The Three Needs Theory was developed by an American psychologist called David McClelland, in the 1960s. This theory attempts to explain how needs for achievement, power and affiliation affect activities of people from a managerial context. He created what is known as the TAT — Thematic Appreciation Test, to measure human needs and through that test, he developed the Need for achievement, need for affiliation and need for power. Need for achievement (n-Ach) refers to a person's desire for a significant accomplishment and lofty standards. Achievement based individuals like to work and they want their results to be based on their effort. They also desire to receive feedback on their work. Individuals here are motivated by accomplishment in the workplace and an employment hierarchy with promotional positions. Need for affiliation (n-Aff) refers to creating social relationships, enjoying being part of a group and having the desire to feel loved and accepted in the group. Individuals here do not compete with fellow workers at the workplace but rather collaborate with them and obey the norms of the organization to avoid rejection at the workplace. People here work better in positions which require social interactions. Need for power (n-Pow) refers to people who enjoy working and places high value on discipline at the workplace. Individuals here are motivated by the need to enjoy status recognition, competition, winning arguments and influencing others to do things. According to McClelland, the Need for achievement is the most crucial to a nation's economic progress as it contributes to entrepreneurial success. Achievement-motivated people can be the backbone of most organizations. Managers should raise the achievement need level of subordinates by creating the proper work environment (Gupta, 2011:33.20-33.24). Five theories have been discussed above, and all the theories underpin promotion. But the theory which is more relevant to this study is the Herzberg motivating factors. Herzberg proposed two factors, and these factors are the motivating factors and the Hygiene factors. As far as promotion is concerned, Herzberg's motivating factors are more linked to promotion. This is because the motivating factors talk about things that are concerned with the job itself and make job more interesting, and promotion is one of those things. Some organizations introduce promotion policies that serve as a direct motivation for employees to work extra harder to gain promotion in the organization just like our study says. ### c) Review of Empirical Literature ## i. Promotion Requirements in Institution of Higher Learning a. Requirements for Academic Staff Schneider (2017) defines Academic staff of a university as the professors of various ranks, lecturers, and/or researchers in the universities. Looking at the promotion requirements of academic staff, the University of Cape coast statute (2012) revealed what is required of academic staff to get promoted. According to the statute, for one to progress from Lecturer to Senior Lecturer, the staff must have been engaged in the University teaching, research and community service as a lecturer for at least four (4) years and have at least five (5) publications to his/her credit. Also, for a Senior Lecturer to get promoted to Associate Professor, he/she must have been engaged in university teaching, research and community service as a Senior Lecturer for at least four years and must have at least seven (7) publications to his/her credit after promotion to the rank of senior lecturer. It was indicated in the statute that, for an Associate Professor to gain promotion to a Full Professor, he/she must have been engaged in university teaching, research and community service as an Associate Professor for at least two (2) years, must have twenty (20) refereed publication and at least eight (8) of which must have been published after appointment as Associate professor. Also, the University of Ghana Special reporter (2016) revealed some academic positions and their promotion requirements. According to the University's special reporter, gaining promotion to the grade of Senior Lecturer or Senior Research fellow is based on teaching, research, scholarly work, university service, and professional activities. Moreso, getting promotion to Associate professor grade, the requirements include outstanding scholarship in the candidate's field of teaching and research and contribution to the university, department, and the public service. For promotion to a grade of Full Professor, one's promotion requirement is based on internationally acknowledged scholarships in the candidate's field of teaching and research and contribution to the university, department, and public services. A study which was conducted by Azman et al (2016) on academic promotion of Malaysian public universities had some requirements that are expected of academic staff to meet and gain promotion. These requirements are based on the Ministry of Higher Education guidelines of Malaysia (Moher, 2010) and the study conducted by Omar et al (2015). This study made the requirements general for all the ranks in Malaysian Universities. According to this study, for one to move from one rank to another, staff must be highly active in teaching and learning, engaging themselves in both postgraduate and undergraduate supervisory activities such as thesis supervision and examination invigilation. Also, staff must engage in research activities, write and publish several articles, journals and books both internationally and nationally. Also, for an academic staff to get promoted, they must be engaged in community service activities and other governmental activities that contribute to nation building. Another study conducted by Gilavand (2016) also revealed some of the requirements that academic staff must meet to get promoted to the next rank in their career. This study was conducted in the Islamic Republic of Iran and the study used universities and Higher education institutions that are affiliated to the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. Four major requirements were used to promote staff, and these requirements are Cultural, Educational, Research and Educational activities. Staff will be assessed based on all these four areas and if they get the appropriate score for all, they get promoted to the next rank. Also, one can apply for promotion after four (4) years of stopping at a current rank and staff are required to publish papers in journals like the Lancet and JAMA. b. Requirements for Promotion of Non-Academic staff Non-Academic/non-teaching staff are employees within an academic or university environment whose job do not involve teaching (Collins English Dictionary, 2017). According to the Regulation Governing conditions of service of senior staff in the Obafemi Awolowo University (Ile-Ife-Nigeria, 1982), promotion requirement of non-academic staff varies and depends on the position. No Administrative, technical, and professional staff shall be promoted until the staff has spent two years on a position. For one to get promoted from Administrative Officer II to Administrative Officer I, one is required to have experience in university administration, honest and could keep confidential information and one should be able to respond to training on the job. Gaining promotion from Administrative Officer I to Assistant Registrar requires staff to have knowledge in the university system, report writing and minutes writing, should be dependable and able to anticipate problems and find solutions to them. The University of Cape Coast Statute (2012) pointed out some non-academic positions and the requirements to meet and gain promotion to those positions within the University. According to the statute, for an Assistant Registrar to get promoted to Senior Assistant Registrar, one must have served as Assistant Registrar in the University for at least four (4) years, the staff must have at least five (5) publications to his credit and also achieve "above average" performance in "ability in work" and average performance in two other areas one of which should be "Promotion of profession". Also, from Assistant Accountant/Junior Internal Auditor to Accountant/Assistant Internal Auditor, staff must have served in that position in the University or similar University for minimum of two (2) years, must attain "above average" performance in "ability in work" and average performance in two other areas and must have at least one publication to his/her credit. Therefore, if staff satisfy all those requirements stated above, he/she gets promoted to the next rank within the University. The Covenant University statute (2010) in Nigeria revealed the criteria for promotion of nonteaching staff in the university. The University has general criteria that non-teaching staff in the institution are to meet in gaining promotion to the next rank. So, for a non-teaching staff to get promoted to the next rank, the criteria include General ability, Disposition to work, Initiative, personal integrity, attitude to work and experience. Also, staff are required to serve for at least two (2) years in their current rank before progressing to the next level. Additional qualifications and outstanding level of performance forms part of the promotion requirement for non-teaching staff in Covenant University. A study was conducted by Peter (2014) on the impact of promotion on performance of employees at the Dar es Salaam city council in Tanzania. This study revealed some basic criteria for promoting employees at Dar es Salaam city council which include exhibiting high work performance, showing competency (professionalism) at work and having more working experience. Also, academic qualification forms part of the requirement and this was specified in Public Service Scheme (2003) of Tanzania. Good character and integrity were also considered as a criterion for promoting staff. Azman et al (2016) conducted study in Malaysia and the objective of the study was to determine the issues and challenges of academic promotion in Malaysian Universities. This study used questionnaires as a method for gathering information. The findings of this study revealed six (6) common promotion requirement (criteria) among the Universities. These criteria include Research and publication, Teaching and supervision, Academic leadership, Consultancy, Conference participation and Service to the University and Community. This study revealed promotional requirements for only academic staff but as far as our study is concerned, we seek to find out the promotion requirement for both academic and non-academic staff of the two Institutions of higher learning. Gilavand (2016) also conducted a study in Islamic Republic of Iran, and the objective of the study was to determine the faculty member's rank promotion in universities affiliated to the Ministry of Health and Medical Education. The methodology used here was interviews and searching from international databases such as Thomson Reuters, Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and others. The findings of this study revealed four (4) criteria for promotion, and they include Cultural, Educational, Research and Executive activities. Our study is different from theirs in the sense that their focus was on academic staff only but ours covers both academic and non-academic staff. A study was also conducted by Peter (2014) in Tanzania, and the main objective of the study was to assess the impact of promotion towards employees' performance for the public organization. This study used both interviews and questionnaires as the method for collecting data. The findings of the study revealed some basic criteria for promoting employees at Dar es Salaam city council which include exhibiting high work performance, showing competency (professionalism) at work and having more working experience and educational level. This study focused on promotion in organizations, but our study is based on Institutes of higher learning and not organizations. c. Major Differences in Promotion Requirements of Academic and Non-academic staff The table below shows the difference in promotion requirements of both Academic and Non-Academic staff. Table 2.1: Table Showing the Differences between the Requirement for Promotion of Academic and Non-academic Staff <table><tr><td>Academic Staff</td><td>Non-Academic Staff</td></tr><tr><td>1. Academic staff are required to conduct some number of research as part of their promotion requirements.</td><td>Non-academic staff are required to conduct some research in their field of work to get promoted.</td></tr><tr><td>2. Teaching is part of their requirements for promotion</td><td>Teaching is not a requirement for their promotion.</td></tr><tr><td>3. Academic staff are to publish a sizable number of articles in journals as part of their promotion requirement.</td><td>Non-academic staff are to publish some memos not articles and this forms part of their promotion requirement.</td></tr><tr><td>4. Human relations do not serve as promotion requirement for academic staff</td><td>Human Relations serve as a requirement for promotion of non-academic staff.</td></tr></table> ## ii. Challenges Confronting Promotion Systems ### a. Challenges Relating to Academic Staff In 2014, Broni and Oforiwaa conducted a study by looking at the challenges staff faces during promotion of Gender in Higher Education. This study was conducted in University of Education, Winneba, Ghana, and it revealed some challenges faced by female staff in the university. One of the Challenges was that female academic staff are less involved in research work which is a major requirement for promotion in the university. Therefore, it makes it difficult for female academic staff to compete with male academic staff who are more involved in research work. Overall, the male academic staff gets promoted faster than female staff. Creamer (1998) confirmed that, female academic staff involvement in research and obtaining research grants were less in comparison with male academic staff. This resulted in the female academic staff having small publications to their credit as compared to male academic staff. This study further revealed that, male academic staff can produce up to 32 publications in refereed articles, whereas the female academic staff produce 19 refereed articles in journals. In addition, most of the female academic staff tend to be overrepresented as non-publishers and underrepresented among prolific authors. The low publishing productivity of women, affect their visibility and ability to write faster in terms of promotion. As a result, most female academic staff who are hired in academia ends up remaining at the bottom of the progression ladder with few of them climbing through the ranks of higher professional grades. Azman et al (2014) also conducted a study on Promotion in Malaysian Universities and his study also revealed some challenges and issues in academic promotion. One of the challenges was different promotion system within one salary structure. The guidelines and standards for evaluating promotion in Malaysian Universities has become stricter mainly because, their research missions and promotion requirements had risen. Consequently, the competition for research in these universities is high and with single salary system and more strict promotion criteria required of the academic staff, this has served as a disadvantage with increase in research and publication activities added to their teaching workload which is already tedious. The different academic promotion requirements in these universities which entail their own set of descriptive standards, specified number of activities were expected to gain promotion and all this with one salary structure, has created unhappiness and dissatisfaction among many academic staff. b. Challenges Relating to Non-Academic Staff Studies for the challenges for non-academic staff are quite scant as far as our study is concerned. Therefore, we will review some studies which relate to other staff who are not in the institutions of higher learning. Peter (2014) conducted a study on the impact of promotion on employee performance at the Dar es Salaam City Council (DCC) in Tanzania. This study also revealed some challenges staff go through to get promotion. One of the challenges was that the Human Resource department does not conduct awareness programs for employees to know more about the promotion process and the rules and regulations regarding promotion at Dar es Salaam city council. It also revealed that the involvement of staff in the promotion process was exceptionally low. These challenges have led to several employees not getting promotion at the council. Also, due to inadequate communication, the promotion criteria are not clearly spelt out to employees, and this makes it difficult for them to fill their promotional forms. The study also revealed biases in promotion as one of the challenges in DCC in the sense that some employees were promoted after every three (3) years but for some employees who are due for promotion were left for more than eight (8) years without getting promotion to their next rank. A study was conducted by Broni and Oforiwaa (2014) in Ghana and the objective was to explore the structural arrangements and dynamics associated with the promotion process in University of Education, Winneba with specific reference to gender. Semi-structured Interview was used as a method of gathering data for this study. The findings of this study revealed that the promotion criterion was not gender friendly because it places much emphasis on research and presentation of papers which goes against women in the institution. This study looked at gender discrimination as a challenge in promotion, but our study focuses on the challenges staff faces in attaining promotion. Azman et al (2016) also conducted a study in Malaysia and the objective was to determine the issues and challenges of academic promotion in Malaysian Universities. Questionnaires were used as the method for gathering data. The findings of this study revealed some challenges and some of the challenges include promotion system with one salary structure, and the universities place more emphasis on research work as requirement for promotion. Our study is different from this study because this study focused on challenges relating to academic staff only but ours seeks to find out the challenges relating to both academic and non-academic staff. Another study was conducted in Tanzania by Peter in 2014. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of promotion towards employees' performance for the public organization. This study used both interviews and questionnaires as the method for collecting data. The findings of this study revealed some of the challenges and they include budget constraints, delayed salary arrears, and bias in the promotion process. This study focused on the challenges of non-educational organization, but our study is focused on finding the challenges relating to all staff in two institutions. ## iii. Effects of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression ### a. Effects relating to Academic Staff Azman et al (2016) conducted a study and it revealed some promotion requirements in Malaysian universities for which Research and Articles publications were some of the requirements for promotion in the universities. Such requirements as stated initially help academic staff to improve upon their current knowledge in their area of specializations because, through the process of getting their articles published and conducting research, they tend to encounter new ideas and knowledge that helps them not to only get promotion, but they end up upgrading their knowledge. Research as a promotion requirement also has negative effect. Academic staff focuses more on research work and publishing of their articles since these are the main requirements for promotion. This effect teaching, which is the main purpose for which these academic staff were employed. Besides, it becomes tedious for those combining teaching and research resulting in excessive job stress and its consequential effects. ### b. Effects Relating to Non-Academic Staff Non-Academic staff also have their requirements different from that of academic staff. Looking at the University of Cape coast statute (2012), one of the promotion requirements of non-academic staff was publication. A Staff is required to publish some number of books and articles to his/her credit to get promoted. This has a positive impact on the non-academic staff because through the publishing of these books, it helps them gain in-depth knowledge in their area of work and get new working ideas and methods. This publication as a promotional requirement also affects non-academic staff in a negative way. This is because publication requires research, time, money and dedication and staff combine it with their main work. This makes it stressful for them to combine both, and it ends up making non-academic staff dissatisfied and makes them underperform. Another study was conducted by Peter (2014) on employees in Dar es Salaam city council (DCC) in Tanzania and the study revealed some positive impact or outcome that promotion have on employees. The study revealed that employees who were promoted within three years were motivated, and they worked harder towards the achievement of Dar es Salaam city council objectives. Also, employees' remuneration increased as far as promotion is concerned and in 2013/2014 fiscal year, seventy-five (75) employees of DCC were able to acquire housing loans. Promotion also brought about good working relationship between employees and management of DCC. Also, promotion helped in filling vacant posts within the organization. A study was conducted in Tanzania by Peter in 2014. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of promotion towards employees' performance for the public organization. This study used both interviews and questionnaires as the method for collecting data. The findings of this study revealed some positive effects of promotion, and they include motivation to work harder, increase in remuneration and establishment of good working relationships among management and staff. This study focused on the positive effects only, but our study seeks to find out both positive and negative effects of promotion. Azman et al (2016) also conducted a study in Malaysia and the objective was to determine the issues and challenges of academic promotion in Malaysian Universities. Questionnaires were used as the method for gathering data. The findings of the study revealed that Research work broadens the knowledge of academic staff. This study focused on academic staff only but ours focuses on both academic and non-academic staff. ### d) Implications of the Review of the Study The Azman et al (2016) study revealed six common promotion requirements for academic staff in the universities in Malaysia and the requirements include Research and publication, Teaching and supervision, Academic leadership, consultancy, conference participation and service to the University and community. This study also revealed some challenges, and they include promotion system with one salary structure, and the universities place more emphasis on research work as requirement for promotion for academic staff. This study also revealed that Research work broadens the knowledge of academic staff. Another study was conducted by Gilavand (2016) and the findings revealed four (4) criteria for promotion, and they include Cultural, educational, research and executive activities. A similar study was conducted by Peter (2014), and the findings revealed some basic criteria for promoting employees at Dar es Salaam city council which include exhibiting high work performance, showing competency (professionalism) at work and having more work experience. The findings also revealed some challenges, and they include budget constraints, delayed salary arrears, and bias in the promotion process. The findings of this study also revealed some positive effects of promotion, and they include motivation to work harder, increase in remuneration and establishment of good working relationship among management and staff. Broni and Oforiwaa (2014) also conducted a study and the findings revealed that the promotion criterion was not gender friendly because it places much emphasis on research and presentation of papers which goes against women in the institution. Studies conducted as far as promotion is concerned but as researchers we seek to find out if there are difference in the promotion requirement in the Ghanaian context as compared to the foreign studies and find out if Ghanaian staff go through same challenges in attaining promotion. Most of the studies focused on academic staff promotion requirements, challenges and effects but as researchers, we seek to find out the promotion requirements for both academic and non-academic staff, the challenges both staff go through to progress through their careers and both positive and negative effects/outcome of the promotion requirements on their career progression. Also, as researchers we want to find out if there have been any changes in the promotion requirements in Kumasi Technical University since it was recently converted into Technical University. ### e) Conceptual Framework  Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework of our study shows the promotion requirement of both Academic and non-academic staff and the challenges they face to undergo the promotion. Through these challenges, we get both positive and negative outcomes. From the framework, we could see that the requirements for the academic staff are made of; Researching and Publication, Teaching and Supervision which are one of the primary assignments of academic staff, academic leadership, consultancy, conference participation, and community service. With the non-academic staff we could also see Publications, Knowledge in university administrative work, Leadership skills, working experience and Number of years one has worked all forming part of the requirements for non-academic promotion. Before both calibers of staff could achieve all these requirements, they turn to face some challenges through this process which includes, Gender inequality, Different promotion system with one salary structure, Lack of resources for research and publications and Biasness in the promotion of staff. ## III. METHOD OF STUDY This section deals with the method applied in conducting the study through research design, population (Targeted respondents), sampling method, and Sample size. Data collection method and Instruments, Validity and Reliability tests of the instruments and Data Analysis Techniques, forms this section of the research. ### a) Research Design Research design gives the total techniques chosen and the purpose for the choice. The data collection methods, instruments used for data collection and how data was collected and analyzed are all included in the research design (Saunders et ah, 2009, p. 136). ## i. Research Strategy Research Strategy is defined as a general plan that helps researchers in answering the research questions in a systematic way (Saunders, 2007). Research strategies can be grouped into three types namely, quantitative research, qualitative research, and mixed method. - (a) Bryman and Bell (2015) stated that quantitative research is a research strategy which emphasizes quantification in the collection and analysis of data. It also requires a deductive approach to the relationship between theory and research, in which the accent is placed on the testing of theories. Quantitative Research resorts to using measurable data to articulate facts and reveal patterns in research. Quantitative data collection methods are much more organized than Qualitative data collection methods. The data collection methods here include various forms of surveys such as paper reviews, face-to-face interviews, others form of interviews and longitudinal studies. - (b) Bryan and Bell (2015) further stated that Qualitative research is a strategy that usually highlights words rather than quantification in data collection analysis. It places emphasis on an inductive approach to the relationship between theory and research, in which the emphasis is placed on the generation of theories. It provides insights into the issue or helps to develop ideas that aid in potential quantitative research. Some common methods in quantitative research include focus groups discussions, individual interviews, and participation or observation. - (c) Mixed methodology is a research strategy that combines both quantitative and qualitative research strategies for the purpose of in-depth understanding and corroboration (Burk et al., 2007). This study employed mixed methods in research strategy to obtain information on the effect of promotion system on career progression. ## ii. Research Purpose This study adopted descriptive research design. Descriptive research design is concerned with finding out what, where and how a phenomenon is (Cooper and Shindler; 2003). Descriptive research design is more appropriate as it seeks to establish what, who, where and when a phenomenon is. This design was more appropriate in providing an in-depth understanding of the effects of promotion systems on career progression in institutions of higher learning. ### b) Target Population Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) stated that Target population is that population complete of individuals, cases, or objects with some shared features to which the researcher wants to generalize the results of the study. KNUST has a staff population of three thousand, seven hundred and thirty (3,730) and out of the staff population, academic staff are one thousand, one hundred and fourteen (1,114) and non-academic staff are two thousand, six hundred and sixteen (2,616). Kumasi Technical University has staff population of four hundred and ninety-eight (498) academic staff and two hundred and thirty-four (234) non-academic staff. Our target population for this study are the lecturers, registrars, and administrative staff within the two universities. ### c) Sampling Method and Sample Size Trochim (2006) categorized Sampling as the process of selecting units from people of interest so that by studying the sample population, by equitably generalizing results which are traced back to the population from which they were chosen. The sample method used in this study is the simple random method where members of the population stand the chance of being selected. The sample size for this study is fifty (50) each of academic and non-academic staff from KNUST and Kumasi Technical University. ## i. Data collection Methods and Instruments ### a. Surveying using Questionnaires Saunders et al. (2009, p.360) defined Questionnaires as "a general term to include all data collection methods in which a person is asked to respond to the same set of questions in a predetermined order". These questionnaires will be given to both academic and non-academic staff in KNUST and KTU to find out their promotion requirements, the challenges they go through to meet their promotion requirements and the effects of their promotion requirement on their career progression. ### b. Individual In-depth Interviews Interview can be described as a controlled conversation with purpose (Torrington et ah, 2002; Saunders et ah, 2009, p.318). The interview is 'a social encounter between an applicant and a representative, or representatives, of an employer (Pilbeam and Corbridge, 2006). Our study employed semi-structured interviews because it facilitates in-depth interviewing. Bernard (1988) is of the view that, in a situation where an interviewer will not have a second chance of interview, the best used method of interview is to send several interviewers out into the field to collect data. These in-depth interviews enabled the researcher to get detailed information from well-informed persons who are conversant with the specific aspects of issues concerning promotion requirement and career progression. ### d) Validity and Reliability Test of the Instruments ## i. Validity and Reliability of the Study According to Phelan and Wren (2006), Validity is about measuring what was intended to measure while reliability is the degree to which research produces or measures consistent results or attributes. To guarantee validity of the study, the well-validated Comparative Study of Two Institutions of Higher Learning was followed closely. Phelan and Wren went to say that three different and commonly used tests should be used to evaluate the instruments to ensure the quality of the research. These are construct validity, external validity, and reliability. ### a. Construct Validity Construct validity is a method that ensures that the interviewer measures what he is projected to measure and not all the other variables. The interviewer may resort to using a board of experts accustomed to the construct validity in carrying out an interview for more accurate result. In construct validity, respondents are given the issues that the interview would be focused on in advance so that in this case, the respondent could prepare adequately for the interview and avoid misinterpretation. The supervisor for this study approves and comments on the interview guide before the interview is conducted. Some Students are also given the interview guide to scan through to make sure that the questions for the interview are understandable and easy to answer. Notes are taken during the interview to prevent loss of valuable data or information; some procedures are being completed to the questionnaires administered to the respondents of various higher learning institutions. b. External Validity External validity is all about generalization, it was amplified by interviewing people with the most familiarity in the field of Promoting of Employees. Again, some selected people were given questionnaires to answer regarding their experience with Promotion systems in higher level of educational institutions. ## c. Reliability Reliability is the degree to which assessment produces stable and consistent results (Saunders et ah, 2009, p. 156). With this, the researcher interviewed the right targeted people with sufficient knowledge that matches the organization. Several meetings took place before the interview was initiated to establish a good relationship with the respondents. This was done to make the respondent feel relaxed and comfortable around the researchers when giving out answers or information out. After collecting the information, the data is compiled and sent back to the respondent to perform correction if necessary to avoid faulty data. ### e) Data Analysis Technics ## i. Qualitative Analysis Qualitative Analysis is one of the techniques used in the range of processes and procedures in which qualitative data that has been collected is turned into some forms of explanation, interpretation in the understanding of the people and situation we were investigating. This type of data analysis is usually based on explanatory philosophy. The main aim of qualitative data analysis is to scrutinize the meaningful and symbolic content of qualitative data (Taylor and Gibbs, 2010). ## ii. Quantitative Data Analysis According to Taylor and Gibbs (2010), Quantitative analysis is the systematic method to investigate numerical data during which numerical data is collected, and the researcher transforms the data collected into numerical data. The quantitative data were analyzed using software known as Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS). The results from the SPSS were categorized in a tabular form to allow easy discussion. Information gathered from the interview was also used to support the quantitative data analysis. ## IV. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS ### a) Introduction This study presents the data collected from the field and analyzes them to answer the research questions and achieve the objectives set which are to determine the requirements for promotion in the traditional universities, the challenges confronting both academic and non-academic staff and the effects of the promotion requirement on their career progression. The study also will analyze the data from literature review. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze, interpret and present results in frequency, percentages, and tables. Questionnaires and interviews were the major instruments used for data collection. The researchers administered one hundred (100) questionnaires to selected institutions who were sampled for the purpose of this study. Out of the one hundred (100) questionnaires issued, ninety-two (92) of them were returned duly filled, representing a response rate of $92\%$. ### b) Demographic Details of Respondents ## i. Gender of Respondents To determine the gender composition of staff in KNUST and KTU, the respondents were asked to indicate their gender. The results are shown in Table 4.1 below. Table 4.1: Table Showing Gender Distribution of Respondents <table><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>51</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>41</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>92</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From Table 4.1 above, ninety-two (92) respondents out of one hundred (100) participated in the study, which represented $92\%$. Out of the ninety-two (92) respondents, fifty-one (51) were males representing ## ii. Age Distribution of Respondents 55% whilst forty-one (41) were females representing 45% of the respondents. The Table above shows that majority of employees of both KNUST and KTU are males, and this is a common thing in public institutions. Table 4.2: A Table Showing the Age Distribution of Respondents. <table><tr><td>Age Range</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>21-30</td><td>16</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>31-40</td><td>32</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>41-50</td><td>36</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>50 and above</td><td>8</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>92</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Staff of the two institutions were assessed on their age distribution. Table 4.2 reveals that $17\%$ of the respondents fall within age 21-30, $35\%$ falls within age 31-40, $39\%$ of the respondents also fall within age 41-50 and $9\%$ are 50 years and above. This shows that ## iii. Educational Level of Academic Staff Respondents KNUST and KTU have more energetic and vibrant staff who continue to contribute to the success of the universities as far as Teaching, learning and University administration is concerned. Table 4.3: Showing the Educational level of Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Educational Level</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>First Degree</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Master's Degree</td><td>22</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><td>PhD.</td><td>21</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>44</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.3 revealed that $50\%$ of the academic staff respondents are master's degree holders, followed by $48\%$ who have attained PhD, and only $2\%$ are first degree holders. This research shows that staff in the two universities are well educated to execute their work in their various areas of specialization. This agrees with statement made by Peter (2014), Academic qualification is a crucial aspect to be considered during the promotion of employees in an organization. ## iv. Educational Level of Non-Academic Staff Respondents Table 4.4: Showing the Educational Level of Respondents. <table><tr><td>Educational Level</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>HND</td><td>9</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>First Degree</td><td>18</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Master&#x27;s Degree</td><td>21</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>48</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.4 revealed that $44\%$ of the non-academic staff respondents are master's degree holders, followed by $37\%$ first degree holders and $19\%$ ## v. Number of Years Served in the University have HND. This research shows that non-academic staff in the two universities are well educated, and this will help contribute to the success of the University. Table 4.5: Showing the Number of Years Served by Staff. <table><tr><td>Educational Level</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Below 3 years</td><td>10</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>4-7 years</td><td>39</td><td>42</td></tr><tr><td>8-11 years</td><td>28</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>12-15years</td><td>7</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>15 years and above</td><td>8</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>92</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.5 above revealed that $42\%$ of staff worked with the institutions for 4-7 years, followed by $30\%$ of the respondents who had worked between 8-11 years, $8\%$ had worked within 12-15 years and $9\%$ worked for 15 years and above. This shows that staff in the universities have spent more years and have acquired more experience in their various areas of specialization. This agrees with the statement that "All other things being equal, the higher the number of years of experience, the higher the level of performance" (Aguinis, 2009). ### c) Promotion Requirements for Academic and Non-Academic Staff Both Academic and Non-Academic staff were asked to indicate their level of agreement or a. Research as Part of Promotion Requirement disagreement with the promotion requirements in their universities. ## i. Promotion Requirements for Academic staff During field interviews in KTU, some of the respondents made additional contributions to the requirements for promotion. One of the respondents stated: "Serving as an exams officer is also a requirement for promotion in this school and also serving on committees" (TA2, 2017). Table 4.6(a): Showing the Level of Consideration of Research as Requirement for Promotion of KTU Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>14</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.6(a) above shows that $61\%$ of the respondents in KTU strongly agree that Research forms part of the promotion requirements and $39\%$ also agree to the fact that research forms part of the promotion requirement. One respondent who was a senior lecturer in KTU also agreed on this. He stated that: During my promotion, the amount of research that I conducted was taken into consideration and the kind of journals in which my papers were published. I think I presented four (4) papers for my promotion (TA2, 2017). Table 4.6(b): Showing the Level of Consideration of Research as Requirement for Promotion of KNUST Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>16</td><td>76</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>4</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.6(b) above shows that $76\%$ of the respondents in KNUST strongly agree that Research forms part of the promotion requirements, $19\%$ also agree to the fact that research forms part of the promotion requirement and $5\%$ strongly disagree that Research forms part of the promotion requirement for academic staff. During our field interview in KNUST, we got one respondent who gave us information on research as a requirement for promotion. He detailed that: As for KNUST, research is very vital during promotion of staff like me. During my promotion to a senior lecturer, I was required to present a minimum of four (4) papers of my research that I had conducted. The various promotion committees also checked the journals in which I published my papers, which is also particularly important. For one to b. Teaching as Part of Promotion Requirement move from the rank of senior lecturer to Associate Professor, one is required to serve as senior lecturer for at least five years and he/she is required to submit a minimum of six (6/ papers out of their own research and at least four (4) out the six (6) papers should be published in a highly recognized and refereed journals (KA2, 2017). Our findings agree with statements made by Fairweather (2005) and Green (2008), that academic promotion is more pegged to research. Looking at Table 4.6(a) and Table (b), $100\%$ of the respondents in KTU agree that research forms part of their promotion requirement and $95\%$ of KNUST respondents agree that research is part of their promotion requirements. This shows that research is a more important requirement for promotion across the two universities. Table 4.7(a): Showing the Level of Consideration of Teaching as Requirement for Promotion of KTU Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Responsee</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>14</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>8</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From Table 4.7(a) above, $61\%$ of the KTU respondents strongly agree that teaching forms part of the promotion requirements and $35\%$ of the respondents also agrees to that. $4\%$ of the respondents neither agree nor disagree that Teaching forms part of their promotion requirement. One respondent in KTU supported this assertion. During the interview, he said this: Teaching is also especially important when one is being promoted. The promotion committee also checks the Quality and quantity of your exam's questions, teaching materials and students' assessments counts during promotion (TAi, 2017). Table 4.7(b): Showing the Level of Consideration of Teaching as Requirement for Promotion of KNUST Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>11</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.7(b) depicts that; $52\%$ of the KNUST respondents strongly agree that teaching forms part of their promotion requirements and $43\%$ of the respondents agree to that. $5\%$ of the respondents neither agree nor disagree that teaching form part of their requirement for promotion. In an interview conducted in KNUST, one respondent revealed that: Teaching is a broad requirement but during assessment one is required to have quality exams questions, good learning materials and learning experiences with students. Student assessment reports are also important (KAi, 2017). Teaching forms part of their promotion requirement. One respondent in KTU supported this assertion. During the interview, He said this: Teaching is also particularly important when one is being promoted. The promotion committee also checks the Quality and quantity of your exam's questions, teaching materials and students' assessments counts during promotion (TAi, 2017). Table 4.7(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Teaching as Requirement for Promotion of KNUST Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>11</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.7(b) depicts that; $52\%$ of the KNUST respondents strongly agree that teaching forms part of their promotion requirements and $43\%$ of the respondents agree with that. $5\%$ of the respondents neither agree nor disagree that teaching form part of their requirement for promotion. In an interview conducted in KNUST, one respondent revealed that: Teaching is a broad requirement but during assessment one is required to have quality exams questions, good learning materials and learning experiences with students. Student assessment reports are also important (KAi, 2017). The results from the above Tables 4.7(a) and 4.7(b) show that $96\%$ of the KTU respondents and $95\%$ of the KNUST respondents agree that teaching forms part of their promotion requirements. c. Project Supervision as Part of Promotion Requirement Table 4.8(a): Showing the Level of Consideration of Project Supervision as Requirement for Promotion of KTU Academic Staff <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>10</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From Table 4.8(a) above, $44\%$ of the KTU respondents strongly agree that project supervision forms part of the promotion requirements and $39\%$ of the respondents also agree. $4 \%$ disagree, while $13 \%$ neither agree nor disagree that Project supervision forms part of the promotion requirement. Table 4.8(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Project Supervision as Requirement for Promotion of KNUST Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>12</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The results from Table 4.8(b) show that $57\%$ of the KNUST respondents agree that project supervision forms part of their promotion requirement and $24\%$ also agree. $5\%$ strongly disagree that project supervision forms part of their promotion requirement and $9\%$ disagree while $5\%$ of them neither agree nor disagree to the assertion that it forms part of their promotion requirement. From the analysis of the two Tables, 4.8(a) and 4.8(b), it shows that project supervision forms part of the promotion requirement for academic staff in both KNUST and KTU. The research revealed that KNUST and KTU highly consider project supervision as a requirement for promoting their academic staff since $83\%$ of KTU respondents and $81\%$ of the KNUST respondents agree to it. d. Conference Participation as Part of Promotion Requirement Table 4.9(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Conference Participation as Requirement for Promotion of KTU Academic Staff <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>14</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>8</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From table 4.9(a) above, $61\%$ of the respondents strongly agree that Conferences forms part of their promotion requirements, $35\%$ of the respondents also agree while $4\%$ neither agree nor disagree that Conferences forms part of the promotion requirement for academic staff in KTU. A respondent agreed to this during the interview. He said: "Just attending conferences do not serve as a requirement but when your knowledge gained from the conference is being published, then it can be regarded as one" (TAi, 2017). Table 4.9(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Conference Participation as Requirement for Promotion of KNUST Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>10</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>6</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Respondents were asked whether conference participation forms are part of their promotion requirement or not. It revealed that $48\%$ of the KNUST respondents strongly agree that conference participation forms part of their promotion requirement, $29\%$ also agree to it, $5\%$ strongly disagree while $9\%$ neither agree nor disagree that conference participation forms part of their promotion requirement as indicated in Table 4.9(b). The research further revealed that conference participation is a requirement for academic staff promotion, but KTU highly considers conference participation as a promotion requirement with $96\%$ respondents agreeing to it than KNUST who had $77\%$ agreeing to it. e. Community Service as Part of Promotion Requirement Table 4.10(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Community Service as Requirement for Promotion of KNUST Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>15</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>3</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The results from Table 4.10(a) above show that $71\%$ of the respondents in KNUST strongly agree that Community service is one of their promotion requirements and $14\%$ also agree that it forms part of their promotion requirements. Only $10\%$ disagree with the statement while $5 \%$ are uncertain as to whether Community service forms part of their promotion requirement or not. During our field interview one of the respondents supported this assertion. He stated that: Yes, community service counts. For instance, when chief of Kotey calls us to give a talk during a community durbar, it is considered for my promotion since I rendered a service to the community. It is not only community service but also rendering services to the nation by serving as a member of a governmental committee (KAi, 2017). Table 4.10(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Community Service as Requirement for Promotion of KTU Academic Staff <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>15</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>7</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.10(b) depicts that out of twenty-three (23) respondents, $65\%$ of the respondents strongly agree that community service forms part of their promotion requirement. $31\%$ agreed, $4\%$ were not sure but none of the respondents strongly disagreed. This shows that greater percentage of them support the assertion. From the analysis of Tables 4.10(a) and 4.10(b), community service forms part of the requirement for promoting academic staff in KNUST and KTU as the percentage of the respondents in agreement were $96\%$ and $85\%$ agreeing to it, respectively. This shows that both KNUST and KTU factors and value Employee Social Responsibility (ESR) as part of their expectations to merit promotion. In an interview with one non-academic staff respondent in KNUST, he stated that: a. Book Publication There are four (4) main criteria for promotion that nonteaching staff are required to meet to get promotion. These requirements include Ability in work, application of knowledge, Human relations, and Service (KNi, 2017). During our field interview, one KTU respondent told us that: "Ability to perform excellently on your work and also ability to work in Team is also part of the requirements" (TN3, 2017) Another Respondents in KTU stated that: "One of the promotion requirements in this school is being innovative and also being able to work with minimal supervision" (TNi, 2017). Table 4.11 (a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Book Publication as Requirement for Promotion of KTU Non-Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>10</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>9</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From the above Table 4.11(a), $36\%$ of the KTU non-academic staff respondents strongly disagree that Book Publication forms part of the promotion requirements of non-academic staff, $12\%$ of the respondents also disagree, $40\%$ strongly agree, $4\%$ also agree whiles $8\%$ are uncertain as to whether Book publication forms part of their promotion requirement or not. One respondent disagreed with the issue that book publication forms part of promotion requirements of non-academic staff in KTU. He told us that: "Book publication is not part of our requirement as non-academic staff. Ours is report writing rather" (TNi, 2017). Table 4.11(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Book Publication as Requirement for Promotion of KNUST Non-academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>8</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.11(b) depicts that, out of the twenty-three (23) respondents, $9\%$ of the respondents strongly agree that book publication forms part of their promotion requirement. $35\%$ agree, $4\%$ were not sure, $26\%$ of the respondents strongly disagree and $26\%$ also disagree. In field interview, a respondent disagreed with this and testified that: In KNUST, staff who fall into our category do not write nor publish books. Rather, we write memoranda or papers on current Administration procedures, current administration trends, relevant governmental administration procedures, and guidelines as I said earlier. Report writing also forms part of our criteria for promotion. For an Assistant Registrar to be promoted to Senior Assistant Registrar, he/she must publish at least 4 papers. The memoranda must lead to change in policy and must impact on policy implementation. $(KN_{2},$ 2017). From the analysis of Tables 4.11(a) and 4.11(b), greater percentage of the respondents in KNUST and KTU representing $52\%$ and $44\%$ respectively disagree with the assertion. This means book publication is not a requirement for promoting non- academic staff in both KNUST and KTU. b. Knowledge in University Administration Table 4.12(a): Showing the Level of Consideration of Knowledge in University Administration as Requirement for Promotion of KNUST Non-academic Staff <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>11</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>7</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.12(a) depicts that, out of the twenty-three (23) respondents, $48\%$ of the respondents strongly agree that knowledge in University Administration forms part of their promotion requirement. $30\%$ agree, $17\%$ were not sure and $5\%$ of the respondents strongly disagree that knowledge in the University administration is a requirement for promoting non-academic staff in KNUST. One of the respondents agreed to this in our field interview and stated that: In fact, this is our main requirement for promotion of nonteaching staff. We are required to understand every hit of the University Administration system (KN3, 2017). ## c. Level of Education Table 4.13(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Education as Requirement for Promotion of KTU Non-Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>12</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>11</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From the above Table 4.13(a), $48\%$ of the respondents in KTU strongly agree that level of education forms part of their promotion requirements, 44% of the respondents also agree and $8 \%$ strongly disagree. One of KTU non-academic respondents stated during our interview that: "Level of education is especially important requirement during promotion. I for instance, I got to the position of Assistant Registrar by attaining a master's degree" (TN2, 2017). Table 4.13(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Education as Requirement for Promotion of Non-Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>9</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>12</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From the above Table 4.13(b), $39\%$ of the non-academic respondents in KNUST strongly agree that level of education forms part of their promotion requirements, $53\%$ of the non-academic respondents also agree, $4\%$ strongly disagree and another $4\%$ neither agree nor disagree that level of education is part of their promotion requirement. A KNUST non-academic respondent also stated in our field interview that: Professional qualification plays a significant role if you were employed as a professional or specialist as opposed to a generalist (KN2, 2017). Looking at the two Tables above, it shows that level of education forms part of the promotion requirements of KNUST and KTU since majority from the two institution agrees to that. d. Leadership skills Table 4.14(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Leadership Skills as Requirement for Promotion for Non-Academic Staff in KNUST <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>14</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.14(a) pointed out that $26\%$ of the non-academic respondents strongly agree that leadership skills forms part of their promotion requirement, $61 \%$ agree, $9 \%$ were not sure while $4 \%$ disagree. Table 4.14(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Leadership Skills as Requirement for Promotion of Non-Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>10</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>10</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.14(b) pointed out that, $40\%$ of the non-academic respondents strongly agree that leadership skills forms part of their promotion requirement, another $40\%$ agreed, $8\%$ were uncertain while $4\%$ strongly disagreed and $8\%$ also disagreed. The results from Tables 4.14(a) and 4.14(b) show that leadership skills forms part of the promotion requirement for KNUST and KTU non-academic staff. e. Number of Years Worked Table 4.15(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Number of Years as Requirement for KTU Non-Academic Staff Promotion. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>15</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>10</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From the above Table 4.15(a), $100\%$ of the KTU non-academic respondents agree that number of years spent in the organization forms part of their promotion requirements. Table 4.15(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Number of Years as Requirement for KNUST Non-Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>12</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>10</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.15(b) specifies that $96\%$ of the KNUST non-academic respondents agree that the number of years spent in the organization forms part of their promotion requirement while $4\%$ disagree with that. One of the KNUST non-academic respondents during our interview agreed to it and stated that: "The number of years spent is very necessary when KNUST is promoting staff. For a non-teaching to get promoted to the next rank, he/she serves a minimum of 4 years after appointment" (KA, 2017). Based on Tables 4.15(a) and 4.15(b), majority of the KNUST non- academic respondents and KTU non-academic respondents agree that number of years spent in the organization forms part of their promotion requirement. ### d) Differences in Requirements for Promotion of Academic and Non-Academic Staff ## i. Academic Staff Table 4.16(a): Showing Differences in Requirement for Promotion. <table><tr><td>KNUST</td><td>KTU</td></tr><tr><td>KNUST has stringent promotion criteria</td><td>The promotion criteria in KTU are less stringent.</td></tr><tr><td>The level of education for academic staff in KNUST is exceedingly high. Most of them have PhDs and master's degrees.</td><td>The level of education of academic staff in KTU is quite high. Most of them have master's degrees and few have PhDs.</td></tr></table> ## ii. Non-Academic Staff Table 4.16(b): Showing Differences in Requirement for Promotion. <table><tr><td>KNUST</td><td>KTU</td></tr><tr><td>Memoranda publication forms part of their promotion requirements.</td><td>In KTU, report writing forms part of their promotion instead of memoranda.</td></tr><tr><td>Non-academic staff in KNUST places more emphasis on community service.</td><td>Non-academic staff place less emphasis on community service.</td></tr></table> ### e) Challenges in the Promotion of Academic and Non-Academic Staff Academic and Non-Academic staff were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the challenges confronting them as far as promotion is concerned. i. Challenges Confronting Academic Staff a. Having not Enough Resources to Conduct Research Table 4.17(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Not Having Enough Resources to Conduct Research as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KTU <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>7</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>11</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The research shows that $79\%$ of the KTU academic staff respondents agree that lack of enough resources to conduct research is a challenge as far as their promotion is concerned, $17\%$ disagree to that while $4\%$ neither agree nor disagree that lack of resources to conduct research is a challenge as indicated in Table #### 4.17(a). A respondent in KTU agreed to this. He told us that: "The resources to help us conduct enough research are not there and the incentives that will motivate us to conduct more research are not available. Resources like the book and research allowance" (TAi, 2017). Table 4.17(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Not Having Enough Resources to Conduct Research as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>12</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>7</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From Table 4.17(b), $90\%$ of the KNUST respondents agree that lack of enough resources to conduct research is one of their promotion challenges, $5\%$ disagree with that and $5\%$ also are uncertain as to whether it is a challenge or not. Tables 4.17(a) and 4.17(b) show that lack of enough resources to conduct research is a challenge for b. Stringent Criteria for Promotion Academic staff of KNUST and KTU as far as promotion is concerned. This shows that academic staff promotion is at stake since research is one of the requirements for promoting academic staff in both institutions. Table 4.18(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Stringent Criteria for Promotion as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>7</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>10</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.18(a) above specifies that $81\%$ of the KNUST respondents agree that the university has stringent criteria for promotion which is a challenge to them as far as promotion is concerned and $10\%$ disagree with that. Also, $9 \%$ neither agree nor disagree with the fact that stringent promotion criteria are a challenge as far as their promotion is concerned. Table 4.18(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Stringent Promotion Criteria as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>7</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.18(b) above specifies that; $69\%$ of the KTU respondents agree that the university has stringent criteria for promotion which is a challenge to them as far as promotion is concerned and $22\%$ disagree with that. Also, $9\%$ neither agree nor disagree with the fact that stringent promotion criteria are a challenge as far as their promotion is concerned. Based on the two Tables 4.18(a) and 4.18(b) above, the research revealed that, majority of the respondents agree that stringent criteria for promotion serve as a challenge for the promotion of academic staff in both KNUST and KTU. Also, KNUST has more strict promotion criteria than KTU based on the number of respondents who agreed to it. ## c. Gender Discrimination Table 4.19(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Gender Discrimination as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>11</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Respondents were asked whether Gender Discrimination serves as a promotion challenge to them. From Table 4.19(a) above, $61\%$ of the KTU disagree that gender discrimination is a challenge to them as far as promotion is concerned and $21 \%$ agree with that. $17 \%$ agree that neither do they disagree that gender discrimination is a promotional challenge. Table 4.19(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Gender Discrimination as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>7</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>7</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>2</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From Table 4.19(b) above, $66\%$ of the KTU disagree that gender discrimination is a challenge to them as far as promotion is concerned and $10\%$ agree with that. $24\%$ neither agree neither that gender discrimination is a promotion challenge. From the analysis of the two Tables 4.19(a) and 4.19(b) above, conclusion can be drawn that Gender discrimination is not a challenge for the promotion of academic staff in KNUST and KTU since majority of the respondents disagree to it. d. Intensified Competition among Academic Staff Table 4.20(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Intensified Competition among Academic Staff as a Challenge in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>8</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Respondents were asked whether competition among staff serves as a challenge for their promotion. The research revealed that $57\%$ of the KTU respondents agree that it is a challenge and $26\%$ also disagree that competition among staff serves as a promotion challenge. $17\%$ neither agree neither to that as indicated in Table 4.20(a). Table 4.20(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Intensified Competition among Academic Staff as a Challenge in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>6</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The research revealed that $38\%$ of the KTU respondents agree that it is a challenge and another $38\%$ also disagree that competition among staff serves as a promotion challenge. $24\%$ neither agree nor disagree with that as indicated in Table 4.20(b) above. From the Tables 4.20(a) and 4.20(b) above, the competition among academic staff in KNUST is higher than that of KTU which is a challenge to them as far as promotion is concerned. Majority of KNUST respondents (57%) agree that competition among staff is a challenge while only 38% of the KTU respondents agree with that. e. Limited Research Findings Table 4.21(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Limited Research Findings as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>3</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>6</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.21(a) above depicts that; $47\%$ of the KNUST respondents disagree with the fact that limited research findings serve as one of the challenges and another $38\%$ agree with that. $14\%$ of the respondents neither agree nor disagree strongly agree that it is a challenge. Table 4.21(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Limited Research Findings as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>10</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.21(b) above depicts that $45\%$ of the KNUST respondents disagree that limited research findings are a promotion challenge and $22\%$ agree with that. $44\%$ of the $44\%$ of the respondents neither agree nor disagree strongly agree that it is a challenge. Tables 4.21(a) and 4.21(b) show that limited, limited research finding is not a promotion challenge since majority of the respondents disagree with it, and some do not agree nor disagree. ### f. Being Busy with Work Table 4.22(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for being Busy with Work as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The results from Table 4.22(a) show that $52\%$ of the respondents agree that being busy with work is one of the promotion challenges confronting academic staff and $26 \%$ disagree with it. $22 \%$ of the respondents neither agree nor disagree that being busy at work is a promotional challenge confronting academic staff. Table 4.22(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for being Busy with Work as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>7</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>6</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>6</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The results from Table 4.22(b) show that $62\%$ of the KNUST respondents agree that being busy with work is one of the promotion challenges confronting academic staff and $9\%$ disagree with it. $29\%$ of the respondents neither agree nor disagree that being busy at work is a promotion challenge confronting academic staff. The research revealed that being busy at work is one of the promotion challenges confronting academic staff in both KNUST and KTU. ### g. Neglecting Teaching and focusing on Research work Table 4.23(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Neglecting Teaching and focusing on Research Work as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>4</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>4</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>7</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Respondents were asked whether neglecting teaching to focus on research serves as a challenge or not. Table 4.23(a) above reveals that $38\%$ of the KNUST respondents agree that it is a challenge and $28\%$ also disagree with it. $33\%$ of the respondents neither disagree nor agree that focusing on research and neglecting teaching is a challenge. Table 4.23(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Neglecting Teaching and focusing on Research work as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>11</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.23(b) above depicts that $23\%$ of the KTU respondents agree that it is a challenge and $65\%$ also disagree with it. $13\%$ of the respondents disagree neither disagree nor agree that focusing on research and neglecting teaching is a challenge. From the analysis of the two Tables 4.23(a) and 4.23(b) above, focusing on research and neglecting is a h. Lack of Opportunities to Service on Committees promotion challenge for academic staff in KNUST since majority (38%) agreed to it and 33% too were not sure. In KTU, it is not a challenge for academic staff since majority (65%) disagreed with it. Table 4.24(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Lack of opportunity to serve on Committees as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>8</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.24(a) shows how lack of opportunities to serve on committees is a challenge to academic staff as far as their promotion is concerned. $35\%$ of the KTU respondents agree that not getting opportunity to serve on committee is a promotional challenge to them and 43% also disagree that it is a promotional challenge. Also, 22% of them neither agree nor disagree with that. Table 4.24(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Lack of opportunity to serve on Committees as a Challenge Confronting Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>8</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>10</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.24(b) shows how lack of opportunities to serve on committees is a challenge to academic staff as far as their promotion is concerned. $86\%$ of the KNUST respondents agree that not getting opportunity to serve on committee is a promotion challenge to them and $14\%$ of them neither agree nor disagree to that. From the analysis of Tables 4.24(a) and 4.24(b), Lack of opportunity to serve on committee is not a challenge to academic staff in KTU since majority (43%) of them disagreed with that. But in KNUST, greater percentage of the respondents (86%) agreed that lack a. Lack of transparency in Promotion Process ## ii. Challenges Confronting Non-Academic Staff In our field interview, one Assistant Registrar in KTU gave us one challenge as far as promotion is concerned. She said that: "When your superior is not in good terms with you, he will find it difficult recommending you for promotion" (TN2, 2017). Table 4.25(a): Table Showing the Level of Consideration for Lack of Transparency in Promotion Process as a Challenge Confronting Non-Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>8</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.25(a) above shows that; $4\%$ of the respondents from KNUST strongly agree that Lack of transparency is one of the challenges they face before promotion, $26\%$ also agree to the fact that lack of transparency forms part of the promotional challenges. It went on to show that $17\%$ of the non-academic staff strongly disagree that lack of transparency is one of the challenges they face before being promoted and $17\%$ disagree with the same fact while $35\%$ of them are uncertain. The Analysis above shows that; majority of the respondents disagrees to the fact that transparency is one of the challenges before they get promoted meaning transparency is one of the things they consider highly or value during promotion exercises in such institution. During our field interview, one respondent agreed to this, and he stated that: "The promotion system in KNUST is not fair, but it tries to be fair" (KN), 2017. Table 4.25(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Lack of Transparency in Promotion Process as a Challenge confronting Non-Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>4</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>7</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From Table 4.25(b) above, it can be seen that $12\%$ of the respondents from KTU strongly disagree that lack of transparency forms part of the challenges they face in their promotion exercise, $28\%$ of the respondents also disagree, $8\%$ strongly agree and $36\%$ agree with the same fact whiles $16\%$ are not certain as to whether lack of transparency forms part of the promotion b. Workload Burden requirement or not. At the end, we could see that majority of the respondents agree that lack of transparency is a challenge they face in their promotion process. So, comparing these two institutions from the various tables, KTU faces such a challenge in their promotion process more than KNUST. Table 4.26(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Workload Burden as a Challenge confronting Non-Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>10</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The respondents from KNUST were asked to indicate whether workload burden is one of the challenges they face in their promotion process and from table 4.26(a) above, it can be seen that $4\%$ of the respondents strongly agree that workload burden forms part of the challenges in their promotion process, $44\%$ of the respondents also agree, $9\%$ strongly disagree, 26% also disagree while 17% are uncertain as to whether workload burden forms part of the challenges they face during their promotion process or not. It can be seen from the analysis that most of the respondents agree to the fact that workload burden forms part of the challenges they face as non-academic staff in KNUST. Table 4.26(b): Showing the Level of Consideration for Lack of Transparency in Promotion Process as a Challenge Confronting Non-Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>5</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>11</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>4</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>5</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> When respondents in KTU were asked to indicate whether workload burden serves as a challenge in their promotion process. From the field survey, the results show that $20\%$ strongly agree with the fact that workload burden forms part of the challenges they face during promotion process, $44\%$ agrees while $16\%$ are uncertain and $20\%$ disagrees shown in Table 4.26(b) above. The result reveals that majority of the staff believes or agrees with the fact that combining work responsibilities with some of the activities one needs to do before he or she gains promotion is tedious and makes work hectic. So, comparing both institutions, KNUST and KTU from the tables above, staff from both institutions agree to workload as challenge they face in their promotion process combining both their work responsibilities and promotion requirement activities such as paper publishing. ## c. Lack of Grants for Book Publication Table 4.27(a): Showing the Level of Consideration for Lack of Grants for Book Publication as a Challenge Confronting Non-Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>8</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.27 (a) above shows that $17\%$ of the respondents from KNUST strongly agree that lack of grants for book publication is one of the challenges they go through during promotion process and $17\%$ also agree that it forms part of their promotion process challenges, $13\%$ strongly disagree with the statement and $17\%$ disagreeing too whilst $35\%$ are uncertain as to whether lack of grants for book publication forms part of the challenges they face during promotion process or not. From the analysis, majority of the respondents agree that lack of grants for book publications forms part of the challenges that non-academic staff face during promotion process. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>11</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>6</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>13</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> On lack of grants for book publication, one can see from the above Table 4.27 (b) that majority of the respondents believed such serves as a challenge in promotion process with $12\%$ strongly agreeing and $44\%$ agreeing whilst $12\%$ strongly disagree and $24\%$ disagreeing and $8\%$ not certain about the whole fact that non-academic staffs consider lack of grants for book publication as one of the challenges they face in promotion process. So, from both tables analyzing both institutions, the non-academic staff from both institutions do not get enough grants to fund their research' for book publications to meet the requirements for promotion. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>11</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>6</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>13</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> On lack of grants for book publication, one can see from the above Table 4.27 (b) that majority of the respondents believed that such serves as a challenge in promotion process with $12\%$ strongly agreeing and $44\%$ agreeing whilst $12\%$ strongly disagree and $24\%$ disagreeing and $8\%$ not certain about the whole fact that non-academic staffs consider lack of grants for book publication as one of the challenges they face in promotion process. So, from both tables analyzing both institutions, the non-academic staff from both institutions do not get enough grants to fund their research for book publications to meet the requirements for promotion. ## d. Staff Personally Pressured to Meet Requirements for Promotion Table 4.28(a): Table Showing the Level of Consideration of Staff Personally Pressured to meet Requirements for Promotion as a Challenge Confronting Non-Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>8</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> When respondents from KNUST were asked to indicate whether non-academic staff personally feel pressured to meet requirements for promotion. Table 4.28(a) above, revealed that $4\%$ of the respondents strongly agree that staff feel personally pressured to meet the requirements for promotion, $39\%$ of the respondents also agree, $4 \%$ strongly disagree, $35 \%$ also disagree whiles $17 \%$ are uncertain as to whether it's a challenge or not. From the analysis, majority of the respondents agree that they personally feel pressured in meeting the requirements for promotion. Table 4.28(b): Showing the Level of Pressure on Non- Academic Staff to Meet the Requirements for Promotion in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>7</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>6</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>9</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Respondents were asked if they personally feel pressured in meeting the requirements for promotion and the following responses were obtained. From the Table 4.28(b) above, $4\%$ of the respondents strongly agree and $28\%$ also agree with the fact that they personally feel pressured to meet the requirement for promotion while $8\%$ disagree and $36\%$ disagree with the same fact as a challenge and $24\%$ are uncertain whether it serves a challenge or not. Looking at the analysis, it is obvious that majority of the non-academic staff in KTU feel comfortable and not pressured in meeting the requirements for promotion in their institution. Comparing both analysis in these two institutions, one could see that KNUST non-academic staff feel pressured in meeting the requirements for promotion because majority of the respondents from this institution indicated that they have challenges while majority of the respondents from KTU indicated the same fact as not a challenge, meaning they do not feel pressured to meet the requirements for promotion process. e. Gender Discrimination Table 4.29(a): Table Showing the Level of Gender Discrimination as a Challenge confronting Non-Academic Staff in KNUST. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>7</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>7</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.29(a) above shows that $17\%$ of the respondents agree that Gender discrimination is a challenge non-academic staffs face in promotion process, $30\%$ strongly disagree and another $30\%$ disagrees with the same fact serving as a challenge in promotion process, while $22\%$ of the respondents are not sure if gender discrimination forms part of the challenges of promotion. Looking at the analysis from the table, majority of the respondents from KNUST disagree with the fact that gender discrimination is a challenge in promotion process meaning fairness and equity is one of the things they consider highly in such an institution when it comes to promotion. During our field interview, one of the respondents disagreed. She stated that: "I can clearly tell you guys that when it comes to promotion, KNUST does it in a more gender balanced manner" (KNi, 2017). Table 4.29(b): Showing the Level of Consideration of Staff Personally Pressured to Meet Requirement as a Challenge Confronting Non-Academic Staff in KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>4</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>9</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From the Table 4.29(b) above, it can be seen that $32\%$ of the respondents agree that gender discrimination forms part of the challenges in promotion process, $36\%$ of the respondents also disagree and $16\%$ strongly disagree to the same fact that gender discrimination is one of the challenges they face as non-academic staffs in their promotion process in KTU, while $36\%$ are uncertain about the whole gender discrimination as a challenge. From the analysis, one could see that majority of the respondent do not believe that Gender discrimination is a challenge they face in their institution as non-academic staffs in promotion, meaning fairness is one of the things they value most in their institution when it comes to promotion. Comparing analysis from both institutions, respondents from KNUST and KTU do not agree to the fact that gender discrimination is one of the challenges they face in promotion making it a similarity between these institutions. Both institutions value fairness in promotion no matter one's gender orientation, if one qualifies for a promotion, he or she gets it without any hesitation. ### f) Effects of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression of Academic and Non-Academic Staff Academic and Non-Academic staff were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with the effect of promotion requirement on their career progression. i. Effects Relating to Academic Staff Conference Participation which Broadens Knowledge Table 4.30(a): Showing the Level of Consideration of Conference Participation which Broadens Knowledge as Requirement for Career Progression for KNUST Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>11</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>8</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.30(a) demonstrates clearly that $90\%$ of the KNUST academic respondents agree that conference participation which forms part of their promotion requirement have broadened their knowledge in their various field, $5\%$ disagree to that whilst another $5\%$ neither agree nor disagree that it has broadened their knowledge. Table 4.30(b): Showing the Level of Consideration of Conference Participation which Broadens Knowledge as Requirement for Career Progression for KTU Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>12</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.30(b) clearly shows that $92\%$ of the KTU academic respondents agree that conference participation which forms part of their promotion requirement has broadened their knowledge in their various fields, $4\%$ disagree to that whilst another $4\%$ disagree to that while $4\%$ neither agree nor disagree that it has broadened their knowledge. The two tables above show that conferences have broadened the knowledge of academic staff in KNUST and KTU since majority of the respondents agreed to that. This implies that authorities of both KNUST and KTU should organize more conferences for staff in their area of specialization since it broadens their knowledge. Teaching and Supervision of project work have helped upgrade your knowledge. Table 4.31(a): Showing the Level of Consideration of Teaching and Supervision of Project Works as Requirement for Career Progression for KTU Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>8</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>14</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The research shows that $96\%$ of the KTU respondents agree that Teaching and Supervision of project work have helped them upgrade their knowledge and $4\%$ of them disagree with that as indicated in Table 4.31(a) above. Table 4.31(b): Showing the Level of Consideration of Teaching and Supervision of Project Works as Requirement for Career Progression for KNUST Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>9</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>12</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.31(b) indicates that $100\%$ of the KNUST academic staff respondents agree that Teaching and Supervision of project works have helped them upgrade their knowledge. This means none of them disagreed with that. Tables 4.31(a) and 4.31(b) show that supervision of project work and teaching have helped academic staff in KNUST and KTU to upgrade their knowledge. Therefore, management of the two universities should ensure that each academic staff is assigned to supervise at least 3 students every year to help them upgrade their knowledge. ## ii. Research and Publication affect Social Life Table 4.32(a): Showing the Level of Consideration of Research and Publication as a Requirement that affects Career Progression of KNUST Academic Staff's Social Life. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>6</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.32(a) above depicts that $53\%$ of the KNUST academic staff respondents agree that Research and Publication affect their social life, $23\%$ also disagree that it affects their social life whilst $24\%$ of the respondents neither disagree nor agree that research and publication affect their social life. Table 4.32(b): Showing the Level of Consideration of Research and Publication as a Requirement that Affects Career Progression of KTU Academic Staff's Social Life. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>7</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>10</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.32(b) above shows that $74\%$ of the KTU respondents agree that Research and Publication affect their social life, $17\%$ also disagree that it affects their social life whilst $9\%$ of the respondents neither disagrees nor agree that research and publication affect their social life. Two Tables 4.32(a) and 4.32(b) above show that, Research and Publication, which is one of their promotion requirements affect the social life of academic staff in KNUST and KTU. ## iii. Failure to Publish the Right Quality of Papers Affects Career Progression Table 4.33(a): Showing the Level of Consideration of Failure to Publish the Right Quality of Papers Affects Career Progression of KTU Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>11</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.33(a) above shows that $30\%$ of the KTU academic staff respondents agree that failing to publish the right quality of papers has affected their career progression, $22\%$ also disagree that it has affected their career progression whilst $48\%$ of the respondents neither disagree nor agree that failing to publish the right quality papers has affected their career progression. Table 4.33(a): Showing the Level of Consideration of Failure to Publish the Right Quality of Papers Affects Career Progression for KNUST Academic Staff. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>6</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>9</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The field survey revealed that $53\%$ of the KNUST respondents agree that failing to publish the right quality of papers has affected their career progression, $8\%$ also disagree that it has affected their career progression whilst $43\%$ of the respondents neither disagree nor agree that failing to publish the right quality papers has affected their career progression as shown in table 4.33(b) above. Based on the analysis of the two tables 4.33(a) and 4.33(b) above, majority of the KNUST academic ## iv. Failure to Serve on Committees Affects Promotion staff respondents (53%) supported the assertion whilst majority of the KTU academic staff respondents (48%) were uncertain about the assertion. If KNUST academic staff are unable to publish the right quantity of papers, it affects their career progression whilst in KTU, academic staff do not know whether it will affect their career progression or not. Table 4.34(a): Table Showing the Level Consideration of Failure to Serve on Committees Affects Promotion as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KNUST Academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>8</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>8</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>3</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The field survey revealed that $76 \%$ of the KNUST respondents agree that failing to serve on committees affects your promotion, $10 \%$ also disagree that it has affected their promotion whilst $14 \%$ of the respondents disagree nor agree that failing to on committees has affected their promotion as shown in table 4.34(a) above. Table 4.34(b): Table Showing the Level Consideration of Failure to Serve on Committees Affects Promotion as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KTU Academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>9</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.34(b) above revealed that $26\%$ of the KTU respondents agree that failing to serve on committees affects promotion, $35\%$ also disagree that it has affected their promotion whilst $39\%$ of the respondents disagree or agree that failing to serve on committees has affected their promotion. The Tables 4.34(a) and 4.34(b) above show that failing to serve on committees affects the promotion of KNUST academic staff but do not affect the promotion of KTU academic staff. This is because majority of the KNUST academic staff respondents (76%) supported that assertion whilst 35% of the KTU academic staff respondents disagreed and 39% of the KTU academic staff respondents were not sure if they agreed or disagreed. ## v. Service to the Community Affects Teaching Jobs Table 4.35(a): Table Showing the Level Consideration of Service to the Community Affects Teaching Job as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KTU Academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Table 4.35(a) above indicates that $61\%$ of the KTU academic staff respondents agree that service to the community affects teaching jobs, $26\%$ also disagree that it has affected their teaching job whilst $13\%$ of the respondents disagree neither disagree nor agree that failing to service the community has affected their teaching job. Table 4.35(b): Table Showing the Level Consideration of Service to the Community Affects Teaching Job as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KNUST Academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>1</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>4</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>7</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>7</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The Table 4.35(b) above indicates that $24\%$ of the KNUST academic staff respondents agree that service to the community affects teaching jobs. $43\%$ also disagree that it has affected their teaching job whilst $33\%$ of the respondents neither disagree nor agree that they failing to service to the community has affected their teaching job. It can be seen from the two Tables 4.35(a) and 4.35(b) above that, service to communities affect the ## vi. Lecturers' Assessment Report affects Promotion teaching job of academic staff in KTU whilst it does not affect the teaching job of KNUST academic staff. This is because majority of the KNUST academic staff respondents disagreed with the assertion while majority of the KTU academic staff respondents supported the assertion. Table 4.36(a): Table Showing the Level Consideration of Lecturers' Assessment Report Affects Promotion as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KNUST Academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>5</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>6</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>8</td><td>38</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>21</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The field survey revealed that $53\%$ of the KNUST academic staff respondents agree that lecturers' assessment report affects their promotion, $9\%$ also disagree that it has affected their promotion whilst $38\%$ of the respondents disagree neither disagree nor agree that lecturers' assessment report has affected their promotion as presented in table 4.36(a) above. Table 4.36(b): Table Showing the Level Consideration of Lecturers' Assessment Report Affects Promotion as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KTU Academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>10</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The above Table 4.36(b) depicts that $69\%$ of the KTU academic staff respondents agree that lecturers' assessment report affects their promotion, $18\%$ also disagree that it has affected their promotion whilst $13\%$ of the academic staff respondents disagree or agree that lecturers' assessment report has affected their promotion. ## vii. Effects to Non-Academic staff a. Book Publication Affects Major Duties at Work From the Analysis of the two Tables 4.36(a) and 4.36(b) above, majority of the KNUST academic staff respondents (53%) supported the assertion and another greater percentage of the KTU academic staff respondents (61%) also supported it. This means that lecturer's assessment report affects the promotion of academic staff of KNUST and KTU. Table 4.37 (a): Table Showing the Level Consideration of Book Publication Affects your Major Duties at Work as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KNUST Non-academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>5</td><td>22</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>7</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The research show that $13\%$ of KNUST non-academic staff respondents strongly agree to book publication affecting their major duties as far as outcomes of promotion requirement on career progression is concern, $22\%$ also agree to that, $30\%$ strongly disagree to the same fact, $13\%$ also disagree and $22 \%$ of the non- academic staff respondents neither agree nor disagree that book publication affects their major duties at work. So, from the analysis, majority of the non- academic staff respondents from KNUST disagree that book publication affects their duties at work. Table 4.37 (b): Table Showing the Level Consideration of Book Publication Affects your Major Duties at Work as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KTU Non-academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>5</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>5</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>2</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>9</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The study reveals in table 4.37(b) that $20\%$ of the KTU non-academic respondents strongly agree that book publication affects their major duties at work and 20% also agree to that. Also, 36% strongly disagree and 16% of the non-academic respondents also disagree with the fact that book publication affects their major duties at work. And again $8 \%$ of the KTU non- academic staff respondents neither agree nor disagree with this factor. The response shows that majority of the KTU non- academic staff disagree with book publication affecting their major duties at work as an outcome of promotion requirement on their career progression. From both analysis of the two institutions, KNUST non-academic staff respondents and KTU non-academic staff respondents do not agree with the fact that book publication affects their major duties at work either in a negative way or positive way. b. The Number of Years Spent in the Institutions Affects Career Progression Table 4.38 (a): Table Showing the Level Consideration of The Number of Years Spent in the Institutions Affects your Career progression as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KNUST Non-academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>12</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>10</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Respondents were asked whether the number of years spent in the institutions affects their career progression and we obtained this. From Table 4.38 (a) above, $52\%$ of KNUST non-academic respondents strongly agree that the number of years spent in the institutions affects their career progression and, $44\%$ agree to that too whilst $4\%$ strongly disagree with this factor. Table 4.38(b): Table Showing the Level Consideration of The Number of Years Spent in the Institutions Affects your Career progression as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KTU Non-academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>15</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>10</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> When respondents were asked about how number of years spent in the institution affects their career progression, this is what they indicated. The research revealed that $40\%$ of KTU non-academic staff strongly agree with the fact that the number of years spent in the institution affects one's career progression and $60\%$ of the KTU non-academic staff respondents also agree to the same fact. From the analysis, we can conclude that majority of KTU non-academic staff's respondents strongly agree with the fact that the number of years spent in the institutions affects their career progression. Comparing these two institutions, the response shows that both institutions strongly agree to these facts the fact of years spent in the institution affects their career progression as non-academic staff because of what majority of the non-academic respondents indicated. When a staff spends long time working in the institution, they acquire enough experience along the way which helps them perform better at the workplace. c. Level of Education Leads to Failure in Career Progression Table 4.39 (a): Table 4.39(b): Showing Consideration of Level of Education as Requirement for Career Progression as Non-academic Staff of KNUST. KNUST Non-academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>11</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>6</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>2</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> The respondents were asked whether level of education leads to failure in career progression and this is what we obtained. Table 4.39 (a) above shows that $4\%$ of KNUST non-academic staff respondents agree that level of education leads to failure in career progression and $48\%$ of KNUST non-academic staff respondents also agree with the statement. Only $9\%$ strongly disagree and $26\%$ also disagree with the same fact that level of education leads to failure in career, progression in their institution with $13\%$ uncertain with the same facts. Looking at the analysis, we could see that, majority of KNUST non- academic staff respondents agree to the fact that level of education leads to one's failure in career progression. Table 4.39(b): Showing Consideration of Level of Education as Requirement for Career Progression as Non-Academic Staff of KTU. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>5</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>7</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>5</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>5</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>25</td><td>100</td></tr></table> Again, when the non-academic staff respondents in KTU were asked to indicate if level of education leads to failure in their career progression. Table 4.12 (b) shows that majority of KTU non-academic staff respondents representing $20\%$ strongly agree and $28\%$ also agree to the whole fact whilst $12\%$ disagree and $20\%$ strongly disagree that level of education does not lead to failure in their career progression with $20\%$ not sure if level of education leads to failure in their career progression. Analyzing information obtained from non-academic staff respondents from both institutions, it is obvious that majority of non-academic staff respondents from both institutions agree to the fact that level of education leads to failure in their career progression. iii. Combination of your Work Duties and Book Publication Affects your Social Life Table 4,40 (a): Table Showing the Level Consideration of Combination of your Work Duties and Book Publication affects your Social Life as Effect of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression for KNUST Non-academic Staff Respondents. <table><tr><td>Response</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage (%)</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>9</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>3</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>4</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Agree</td><td>3</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Agree</td><td>6</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>Neither</td><td>10</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>Disagree</td><td>1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Strongly Disagree</td><td>5</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>23</td><td>100</td></tr></table> From Table 4.13 (a), it shows that $13\%$ of KNUST non-academic staff respondents strongly agree that combining their work duties and book publications affects their social life and $39\%$ of KNUST non-academic staff respondents also agree to the same outcome of promotion requirements on their career progression. But $13\%$ of KNUST non-academic staff respondents disagree and $17\%$ also strongly disagree with the same fact with $17\%$ either agreeing or not disagreeing. So, considering the analysis. One can say that majority of KNUST non-academic staff agree to the fact that combination of one's work duties and book publication affects one's social life. From the field survey, the results show that $12\%$ of KTU non-academic staff respondents strongly agree and $24\%$ also believe that combination of work duties and book publication affects their social life. But like every human institution, $4\%$ disagree and $20\%$ strongly disagree with the same statement whilst $40\%$ of the KTU non- academic staff respondents neither agree nor disagree with the same fact. Looking at the whole analysis, it seems to suggest that majority of KTU non-academic staff respondents agree to the fact that combining their work duties and book publication affects their social life. Comparing the analysis obtained from the two Tables 4.40 (a) and 4.40 (b), KNUST and KTU non-academic staff respondents agree to the fact that combining their work duties and book publications affects their social life. ### g) Discussion of Findings At the end of our research, we found out that some of our findings were similar and some too were different from other studies conducted. The requirements for Academic staff of KNUST and KTU were research, teaching, and supervision of projects, community service, and conferences. Relating it Azman et al (2016) study which was conducted in Malaysian universities and Gilivand (2016) study which was conducted in Islamic Republic of Iran, we found out that the promotion requirements for KNUST and KTU are like that of their studies in the areas of research, teaching, project supervision, community/Governmental activities and conferences. The difference here was that the Azman et al (2016) study pointed out one requirement which was different from that of our study and this requirement was examination invigilation. Gilivand's (2016) study revealed a broad requirement namely cultural, educational and research. Under the cultural, we have community service, education qualification, project supervision, teaching, and research work which is like the promotion requirements in the Ghanaian context. Under the non-academic staff, this is what our study revealed concerning the requirement before promotion. The findings show that before a non- academic staff from either of institutions of studied get promoted, he or she is required to; have a level of education, portray leadership skills, have some knowledge in university administration, publication of memos, spent at least four years in the institution, ability to work on your own, initiative and drive, one must be innovative and sense of responsibility. Comparing our study to some of the studies reviewed in the literature, this study shares some similarities with Peter's (2014) study. His study was conducted on the impact of promotion on employee performance which came up with findings such as High work performance, competency, experience, and academic qualification as requirement for promotion in Des salaam city council in Tanzania. Comparing Broni and Oforiwaa's (2014) study which was conducted in University of Education Winneba, with our study, our findings revealed that, gender discrimination is not a challenge as far as promotion is concerned in KNUST and KTU because both institutions value fairness in terms of gender promotion. But in the Oforiwaa and Broni study, it revealed that, the male academic staffs in the university were favoured more than the female staff and their reason was because females have more social responsibilities such as taking care of their family in terms of cooking and catering for them than males. Azman et al (2016) also conducted a study on Malaysian Universities and in the study some of the challenges they came up with were different promotion system with one salary structure, but our findings revealed that when an academic staff in any of the studied institutions gets promoted, there is a salary increase. Also, the Azman et al (2016) study revealed that, because research and publications serve as one of the requirements for promotion in Malaysian universities, academic staff focuses more on research work than teaching. Looking at the challenges in promotion concerning non-academic staff, a study was conducted by Peter (2014) on Dar es Salaam City Council of Tanzania which revealed that the promotion system is biased but our findings revealed that promotion systems in KNUST and KTU are fair. The same study revealed that the Human Resource Department in Dar es Salaam City Council does not conduct awareness programs for employees to know more about the promotion process and rules and regulations regarding promotion which is consistent with this study. This is because our study revealed that academic staff are less informed in terms of the promotion requirement and process. At the end of our field survey, respondents from the various institutions of study (KNUST and KTU) helped us uncover the following effects of promotion requirements on career progression for academic staff. Academic staff participation in conferences broadens their knowledge in their field of work, teaching and supervision of project work and helps academic staff upgrade their knowledge. Failure to serve on committees affects one's promotion negatively, and Lecturers assessment report from students affects their promotion. Comparing our findings to findings of the studies we reviewed in the literature such as Azman et al (2016), the findings that research and article publications help academic staff improve upon their current knowledge in their area of specialization and also in the review of literature, through research, academic staff encounter new ideas that help them upgrade their knowledge and all this affect promotion career progression according to Azman et al (2016). The Peter (2014) study revealed some positive outcome of promotion in Dar es Salaam city council, it revealed that promotion system brings about increase in employee remuneration, good working relationship between employee and management and, it motivates employees to work harder. Relating this to our study, we found out that KNUST and KTU have similar effects with that of Dar es Salaam city council. This is because in KNUST and KTU, the need for career progression motivates employees to work harder to get promoted and academic staff salaries are increased when they progress in their career. ## V. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The main objective of this study was to compare and analyze the requirements for promotion in the traditional universities, using KNUST and KTU as comparative study. The study sought to find answers to the promotion requirement for both academic and non-academic staff, the difference between their promotion requirements, the challenges staff go through and the effect promotion has on their career progression. This chapter deals with the summary of the thesis, recommendations, and conclusions. ### a) Summary of Findings This study tried to find out the promotion requirement for both academic and non- academic staff in KNUST and KTU, the challenges confronting both staff as far as their promotion is concerned and the effects of promotion requirements on their career progression. From the results, the major findings are summarized below. ## i. Promotion Requirement for Academic Staff On the requirements for promotion of academic staff, our study revealed some similar requirements for the promotion of academic staff in KNUST and KTU. The promotion requirements revealed here include research work, teaching work, supervision of students' project work, engaging in community service, participating in conferences, serving as an exam officer, attracting research grant for your department or the university, the quality of examination questions and assessment reports on instructions and materials from lecturers. Looking at the requirement for the promotion of non-academic staff, our research revealed some similarities in the promotion requirements for non-academic staff in KNUST and KTU. These similarities include non-academic staff are required to have knowledge in the university administration system, memoranda publication about the current administration trend and administrative procedures. Non-academic staff are also required to attain certain level of education, exhibit leadership skills, and spend a minimum of four (4) years in current rank before one is due for promotion and ability to perform excellently on the job. Apart from the similarities that both KNUST and KTU shared on their promotion requirement for non-academic staff promotion, we also came up with other findings for these institutions separately. From KTU, our findings revealed that, before one can be promoted, he/she is required to be able to work with minimal supervision, being innovative and being able to work in teams. From KNUST, it was found that sense of responsibility, drive, and initiative forms part of the promotion for non-academic staff in the university. ## iii. Challenges Confronting the Promotion of Academic Staff Looking at the challenges confronting the promotion of academic staff, our study found out some challenges confronting academic staff in KNUST and KTU and one was that academic staff in both KNUST and KTU do not get enough resources to conduct research which is one of the requirements for promotion. Also, it revealed they both have strict criteria for promotion but KNUST's criteria for promotion of academic staff is stricter than the KTU criteria. Another challenge revealed by our study was that academic staff in both institutions were busy with a lot of work. Apart from the similarities in their challenges, our research revealed some differences. One of the differences was that staff in KNUST focused on research work than teaching since promotion is pegged to research more than teaching which is not so in KTU. Again, KNUST academic staff do not get the opportunity to serve on committees which was part of their promotion requirement, and this is not a challenge in KTU since academic staff get the opportunity to serve on various committees. ## iv. Challenges Confronting the Promotion of Non-Academic Staff With the challenges confronting both non-academic staffs from KNUST and KTU, our study helped us found out that both non-academics in KNUST and KTU share some similar challenges in their promotion systems which includes; workload burden, which means, non-academic staffs combining their major duties to the promotion requirements activities such as memo publication turns to create extra work for them and also Lack of grants for their memos or reports publication also serve as a challenge for them. Although both institutions share some similar challenges, our study again helped us uncover some challenges that were faced by the non-academic staff in their institutions separately. From KNUST, we found out that their non-academic staff personally feel pressured in trying to meet the requirement for their promotion systems. Non- academic staff from KTU regarded lack of transparency as one of the challenges they face in their promotion system. Non-academic staff in KTU also faced a challenge where they are unable to get date for promotion interview on time. Another challenge that our findings revealed was that KNUST promotion committee sometimes do not get the right external assessors for promotion and if they get too, the assessment report also delays. ## v. Effects of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression of Academic Staff The findings of our study revealed some positive and negative effects/outcomes of promotion requirement of academic staff in KNUST and KTU on their career progression. One of the positive effects revealed by our study was that, career progression serve as motivational tool for academic staff of KNUST and KTU to work harder and also through conference participation, academic staff have been able to broaden their knowledge in their various filed of specialization. Also, teaching and supervision of students' projects have helped academic staff to upgrade their knowledge. Also, the findings of our study revealed some negative effects and one of them was that one's career progression is affected when the academic staff fails to publish the right quality of papers. Again, our findings revealed that students' assessment report affects academic staff in both positive and negative ways in the sense that academic staff gets promotion when students' assessment reveals high in all areas and when the assessment reveals low, staff do not get promoted. Furthermore, the findings revealed that staff get demotivated when staff do not get resources for research work. ## vi. Effects of Promotion Requirement on Career Progression of Non-Academic Staff It was found that the effects or outcomes of promotion requirements on career progression of non-academic staff for KNUST and KTU was made of the positive outcomes and negative outcomes. The positive outcome we came up with were, The number of years a non-academic staff spends in the institution which is a requirement also turns to affects their career progression positively because it helps them gain experience on their jobs which helps them improve on their performance and non-academic staffs from both institutions thus KNUST and KTU agreed to this effect or outcome. And also both non-academic staffs from both institutions agreed to this negative outcomes or effects we found that, ones level of education leads to failure in career progression, meaning when a non-academic staffs qualifies for a promotion and his educational background does not, he or she will not be promoted and again non-academic staffs combining their work duties and memo or report publications affects their social life. ### b) Recommendations The following recommendations were made based on our study: i. The Management of KNUST and KTU and other institutions of learning should organize training workshops and conferences for academic and non-academic staff that will expose them to the current trends in their various areas of work. This will help the staff contribute to the universities. ii. The management of KNUST and KTU and other institutions should reduce the level of strictness in their criteria for the promotion of both academic and non-academic staff. iii. The Management of KTU and other institutions of higher learning should implement systems that will ensure free and fair promotion in their universities. iv. These and other universities should decrease the workload of both academic and non-academic staff to allow them to focus on other important aspects. v. KNUST, KTU and others should give their staff the opportunity to serve on various committees. ### c) Conclusion Our study sought to compare and analyze the promotion requirements in universities, using KNUST and KTU as comparative study. The findings revealed that academic staff are required to conduct research, teach, supervise students' project works, engage in community services, participate in conferences, set quality examination questions, serve as examination officers, attract research grant for the university in order to get promoted and through the process of achieving these requirements, they face the following challenges: insufficient resources to conduct researches, stringent promotion criteria and lack of opportunity to serve on committees. At the end of it all, these are the outcomes or effect of promotion requirement on their career progression, Teaching and supervision of project works which help to upgrade knowledge of academic staff, failure to publish the right quality papers affects each academic staff's career progression. Also, when staff do not conduct research and publication, such staff's social life and the very lecturer's assessment report are low with no promotion. Furthermore, the findings of this study revealed some requirements that non-academic staff are to meet to get promoted. The requirements are that non-academic staff in KNUST and KTU are to have in-depth knowledge in the university administration system, draft reports and memoranda on current administration trends and procedures. They are also required to attain some level in education, exhibit leadership skills at work, and spend a minimum of four (4) years on current rank to get promotion to the next rank. In KNUST, community service also forms part of their promotion requirements and in KTU, ability to work in a team and ability to perform excellently on the job also form part of their requirements. In the process of meeting these requirements, non-academic staff in the two universities tend to face some common challenges in the sense that the promotion system in the two universities is not fair, they are overburdened with a lot of workloads, and they do not get enough grants to publish papers and memoranda. Additionally, our study revealed that staff in KNUST are being pressured to meet the promotional requirements which serve as a challenge to them. At the end, the study revealed some outcomes or effects of non-academic staff's promotion requirements on their career progression. The study revealed that the number of years spent by non-academic staff in the KNUST and KTU affects their career progression. We also find that, if one does not attain certain level of education, it leads to failure in their career progression, and the combination of work and memoranda publication affects their social life. Furthermore, the study revealed that career progression serves as a motivational tool for non-academic staff to perform well in their jobs. #### APPENDICE 1 Questionnaire for Academic Staff Our research topic is: "A Comparative Study of the Effect of Promotion on Employee Career Progression in Academics". Consequently, you form part of the sampled employee. We would be grateful if you could spare a few minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire for us. Your confidentiality is guaranteed. ## Section A: Persoisal Data Instructions: Please thick the option that is applicable, provide details where necessary #### 1. Gender (a) Male [](b) Female [] #### 2. Age (a)20-30 [](b) 30-40 [] (c) 40-50 [](d) 50 and above [] #### 3. Marital Status (a) Single [](b) Married [] (c) Divorced [] Widowed [] 4. Name of Institution (a) KNUST [](b) KTU [] 1. Position 1. Department 1. Educational Level (a) HND [](b) First Degree [] Master's degree [](d) PhD [] 1. Numbers of years at work (a) Below 3 years [](b) 4-7 years [](c) 8-11 years [](d) 12-15 years [](e) 15 years and above [] Section B: Promotion Requirements for Academic Staff <table><tr><td>1. Strongly Disagree</td><td>2. Disagree</td><td>3. Neither</td><td colspan="2">4. Agree</td><td colspan="2">5. Strongly Agree</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Research forms part of the requirement for promotion</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Teaching forms part of the requirement for promotion.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Supervision of project forms part of the requirement for promotion</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Community service forms part of the requirement for promotion.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Conferences forms part of the requirement for promotion.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></table> Instruction; Please tick the scale below to answer the following set of questions: 9. Have you been promoted before? (a) Yes [](b) No [] 1. If yes, from which rank to which rank. - (a) Assistant Lecturer to Lecturer [] - (b) Lecturer to Senior Lecturer - (c) Senior Lecturer to Associate professor [] - (d) Associate Professor to Full Professor [] - (e) Other specify. 11. How long did it take for you to move from your previous rank to the current one? - (f) 2 years [](g) 3 years [](h) 4 years [](i) 5 years [](j) 6 years and above [] 12. Which of the following criteria formed part of the requirements to move from your previous rank to the current one? Tick as many as applicable. #### 13. Instruction: Please tick the scale below to answer the following sets of questions. Others (Specify): Ahm; Please tick the scale below to answer the following set of questions: Uoremfnts on Career Progression of Academic Staff <table><tr><td>1. Strongly Disagree</td><td>2. Disagree</td><td>3. Neutral</td><td colspan="2">4. Agree</td><td colspan="2">5. Strongly Agree</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Participation in conferences have broadened your knowledge in the field.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Teaching and Supervision of project works help you to upgrade your knowledge.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Research and Publications affect your social life</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Failure to publish the right quality of papers has affected your career progression.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Failure to serve on committees has affected your promotion.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Service to the community affects your teaching job</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Lecturers&#x27; assessment report affects your promotion.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></table> ## Questionnaire for Non-Academic Staff (Senior Members) Our research topic is: A Comparative Study of the Effect of Promotion on Employee Career Progression in Academics. Consequently, you form part of the sampled employee. We would be incredibly grateful if you could spare a few minutes of your time to fill out this questionnaire for us. Your confidentiality is guaranteed. ### Section A: Personal Data Instructions; Please thick the option that is applicable, provide details where necessary #### 14. Gender (a) Male [](b) Female [] #### 15. Age (a) 20-30 [](b) 30-40 [] (c) 40-50 [](d) 50 and above [] #### 16. Marital Status (a) S gle [](b) Married \[(c) Divorced [] Widowed [] #### 17. Name of Institution (a) KNUST [](b) KTU [] #### 18. Position . 中 中 #### 19. Department. ·· . . #### 20. Educational Level (a) HND [](b) First Degree [] (c) Master's Degree [](d) PhD [] #### 21. Numbers of years at work (a) Below 3 years [](b) 4-7 years [](c) 8-11 years [](d) 12-15 years [] (e) 15 years and above [] ### Section B: Promotion Requirements for Non-Academic Staff #### 22. Instruction: Please tick the scale below to answer the following set of questions <table><tr><td>1. Strongly Disagree</td><td>2. Disagree</td><td>3. Neither</td><td>4. Agree</td><td colspan="5">5. Strongly Agree</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9">Promotion Requirements for Non-Academic Staff</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Book publication forms part of the requirement for promotion.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Knowledge in University Administration system forms part of the requirement for</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Level of education forms part of the promotion requirement.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Leadership skills forms part of the promotion requirement</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Number of years spent at the organization forms part of the promotion requirement.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr></table> #### Others (Specify) #### 23. Have you been promoted before? (a) Yes [](b) No [] #### 24. If yes, from which rank to which rank. - (a) Assistant Registrar to Senior Assistant Registrar [] - (b) Senior Assistant Registrar to Deputy Registrar [] - (c) Deputy Registrar to Registrar [] - (d) Others (specify) #### 25. How long did it take you to move from your previous rank to the current one? (a) 2 years \[ \](b) 3 years \[(c) 4 years \[ \](d) 5 years [] (e) 6 years and above [] Section C: Challenges of Getting Promoted #### 26. Instruction; Please tick the scale below to answer the following set of questions <table><tr><td>1. Strongly Disagree</td><td>2. Disagree</td><td colspan="2">3. Neither</td><td colspan="3">4. Agree</td><td>5. Strongly Agree</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Lack of transparency in promotion process.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Workload burden.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Lack of grants for book publication</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Staff personally feel pressured to meet requirement.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Gender discrimination exists</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr></table> Others (Specify) Section D: Effects/Outcomes of Promotion Requirements on Career Progression of Non-Academic Staff <table><tr><td>1. Strongly Disagree</td><td>2. Disagree</td><td>3. Neither</td><td>4. Agree</td><td colspan="5">5. Strongly Agree</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Book publication affects your major duties at work.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">The number of years spent in the institutions affects your career progression.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Level of education leads to failure in career progression.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">Combination of your work duties and publication of books affects your social life.</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td></tr></table> #### 27. Instruction; Please tick the scale below to answer the following set of questions. Other (specify) #### Interview Questions 1. What is the staff strength of your university comprising academic and non-academic staff? 1. How long have you been working here? 1. Have you been promoted before? 1. What was the requirement for your promotion? 1. What were some of the challenges you faced in meeting the promotion requirements? 1. Are there any positive or negative effects on your career progression?

Generating HTML Viewer...