INTRODUCTION:

1. RATIONALE:

The sea change is taking place in the governance and management of higher education institutions HEIs. Now they are transforming from reacting to responsive in governance and management, teaching-centric to learning-centric, traditional teaching-oriented to research-oriented, domain-specific teaching to multidisciplinary, degree awarding institutions to producing work-ready graduates for employment, entrepreneurship, and incubation. The educational programmes are designed and implemented using the credit-based approach in a flexible manner, the curriculum is relevant to the world of work, the teaching-learning approach is experiential, assessment is formative and students are provided support service in HEIs after the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 (MHRD, 2020).

The change is implemented on a wide canvas in new areas of functioning of the institute. The fast change at the institute level calls for the frequent deployment and redeployment (DRD) of faculty members to lead in a specific area integrated with total change. The faculty members are expected to perform the core and innovative roles to lead the change in different areas. They may devote up to 60% time to core roles and 40% time to innovative roles.

The right person in the right position at the right time is crucial for assuring the quality of education and the success of the educational change. The limited number of faculty members with a student-faculty ratio of 1:20 to 1:30 calls for frequent DRD of the faculty members to lead the change. It is not the issue of headcount as it happened in the past but the issue of quality of education and excellence through academic innovations in future. The strategic deployment of a human resource management approach to achieve strategic goals with capable persons is the key to success (Armstrong 2009, Wright, 1998, Som, 2008, Story, 2007, Haruna, 2023, Harms, 2009). The use of artificial intelligence in the DRD employees and their performance deployment effect and disclosure effect are described in a positive manner (Tong 2021).

The DRD of faculty members are interrelated with other human resource management practices (HRMPs) at the institute level as shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1: Interrelation of DRD with other HRMPs

The DRD of faculty members at the institution level needs to be implemented in consonance with these HRM functions.

There are many challenges to the DRD of faculty members viz. low level of competence and confidence for academic innovations, lowest priority to academic and research profession, non-availability of right faculty members because of geographic locations, high qualification (Ph. D) is required in comparison to other professions which takes another additional 5 years of education, compensation is comparatively very low in comparison to other professions, persons having a right aptitude for academics have throat cutting competition because of unemployment problems (many persons use education employment as a platform to prepare for other jobs during initial phase of their career), lack of standards available for deploying right faculty member for right innovative assignment, lack of assessment tests to assess the accurate competence and proficiency, low awareness for training and deployment for the right innovative role, no standard and well established mechanism for assessing the aptitude of the faculty member for innovation, no provision for preservice training to become a faculty member in HEIs etc. Some of these challenges are confirmed in previous research studies conducted in other contexts

The innovations in higher education open up avenues for internal and external deployment for designing and implementing educational innovations in HEIs. These could be temporary, permanent, and turn key basis. The HEIs enjoy autonomy so following the guidelines of UGC and AICTE external deployment may be arranged with a purpose like professors of practice (UGC, 2022), adjunct faculty, professor emeritus, consultants and mentors may be deployed by HEIs.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF DRD

The DRD should be based on the aptitude to innovate, competence to innovate, assessment of the potential for innovation, transparency deployment, career advancement, personal and professional development, irrespective of seniority and experience, strategic institutional priorities, rewarding and satisfying.

3. GOALS OF DRD:

The DRD should intend to harness the full creative potential of individuals and teams, satisfy the strategic requirements of the institute in priority areas, align with the NEP 2020, benefit students and stakeholders, build the capacity of the institute to innovate, create an innovative culture in the institute, develop core innovative competence and leverage for competition in the institute, manage and harness faculty talent, foster adaptive practices, crate motivational and joyful environment. In contrast to the traditional concept of DRD dealing with redundancy, overstaffing, downsizing, layoff and lethargy. The evolving concept should be used to achieve the strategic goals of the institute.

4. AREAS OF DRD

The HEIs intend to innovate in many areas of institutional functioning as shown in Table 1. The innovations in these areas are led by coordinators who need to be deployed and redeployed full-time or partially. These areas are in line with the provisions of the NEP 2020.

5. LITERATURE REVIEW:

Joyce et al (2015) stated that deployment practices are aimed at employee motivation, increased productivity, and leadership development. There could be various types of deployment such as horizontal, vertical, inter-department and inter-location. Bougardt (2011) conducted a study on excess teachers and concluded that the excess staff should be dealt with soft strategy. The right sizing has personal and professional effects on teachers. Mithamo (2016) stated that deployment is an integral part of organizational change and the employees need to perceive the change positively to make the deployment and change successful. Mponda and Biwot (2015) concluded that inter-location, inter-department and re-designation type of deployment is prevalent. Ferres (2005) concluded that attitudes, relationships, and psychological contracts are not negatively affected by redeployment. The deployment should be carried out carefully to have a positive effect on the organization as well as on individuals. The relationship between effectiveness in DRD and performance, relationship, innovation, and satisfaction is reported to be positive (Mullins, 2004). The DRD is defined in terms of promotion, transfer, allocation of different jobs, new assignment, demotion, horizontal, vertical, related, unrelated, training and redeployment etc (Cole, 1997, Aina, 1992, West 1988, Mithamo, 2015, Tubman). Ikedimma (2019) concluded that there is a significant relationship between promotion and satisfaction, job design and commitment, and transfer and engagement. The strategies recommended for improving redeployment are promotion at the right time, transparency in redeployment, and job rotation. The use of competency framework for a particular position in educational institutions is used for the deployment and redeployment of faculty members Gupta (2020). Gupta and Gupta (2013) stressed on deployment of faculty members for academic excellence. Gupta and Gupta (2021) stated that the deployment and redeployment of faculty members are facilitating factors for the competency framework. Gupta and Gupta (2023) described the need for quality education and obtaining accreditation of engineering programmes.

6. DISCUSSION:

There is no research study found on the DRD of faculty members of HEIs with regard to innovation and the achievement of strategic goals.

7. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:

1. To ascertain the effectiveness of DRD of faculty members for implementing innovative academic and research projects.

2. To suggest strategies to enhance the effectiveness of DRD of faculty members for implementing innovative academic and research projects.

8. METHODOLOGY:

A descriptive research methodology was used to achieve the research objectives. The research instrument was responded to by more than 1425 faculty members, principals and officials from all over the country. The research instrument comprises a rating scale, open-ended questions and an interview schedule.

9. FINDINGS:

The effectiveness of DRD is ascertained on three major parameters which are stated below:

9.1 Right faculty for the right innovative project:

The DRD of the right faculty member for the right work at the right time ensure quality, effectiveness, productivity, relevance, and satisfaction of students and stakeholders. The faculty member does not create problems for others. The responses are shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1: Right faculty for the right innovative project

It is inferred from Fig. 1 that the level of DRD of faculty members in technical institutions for innovative projects is at level two out of four.

9.2. Development of faculty members to assume new innovative projects:

The DRD of faculty members are carried out to impart training and guidance for developing new and innovative skills so that new projects are assigned to them in future. At the institute level, DRD of faculty members is considered to be a people-building process. The responses are shown in Fig. 2.

Figure 2: Development of faculty members

It is inferred from Fig. 2 that the effectiveness of DRD on the personal and professional development of faculty members for assuming innovative projects is at level two out of four.

9.3 Use of potential:

The faculty members have varied latent potential which can be developed, channelized and used by the institute for making the innovative projects successful. The potential was studied on joy and internal satisfaction, owing to innovations, retention with the institute, and learning on innovations. The responses of faculty members are given in Fig. 3.

Figure 3: Use of potential

It is inferred from Fig. 3 that the effectiveness of DRD on the use of potential is at level 2 on a scale of four.

10. SATISFACTIONS OF FACULTY MEMBERS:

In the past, DRD practices were used to deal with surplus staff, skills redundant staff, layoff for various reasons and as a punishment technique. That has created a win situation for the organization and a lose situation for the employees. In the 21^st century, ample opportunities are prevailing in higher education for the faculty members and it is the strong need for the HEIs to innovate in line with NEP 2020. The DRD practices may be a win-win situation for the faculty members and the institute. The satisfaction of faculty members with DRD practices is ascertained on four major parameters which are stated below:

10.1. Satisfaction on effective deployment:

The satisfaction of faculty members on DRD is important for effective performance on innovative educational projects. The low satisfaction and dissatisfaction of faculty members may be the root cause of the failure of scientifically designed innovations.

Figure 4: Satisfaction with effective deployment

It is inferred from Fig. 4 that the satisfaction of faculty members with the effectiveness of DRD is at level 2 on a scale of 4.

10.2 Satisfaction with personal development:

The satisfaction of faculty members on DRD on the personal development of individual members results in owning, high commitment, and confidence for effective performance. It increases self-satisfaction.

Fig. 5: Satisfaction with personal development

It is inferred from Fig. 5 that the satisfaction of faculty members on DRD on personal development is at level 2 on a scale of four.

10.3 Satisfaction with professional development:

The satisfaction of faculty members on DRD on the professional development of individual members results in adaptability, multi-tasking, proactiveness, and leadership for effective performance. It increases emotional attachment and retention.

Figure 6: Satisfaction on professional development

It is inferred from Fig. 6 that the satisfaction of faculty members on DRD on professional development is at level 2 on a scale of four.

10.4 Satisfaction on Joyful Deployment:

In the past at the organizational level DRD practice was used for transfer, relocation, deal with surplus staff, attrition and the like. These types of DRD were painful, stressful and frustrating for the employees. It was often against the willingness and preferences of the employees resulting in low performance and negative attitude for the organization. The joyful deployment results in high morale, commitment and confidence for innovation and change.

Fig 7: Satisfaction on joyful deployment

It is inferred from Fig. 7 that the satisfaction of faculty members on joyful DRD is at level 2 on a scale of four.

10.5 Conclusion of the effectiveness of DRD:

The current use of DRD on parameters like the right faculty member for the right innovative project, assume new innovative project, use of potential, and satisfaction on DRD is moderate. The moderate level of DRD indicates that HEIs have started the DRD practices in the context of NEP 2020. In future, the HEIs need to link the DRD with SHRMPs and further improve it to assure the quality of education, research and social contribution.

11. STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE DRD:

The strategies to improve DRD are designed based on the views received on structured questions and interview schedules.

1. In innovation and reform-oriented HEIs, the DRD of faculty members should be scientifically designed to harness their creativity, proactiveness, latent energy, responsiveness and visionary skills for implementing innovative projects. The innovative projects should create opportunities for the learning and development of faculty members. An environment of positivity needs to be created to make faculty members feel happy rather than stressed, deprived and isolated.

2. The empirical principle of 20% of faculty members putting efforts to achieve 80% routine goals of the HEIs needs to be discarded and a shift is required to achieve the strategic goals of the institute through the contribution of 100% of faculty members. Here the concept of DRD works effectively. The overloaded 20% of faculty members may be relieved from excessive load to ensure their happiness in HEIs. The remaining 80% of faculty members may be made happy assigning appropriate roles aligned to their interests and potential.

3. The consultation, participation and collaborative approaches should be used for implementing the DRD practice in HEI.

4. The opportunity for training, mentoring, coaching and guidance should be available to the faculty members to effectively implement innovative academic projects.

5. The role enrichment approaches viz role rotation, horizontal and vertical loading, autonomy, feedback, motivation, and challenges should be used during DRD practice (Vroom, 2013).

6. The DRD should be integrated with training, mentoring, role enrichment, retention, succession planning, commitment, and proactiveness of faculty members. There should be ample opportunities for individuals and teams to use their full potential, competence and time for implementing academic innovations and deriving internal satisfaction. There should be opportunities to volunteer for a specific kind of innovation at the institute level.

7. In contrast to the authoritative and centralized approach use consultative and participative approaches for DRD. The DRD should be frequent and according to the changing needs of the strategic institute development plan (SIDP). The requirements of the SIDP should be interwoven and integrated with DRD.

8. HEIs should consider partial deployment may be one week in a month, one day in a week, and two hours daily assessing the type of requirement for the academic innovation. The partial DRD is effective in educational institutions and it satisfies the institutional as well as individual needs.

9. HEIs should deploy experts and experienced professionals from outside the institute to satisfy the specific requirement of the innovation like a professor of practice, adjunct faculty, and professor of emeritus (UGC, 2022, AICTE, 2019).

10. The DRD should not be used as a punitive technique. The HEIs should associate rewards and incentives with DRD practices. (Mulkeen, 2005) concluded that the DRD used as a punitive technique is detrimental to individuals and organizations.

12. REFERENCES:

1. AICTE (2019). AICTE Regulation on Pay Scale in Technical Education, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi.

2. Aina, S. (1992). Personnel Management in Nigeria: A Work Centered Approach. Ikeja: F. Communications.

3. Armstrong M. (2009). Handbook of Human Resource Management Practices, 11^th Edition, Kogan Page, London.

4. Bougardt A. D. (2011). Consequences of Staff Deployment in Public Primary Schools in Cape Town, Stellenbosch University.

5. Cole, G.A. (1997). Personnel Management. 4th ed. London: Letts Educational Publishers.

6. Ferres N., Connell J. and Travaglione A. The Effect of Future Redeployment on Organizational Trust, Strategic Change, 2005; 14: 77-91. DOI: 10.1002/jsc.713.

7. Gupta B. L. Framework and Strategies to Implement the National Education Policy -2020, Issues and Ideas in Education, 2022; 10(1): 65-76. DOI: 10.15415/iie.2022.101007.

8. Gupta B. L. and Gupta Meenakshi. Academic Excellence in Technical Institutions, Issues and Ideas in Education. 2013; 1(1): 23-42, DOI: 10.15415/iie.2013.11002.

9. Gupta P. B. Competency Framework for Faculty Members of Higher and Technical Education Institutions – A Tool for Strategic Human Resource Management, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research. 2020; 6(9): 155-199.

10. Gupta P. B. and Gupta B. L. Competency Framework for Accreditation Coordinators, Asian Journal of Management. 2021; 12(4): 380-388, DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2021.00057.

11. Gupta P. B. and Gupta B. L. Accreditation of Diploma Engineering Programmes, Asian Journal of Management. 2023; 14(1): 85-97, DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2023.00015.

12. Harms R. Workforce Deployment — A Critical Organizational Competency, Healthcare Management Forum. 2009; 22(3): 6-14, DOI: 10.1016/S0840-4704(10)60095-6.

13. Haruna A. Staff Utilization and Deployment, https://www.scribd.com/document/40712258/Staff-Utilization-and-Deployment-by-Abdulwahab-Haruna. 2023

14. Ikedimma, K. C. Employee Redeployment and Performance of Ministries in Anambra State, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka. 2019

15. Joyce M. Mponda, Gilbert Kipkorir Biwot. The Effects of Deployment Practices on Employee Performance among the Public Banking Institutions in Kenya, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2015; 5(9): 1-13.

16. Mithamo M. J, and Uzel J. M. M. Effect of Deployment Practices on Employees’ Performance; A Case Study of Coast Water Services Board, International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR). 2016; 5(2): 2255-2262.

17. Mulkeen, A. Teachers for Rural Schools: A challenge for Africa. UNESCO Seminar on Education for Rural People in Africa – Policy, Lessons, Options and Priorities. Addis Ababa. 2005

18. Som Ashok. Innovative Human Resource Management and Corporate Performance in the Context of Economic Liberalization in India, The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2008; 19(7): 1278–1297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190802110075.

19. Storey, J. Human Resource Management: A Critical Text (3rd edition). London: Thomson. 2007

20. Tong S., Jia N. Luo X, Fang Z. The Janus Face of Artificial Intelligence Feedback: Deployment Versus Disclosure Effects on Employee Performance, Strategic Management. 2021; 42: 1600-1631.

21. Tubman, D. Effective Organization Management Systems. New York: Harcourt College Publishers. 2007

22. UGC. Guidelines for Professor of Practice, University Grants Commission, New Delhi. 2022

23. Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 2013

24. West, M. A. and Nicholson, N. Managing Job Change: Men and Women in Transition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1988

25. Wright, P.M. Introduction: Strategic Human Resource Management Research in the 21st Century’, Human Resource Management Review. 1998; 8(3): 187–91.

26. No F. Nguon S. Teacher Management and Redeployment: Issues and Practical Ways Forward, Ministry of Education, Youth and Spot Education Research Council, Cambodia. 2018

Received on 27.10.2023 Revised on 19.08.2024

Accepted on 08.02.2025 Published on 29.07.2025

Available online from August 05, 2025

Asian Journal of Management. 2025;16(3):247-252.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2025.00037

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.

Professional governance	Engaging pedagogy	Student clubs
Admissions	Formative assessment	Academic competitions
Examination	Use of ICT	Event management
Quality assurance	e-content development,	Educational tours
Mentoring	Educational research	Industrial training
Training and development	Professional ethics	Conferences
Domain-specific research	Student support services	Seminars
Educational research studies	Professional ethics	Rally
Incubation	Community service	Exhibitions
Entrepreneurship	Consultancy	Cultural activities
Curriculum design	Academic audit	Documentation
Signing memorandum of understanding	Academic credits of students	Contribution to national mission
Human resource management	Guidance and counselling	Shows
Placement	Internship	Awareness programmes
Recruitment and selection	Performance appraisal	Camps
Women empowerment	Student clubs	Academic leadership
International relations	Alumni management	Continuing education
artificial intelligence	Augmented reality	Virtual reality
Machine learning	Search conference	Data analytics