Higher Education HR Network Gives University People Teams a Room of Their Own

University HR teams have a specialty room of their own inside THE Network, the professional network run by AcademicJobs.com. THE HR Network connects higher education HR professionals to peers in their own HR specialty, and carries THE Forum, a space for sharing knowledge and experience across institutions.

The structure is deliberately narrow. THE Network sorts members into rooms by specialty rather than one general feed, and it carries no advertising. Its stated slogan is 'be in the right room with the right people.'

Who the room is for

The short answer is anyone whose job is people management in a college or university: HR directors and chief people officers, resourcing and reward specialists, employee relations advisers handling casework, workforce analysts, organisational development leads. It also covers the deputy registrar who inherited HR two years ago because the institution could not fund a full director post.

That second group matters for the arithmetic. UHR, the UK professional body for university HR, represents more than 160 providers and over 6,500 HR and related staff. Its sector remit surveys have found two-thirds of HR leaders reporting significant change to team size, structure or ways of working within five years, driven by added responsibilities, restructuring and hybrid arrangements.

In the United States, CUPA-HR — the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources — counts more than 33,000 HR professionals and other higher ed leaders across nearly 2,000 member organizations. The specialisms inside that figure are narrow: benefits, immigration, job evaluation, collective bargaining, absence management.

Why peer traffic has picked up

Higher education HR is doing more with fewer people. Full-time staff headcount in US colleges and universities fell 6.6% in 2025, and part-time staff fell 23.9%, according to CUPA-HR workforce surveys. Tenure-track faculty grew 7.0% over the same period, the largest single-year rise since 2016.

The retention picture underneath is mixed. Nearly one in four higher ed employees say they are likely or very likely to look for another job in the coming year, according to the CUPA-HR 2025 Higher Education Employee Retention Survey. Pay is the most-cited reason. Belonging, feeling valued and confidence in leadership ethics are the strongest predictors of whether someone stays.

Only 43% of employees received a salary increase in the past year, down 10 percentage points from 2023. Twenty-eight per cent are dissatisfied with their institution's remote work policy. Supervisors absorb much of the strain: 72% work hours beyond full-time, and 21% work 11 or more extra hours a week.

None of that resolves into a single right answer in a policy manual. Whether to extend a probation period, how to structure a retention payment, what to do about a supervisor carrying two vacancies — those get settled by judgment, and judgment gets better when someone at a comparable institution has already tried something.

Photo by Cherrydeck on Unsplash

The compliance queue runs into 2027

For UK institutions, the Employment Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025, is being implemented in phases. Most of the questions it raises for people teams are procedural and specific.

The unfair dismissal change is already reshaping recruitment practice. Wonkhe's reading of the Act for the sector is blunt: review probation policies, equip managers to manage performance during probation, and avoid extended probation periods where possible. Institutions that run nine-month probation as standard now have a decision to make about whether that is still defensible.

Add the sector's own arithmetic. Payroll is the largest operating cost in higher education, and UK institutions have spent two years cutting posts, merging professional services and pausing capital plans. Restructures land on HR teams that are themselves being restructured, which is exactly the condition in which a second opinion is worth having.

AI questions that need a second opinion

There is no dedicated UK legislation governing how employers use artificial intelligence, which leaves universities working from the Equality Act 2010, data protection law and their own governance. The practical problems are arriving faster than the policies.

Employment lawyers working with the sector report staff using generative AI to draft grievances and tribunal claims, producing longer, more legalistic documents that take longer to investigate and are harder to answer on the papers. HR teams are deploying the same tools for CV screening, note-taking, case management and workforce analytics. Shoosmiths' analysis for universities sets out the exposure: Article 22 of the UK GDPR gives employees the right to avoid decisions based solely on automated processing and to request human review, and the Equality Act bites wherever training data carries historic bias.

Both are answerable. Rarely by one institution working alone, and rarely by a lawyer who has not seen the inside of a job evaluation scheme. This is the sort of question a specialty forum handles well: what have you actually put in your AI policy, and did your union sign it off.

What a network cannot do

Two limits are worth stating plainly. A specialty room is only useful if enough of your specialty has joined — the cold-start problem every niche network faces. And matching is not managing. A forum can shorten the distance between a problem and someone who has solved it; it cannot write your policy, sit in your bargaining session or take the decision for you.

The numbers already have owners. CUPA-HR runs the benchmark salary and workforce surveys in the US. UHR published an HR Remit Survey in 2025 covering the size and scope of people teams and how they are responding to pressure, and reported 9,946 booked places across its events and webinars last year, with more than 28,000 discussion views on its member boards. AHEIA has run a Universities HR Benchmarking Program for Australian and New Zealand members. What those bodies do less of is answer a question at four o'clock on a Thursday about whether a particular clause will survive a grievance.

Photo by Campaign Creators on Unsplash

How to get something out of it

The behaviour that makes a specialty network work is unglamorous and specific.

• Name your specialty precisely. 'HR' gives nobody anything to match on; 'reward and job evaluation, post-92' does.
• Answer one question before you ask one. Reciprocity is the only currency a no-ads network has.
• Post the document, not the abstraction — a draft probation clause, a job evaluation factor, an absence trigger, a restructure consultation timetable.
• Strip identifying detail before you post. Employment records are personal data under the UK GDPR and its equivalents, and case specifics travel badly across jurisdictions.
• Test every answer against your own instruments. Enterprise agreements, union recognition arrangements and state or provincial law differ enough that advice from a comparable institution is a starting point, not a conclusion.

Membership is at academicjobs.com/the-network. The HR room sits alongside the wider network, so a people director can find a counterpart at another institution without wading through posts meant for a different profession.

The date at the end of the queue

On 1 January 2027 the unfair dismissal qualifying period drops to six months and the compensation cap disappears. That single change is doing more to alter probation practice than any guidance note, because it moves the risk from the second year of employment into the first six months, where managers have the least training and the most vacancies to fill.

The questions that follow are small and practical: whether to confirm someone early, what evidence a probation review needs, how to performance-manage a lecturer who is also a union representative. They will be asked by people who have already tried the obvious answers. That is the case for a room built around a specialty rather than a feed built around engagement.