Barrett, LC

Barrett, PS

English

University of Salford Institutional Repository

IN PRACTICE1ISSUE TEN | 2006 ENGAGING WITH LEADERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION www.lfhe.ac.uk INTRODUCTION Over the last decade the pressures in higher education in the UK have become greater than ever and this includes growth instudent numbers, severe regulatory demands, and, more recently,explicit competition. The corollary of this has been a steadyincrease in the measures within universities to actively managefinances and quality. It could be anticipated that the abovepressures will have had impacts on staff working within HE and,indeed, a recent large survey of the sector has shown that almosthalf of the respondents found their workloads unmanageable(Kinman and Jones, 2004). Against this background it would seemlogical that the emphasis on finance and quality would bematched by similar attention to the allocation of workloads tostaff, ie the issue of how best to utilise people's time, the singlebiggest resource available within universities. Thus the aim of the research reported here was to focus on theprocesses and practices surrounding the allocation of workloadsto academics. The term ‘workload allocation’ (WLA) has been usedfor the policy and modelling aspects of the process of dividing upwork, however, ‘workload balancing/tuning’ relates to the moreindividualised/negotiated dimensions of the process, theimportance of which clearly emerges in this study. An initial literature synthesis looked at a variety of issues,including large surveys of academics’ work done on behalf ofunions, both in the UK (Kinman and Jones, 2004) and Australia(Winefield et al., 2002) and studies on behalf of government(McInnis, 1999) and employers (UUK, 2003). The UK union surveyshowed that 69% of staff found their work stressful, with 42%regularly undertaking work in the evenings and at weekends.This obviously raises concerns about work-life balance, especiallythe ease with which IT extends the office into the home. Their study also showed that sheer time worked does notcorrelate simply with measures of psychological wellbeing. Aswell as models on resource allocation, other areas covered withinthe literature were: the higher education context and leadershipissues within it; research on work-related stress; communicationand trust. These areas revealed interconnected aspects, such asthe importance for staff of feeling in control of their work, thepart consultation plays in decision-making processes and thepositive effects that good communication has on trust levelsoperating across all levels in universities. Heads of departmentswere felt to be pivotal to this process, linking lecturers touniversity policy-makers, so making their developmental supporta key issue.So, ten diverse organisations were studied: six universities in the UK,two overseas universities and two non-HE, but knowledge-intensive,organisations. In each case a cross-section of staff was taken includingtwo lecturers and their heads of department as well as a senioruniversity staff member, and representatives from human resourcesand the union body, resulting in 59 in-depth interviews. By identifyingtypical workload allocation practices, in addition to interestingalternatives, it was possible to collate views on their various strengthsand weaknesses, as well as clarifying the associated variable factorsthat might need attention. Through the study potential approacheswere identified to promote more equitable loads for individuals as wellas providing synergies for institutions. FINDINGSThe findings reveal that most universities have policy guidelines onworkload allocation practices, but that they are often limited and notat all well known by heads of department or staff. Generally theyincluded some advice on transparency and equity, but within anoverall stance of allowing each department or school to determinetheir own approach. None of the universities studied had a ‘university’system. It was universally felt that disciplinary differences rendered thisimpossible, although research findings showed that different modelsin fact operated across the full range of disciplines.BALANCING WORKLOADS INDEPARTMENTSAcross departments a wide variety of approaches was found, in threebroad categories:Informal approaches where the head collected backgroundinformation, consulted and then divided the work. These approachescould work effectively if the head knew staff well and created apositive consensus, however, the trend to larger departments ismaking this ‘traditional’ approach harder to sustain. Partial approaches where there is a move to combine the dataformally or numerically to give an output in terms of points or hours.Sometimes only teaching is covered, as this has to be timetabled andcontact hours are fairly easily defined. In other cases administrationmight be included, but typically the research aspect was left out,partly because it was felt that it was harder to quantify, but also therewas a sense that academics were motivated to do this work anyway.These approaches allowed for easier comparisons, but by beingincomplete could not fully support achieving equity.BALANCING WORKLOADS: A TIMELY ISSUE Professor Peter Barrett and Lucinda Barrett, University of Salford 2interviewees was that it was the thinking or criteria behind decisionsand not just the decisions themselves that academics wanted to bemore transparent. Generally, it was believed that transparent systemswould counter claims of unfair treatment, discrimination andfavouritism for the benefit of both heads of departments and lecturingstaff. Openness could lead to discussion and development of amutually agreed idea of a ‘reasonable load’. It may also allow staffwith different role emphases, (teaching or research) to have greaterawareness of, and respect for, the different contributions to the overallgood. Conversely, it was felt that care was needed to ensure that suchopenness would not lead to staff bickering and comparing workloads.Interestingly, there was wide agreement that transparency was mosthelpful in identifying overloaded staff andthose shirking their responsibilities. Although workload allocation was felt to relyto a large extent on the head’s judgment,many also felt that a good model couldsupport a better match between people andresources. This might help resolve thefrequently mentioned problem that thereis a definite tendency for staff who arecooperative, capable and calm to be askedto undertake extra tasks, even if they areoverburdened, precisely because of thosevery qualities.THE ROLE OF HEADSOF DEPARTMENTFor heads of department/school theproblems involved in workload allocationhave become more complex as the size ofunits has increased, making it harder forthem to have a feel for how people areloaded and to subsequently fine-tune theprocess. However, heads generally seemed to enjoy their role, althoughmany had found it difficult at the start and felt that more support priorto appointment would have been useful. The role of more experiencedheads was felt to be very helpful in providing advice and reducingfeelings of isolation. Some universities have developed informalgroupings for this purpose. In developing new work allocation models heads often found stafffairly resistant to change, but where staff were consulted and involvedin the development, processes seemed to operate more smoothly.Although the question was not asked directly, implicitly lecturersseemed to trust their heads of department and feel that they weretrying to operate fairly. Heads themselves were keen to avoid disputesand often spoke of their role not only in representing theirdepartment, but also in relaying information back to colleagues,keeping them involved as a way to build confidence and trust inorganisational decisions. This is arguably essential, given the oftenexpressed cynicism about managerial practices. However, some staffdid say that they often felt unclear about the overall direction of theirown department.BALANCING WORKLOADS: A TIMELY ISSUE Comprehensive approaches where teaching, administrationand research were all factored in with various weightings andmultipliers to reflect the different loads involved. This couldsupport equity in principle, but many approaches were actuallylimited in some way with capped items. They could also createproblems if they became too detailed and undermined thehead’s ability to tune allocations to individual circumstances. Figure 1. shows a summary of the results, including the distributionof the universities studied indicated by the numbers (plus a or b fordifferent departments) and some of the advantages anddisadvantages of each approach.Findings subsequently indicate a huge variety of differentpractices surrounding workload allocation, with no one approachsolving all problems. It is particularly difficult, for example, for anymodel to demonstrate equity in terms of loads when certainelements, such as research, are excluded. There is, however,agreement on ideal principles for procedure in relation toapproaches, particularly in relation to equity and transparency.But without any consistent measures, equity is hard to evidenceand not just within a devolved unit. For example, deans spoke ofthe difficulties involved in looking across their faculty trying toequate different measures. Staff working across departmentsalso had problems working through two models.TRANSPARENCY AND EQUITYThe idea of transparent systems is that they allow the often hazybelief in equity in departments/schools to be evidenced. Howeverthe definition of transparency is open to interpretation, rangingfrom views of it as meaning named workers’ loads to generalsummaries of work distribution. One frequent comment fromFIG 1: Continuum of Workload Allocation Approaches3TIME AND TASKS: RESEARCH AND TEACHINGOther findings related to staff working hours, with the majority ofindividuals reporting working in the evenings and at weekends.Some heads saw this as part of a personality issue and spoke ofthe need for individual members of staff to take responsibility formonitoring their own workloads. However, some lecturers tookexception to this call for efficiency and felt that it was a glibresponse to a real problem. Junior staff, especially, had anxietiesabout the quality of their work in these situations and oftenreported how just a little reassurance from their head had madea significant impact on how they felt they were coping.Other factors discussed were the almost universally dislikedadministrative tasks, and the emphasis placed on research andthe RAE, even for those universities with little background in thisarea. Research itself creates work patterns that are constant overthe year, meaning that the vacation period is often lost. The ‘open-endedness’ of research was felt by many to be problematic andsome staff cited this work as the element that most differentiatedloads, thus making its exclusion from some allocation modelsboth understandable, but problematic.In teaching, other problems surface. Peaks, for example, occur atexamination marking periods and for some staff the workloadwas truly disturbing. In one case, even if the lecturer had marked24 hours a day he could not have completed student assessmentsin the time between the end of the examinations and examboards! Generally, heads had found this issue to be problematicand some had liaised with their university centrally over thetimetabling of schedules and questioned semester timings. Inother peak periods staff on fractional employment contractsand PhD students had been employed to try to temporarilyredistribute loads. Other problems included: the upturn in popularity of particularsubjects (psychology was often cited); high student intake notmatched by staff recruitment - sometimes felt to be becauseof sluggish HR responses; and difficulties in finding suitablyqualified staff, especially in more rural areas. FRACTIONAL CONTRACTSFractional or sessional workers were frequently women withchildcare responsibilities. They generally felt that academicworking practices were fairly flexible and were positive aboutthe way they were allowed to negotiate their way around theirresponsibilities. This positive disposition reflects the high regardfor autonomy felt by many academics. However, one universitystudied had undertaken a study of fractional workers and foundthat the hours actually worked often far exceeded the hours forwhich staff were contracted. RECOMMENDATIONSThe results show that a broad, neutral framework is feasible. Thereis a need to explicitly identify at university level the essentialelements that must be included within the process, such asequity, transparency and consultation and to provide a frameworkmodel. Departmental factors can then inform the variable features,such as particular teaching delivery methods. The WLA model itself canbe usefully viewed as part of a dynamic process rather than a fixedfeature. This would allow for incremental improvement that would helpstaff to feel involved in the process and reduce negative thoughts onmanagerialist interventions. After accommodating staff views, implementation should involve abalance between the ‘model’ and discretionary inputs from heads tofine-tune to individuals. Case studies that operated with a strongimbalance between these two elements (technical and social) seemedto have more problems. Further, staff themselves have a responsibilityto actively engage with the processes. Such an approach would thenform the basis of a strong socio-temporal contract, drawing fromAgyris’(1960) notion of the ‘psychological contract’, that looks beyondjust tight issues of time or units and considers a richer network ofinfluences, such as work distribution patterns. Finally, attention needsto be given to the informal bonds that support collegiality within thedepartment, so that drives for efficiency do not leave overworked stafffeeling inadequate, isolated and underperforming.At its simplest, it is suggested that the following are needed to achieveeffective workload allocation practice in the HE sector:a university-wide policy and general framework model to meetagreed WLA criteria consultative local tuning of general framework model to fitdepartments/schools (loop process) integration of all work areas in models - including researchlinkage of model to other systems, such as appraisalpotential for feedback from staff to university model (loop process) fine-tuning by heads to fit individuals informal regular monitoring of loads - and individual responseto stresstraining of heads to support these systemsrefinement of existing teaching allocations - management of peakperiods, role stabilityencouragement of staff to think about/negotiate the balanceof their activitiesIN PRACTICESocial dimensionTechnical dimensionFIG 2: Negotiating the ‘Socio-Temporal Contract’Most universities will be taking some of these actions, but toachieve the full effect demands action on all fronts. In this wayequitable workloads can be achieved, the fit betweenorganisational needs and staff interests can be improved,synergies with other university performance managementsystems can be facilitated, and the university’s capabilitiesto dynamically achieve strategic alignment in a turbulentenvironment can be enhanced.SUMMARYAgainst a background of workplace stress, a first step is foruniversities to display transformational leadership by creatingbroad frameworks to support workload allocation between staffleading to more equitable workloads. Secondly, through thisprocess and the associated interactive, individualised actionsdescribed above, this should provide the basis for achievinga better fit between organisational needs and staff interests/capabilities. This will demand transactional leadershipat a department level. Then, thirdly, from this basis of soundinformation within a broad, but consistent framework it should bepossible to link the staff workload data to other performancesystems, such as activity costing. This will then enable betterstrategic choices to be made, so alleviating some of the tensionsflowing from the turbulent HE environment. This progressionin levels of impact that can be achieved is illustrated inFigure 3 below.IN PRACTICE4www.lfhe.ac.ukWorkload allocation could be seen as a low-level operational issue,but given the centrality of staff to the success of universities, it is infact a major strategic process, which if not done well can disable theorganisation. If effectively and authentically handled, universities cancreate strong socio-temporal contracts with their staff that embodythe vision of the university. We hope that this work will provide a way forward to the benefit ofuniversity staff individually and universities in general. In fact theLeadership Foundation would be interested in supporting universitieson the issue of managing academic workloads, perhaps by creating anetwork for the exchange of good practice. If you would be interestedin being involved in such an initiative please let Helen Goreham(helen.goreham@lfhe.ac.uk) at the Leadership Foundation know.For correspondence on this project contact:Professor Peter Barrett, Pro-Vice-Chancellor forResearch and Graduate Studies, The Old Fire StationUniversity of Salford, Salford, UKT: +44 (0) 161 295 5588E: p.s.barrett@salford.ac.ukFIG 3: Progressive Levels of Impact PossibleREFERENCESArgyris, C (1960). Understanding OrganisationalBehaviour. Doresy.Gillespie, N and Mann, L (2004). TransformationalLeadership and Shared Values: the Building Blocksof Trust. Journal of Managerial Psychology.19(6): 588-607.Kinman, G and Jones, F (2004). Working tothe Limit. London. Association of UniversityTeachers: 1-64.McInnis, C (1999). The Work Roles of Academicsin Australian Universities. Evaluations andInvestigations programme. Department ofEducation, Training and Youth Affairs.UUK (2003). Patterns of Higher EducationInstitutions in the UK: Third Report. Universities UK.Winefield, A, Gillespie, N, Stough, C, Dua, J andHapuararchchi, J (2002). Occupational Stress inAustralian Universities: A National Survey.Melbourne. National Tertiary EducationIndustry Union.

Balancing workloads: a timely issue

Occupational Stress in Australian Universities: A National Survey.

Patterns of Higher Education Institutions in the UK: Third Report.

The Work Roles of Academics in Australian Universities. Evaluations and Investigations programme. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

Transformational Leadership and Shared Values: the Building Blocks of Trust.

Working to the Limit. London.

https://salford-repository.worktribe.com/file/1438845/1/MAW_inpractice10_2006.pdf

Balancing workloads: a timely issue

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Salford Institutional Repository