The Three Most Important Words in Faculty Workload: Transparency, Transparency, Transparency

Abstract

Among the most contentious topics between faculty and administration in higher education is defining what constitutes fair and equitable faculty workload. The provost, as chief academic officer, oversees the faculty workload policy, yet implementation is typically carried out at the department level. Specific teaching assignments for each faculty member are determined by the department chair, who must address the needs of the faculty and the department, with oversight from the dean. Similar to the real estate adage about location, location, location, we suggest that transparency is a critical factor for chairs in assigning faculty workload. Individual faculty sometimes feel that they are doing more work than their colleagues, and a lack of transparency regarding teaching assignments can cause suspicions of favoritism and inequity. Transparency leads to increased trust and a sense of accountability between faculty and academic leaders (O'Meara et al. 2019). Here we discuss three strategies for increasing transparency, and thus faculty satisfaction, in workload matters. 1. Review the institutional workload policy with faculty. Faculty go over the syllabus with students as classes commence, but chairs may not review policies with faculty as frequently and as thoroughly to ensure that faculty are aware of the expectations. Checking for understanding of the workload policy can help avoid confusion and prevent unrealistic expectations. At most universities, faculty are expected to productively engage in the three pillars of academia: teaching, scholarship and service; however, most workload policies focus specifically on quantifying teaching assignments. Chairs can help faculty put their teaching assignment in perspective by articulating what percentage of the workload that teaching comprises. For example, at a teaching institution, 60/20/20 might be a reasonable breakdown of percent effort for teaching, research and service, whereas 20/70/10 might be more appropriate at a research-intensive institution. Chairs can also provide examples based on the number of courses taught. For example, if 12 work units per semester is the norm based on the policy, a lecturer might have a 4:4 load (4 × 3 credit hour classes per semester) while another faculty member might have a 3:3 load because they serve also as a program director. Chairs should clearly explain that a 4:4, 3:3 or 2:2 workload generally refers to classroom teaching assignments and that faculty must also conduct research and participate in service activities. Explanations of what constitutes teaching can also be helpful. Teaching involves not only classroom instruction but also coordinating multiple sections of the same class and supervising graduate students completing thesis or dissertation research. Many policies contain guidelines for how such activities are quantified as well as provisions for workload multipliers or adjustments for very large classes or other unique scenarios. Although most policies focus on how the workload units are calculated for teaching assignments, there is often room for interpretation. Chairs may reassign teaching time for research or for significant service duties, such as serving as program director. Chairs must be explicit, clear and consistent in how they handle reassignments. Some faculty will assume that everyone in the department should get the same reassigned time for research, and it is the chair's responsibility to communicate the practice within the department and the rationale behind it. Teaching loads may depend on the budget, which is why faculty can “buy out” a teaching assignment with grant funding, which pays an adjunct instructor to teach the course in the faculty member's place. For faculty without grant funding who seek more time for research, the department usually absorbs that cost. With a limited budget, the chair may have to decide between a course release for someone assigned a large administrative task, like program review, or another faculty member requesting reassigned time to write a grant proposal, which has the potential to bring funding and recognition to the department. Whatever the decision, the rationale behind it should be conveyed to the faculty. Chairs can promote transparency by reviewing with faculty the workload policy and the factors underlying its implementation. 2. Share a workload summary for all department faculty. Any perceived inequity can lead to suspicion that someone else is getting a better deal with more time for research. By preparing a workload summary that clearly indicates all the teaching assignments, and reassigned time for administrative work, research or other duties, the chair can show that everyone is treated equitably and held to the same standard. When faculty see that their workload is comparable to that of their colleagues, they may be less likely to feel that they are bearing an unfair burden. Another aspect of transparency in faculty workload includes addressing work that is more time intensive or less promotable but that is necessary to the functioning of the department. Studies have consistently shown that this work is disproportionately carried out by female and minority faculty members. This division of labor can lead to significant differences in career progression, impacting attainment of tenure and promotion and retention of diverse faculty. Creating a workload dashboard that designates point values to committee assignments and roles to more accurately reflect the amount of effort involved for each, which is a great way to identify systemic inequities. Planned rotations can also address inequities by removing the need to rely on volunteers and by distributing work equitably and with transparency. A rotation system for major services, such as assessment reports or program reviews, would distribute these tasks across all faculty. Maintaining a list, by rank, hiring date or alphabetical order, guarantees that everyone gets assigned departmental duties at one point. Such lists promote transparency because everyone knows where they fall in the list and when they might be called for service. Rotation systems make it more difficult for individual faculty to opt out since they need to provide a reason why they alone should be excused from work that is expected of all department members. Importantly, rotation systems are not only for undesirable duties; they also can be used to assign coveted items like research time or teaching a special topics class. 3. Take it from the top. Although transparency regarding faculty workload within academic departments is extremely important, concerns of workload inequity can cross departmental lines. Faculty can develop resentment and anger regarding perceived workload disparities in other colleges that implement workload policies differently. One way to prevent this is by addressing faculty workload during the onboarding process. The provost, as chief academic officer, could discuss the policy with new faculty during orientation so that they understand the policy pertains to all faculty and that there may be department-specific implementations at the discretion of the chair. Top leaders should be involved in the onboarding process to educate employees on the culture, expectations and norms of the organization and to deepen their understanding of the mission and values. This would create a more effective handoff and an open line of communication from the provost, who oversees the faculty workload policy, to the department chair, who implements it. Having the provost discuss workload at orientation also allows faculty to learn more about the general academic context and the philosophies of the university regarding its most valuable resource to carry out the mission: faculty. In the onboarding process, leaders should clarify their intentions to hold new employees accountable for the institution's values and for high performance of essential job duties—in this case, teaching, research and service. Likewise, when the provost articulates the culture and expectations across the institution, faculty are more likely to see how their work contributes to the university's mission and success. In the absence of formal workload onboarding with the provost, chairs could invite the provost to a faculty meeting to discuss the workload policy. This would allow faculty to ask questions and for the provost to explain in broad terms how the policy aligns with the mission and strategic plan. It is important for faculty and administrators to openly discuss workload policies, which can also help administrators better appreciate faculty concerns and practices in the discipline. In summary, transparency is a critical factor when assigning faculty workload. Chairs who are open and honest about their approach to assigning workload and implementing university policies are more likely to increase faculty satisfaction and less likely to receive complaints. Transparency removes the mystery surrounding teaching assignments and enables faculty to compare their workload with that of their colleagues. Equitable practices, such as rotation schedules, ensure that all faculty participate in labor-intensive courses or department work such as assessment or that they have equal access to rewards and choice assignments. Finally, a message from the institution's leaders during the onboarding process can set the tone for faculty to know what to expect about the workload and how it supports the mission. Chairs can use these transparency strategies to empower faculty to better understand workload policy and to shape the workload they desire. Juliet Spencer is professor of biology and director of the School of Science, and Dewaynna Horn is professor of management and associate dean for accreditation at Texas Woman's University. Email: [email protected], [email protected]. This article originally appeared in The Department Chair, a sister publication to Women in Higher Education.