The Impacts of Different Types of Workload Allocation Models on Academic

Satisfaction and Working Life

Author(s): Iris Vardi
Source: Higher Education , Apr., 2009, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Apr., 2009), pp. 499-508
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40269138

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40269138?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher
Education

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:499-508
DOI 10.1007/sl0734-008-9159-8

The impacts of different types of workload allocation

models on academic satisfaction and working life

Iris Vardi

Published online: 10 July 2008

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract Increasing demands on academic work have resulted in many academics

working long hours and expressing dissatisfaction with their working life. These concerns
have led to a number of faculties and universities adopting workload allocation models to
improve satisfaction and better manage workloads. This paper reports on a study which
examined the workload models in use across a large Australian university. Analysis
revealed that the various models could be categorised into three types. The pros, cons and
impacts of these three categories of model were compared from both a management and
staff perspective. The study found that while models of all types can lay the foundation for
equitable distribution of workload, some categories of model can have unintended con-
sequences with negative effects on the work culture and hence staff satisfaction.

Keywords Academic workload • Workload allocation • Workload models

Introduction

Increasing workload is affecting academics in many parts of the world with the average
workload for full time academics being variously reported between 49 and 55 h per week
(Cataldi et al. 2005; Forgasz and Leder 2006; Mclnnis 2000). A confluence of factors
appears to underlie this increasing load. On the one hand, there is the growth in the sector
that has not been matched by resources for staffing (Burgess 1996; Coldrake 1999a). On
the other, is the shift by governments in many places toward (i) more competitive/per-
formance based funding and (ii) more auditing and accountability.
Within a highly competitive environment, these factors have increased the demands on
academics in research, teaching, and administration. In research, there are increasing
demands to publish, link with industry, apply for grants and improve supervision (Coldrake
1999b). In teaching, there are pressures to adopt new practices, such as problem based
learning and new technologies. Coupled with the increasing student numbers and

I. Vardi (El)
Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia
e-mail: i.vardi@curtin.edu.au

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 500 High Educ (2009) 57:499-508

increasing diversity, teaching and l

has increased (Anderson et al. 2002
exacerbated by the significant incr
onstrating financial accountability,
assurance processes and so forth
1999). In this climate of increased
concerns about the resulting decli
managerialism of universities (And
With increased loads and pressure,
(Anderson et al. 2002; Boyd and W
Increasing workload has been repo
1994) with poor recognition of the e
impact negatively on work perfor
motivated by the core business of
drances to pursuing academic intere
include factors closely related to wo
teaching and teaching outside one's
Concerns about staff well being, m
and universities around the world to
load of individual staff. A significan
mandating, of workload allocation
et al. 2006; Soliman 1999).
Reports on WAMs and their effect
focuses predominantly on describ
Soliman 1999) and associated wo
models in use or that they have ju
1996; Ringwood et al. 2005).
Most commonly used are models ba
hours approach (Ball 1980; Burgess
contact hours an academic will teach
for the different effort required fo
versus lectures presented for the fi
Some have described use of the m
Burgess 1996). These estimate (and i
hours it takes to complete tasks fro
these types of models, difficulties h
to complete a task (Burgess 1996).
Time, however, is not always used
use of "utility units" or points as th
Ringwood et al. 2005). It is claime
focussing academic effort (Ringwo
Instead of categorising WAMs by
dimensions for describing the dif
comprehensive coverage, (ii) separ
versus linked to other systems, (iv)
democratic versus autocratic, (vii) t
and (ix) time versus non-time units
When applied to the WAMs used i
(i) teaching was a basic componen

£} Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
High Educ (2009) 57:499-508 501

(iii) WAMs focus on forward plannin

outputs; (iv) a range of approaches are
time based approaches are transparent
Overall, WAMs have been reported
model and the allocation is transpar
model is regularly reviewed (Houston
2003). WAMs are perceived to be less
work done or the time it takes (Bur
(Houston et al. 2006); and the process o
(Burgess 1996).
To date, this research has focussed
outcomes. It does not provide, as Hou
known consequences" for both academ
it does not examine the key premise
improving work culture and staff sa
comparing the
effectiveness of differ
and examining their impact on culture
The study was situated within a larg
allocation has been a major issue ov
dissatisfaction with workloads, the us
mandated in 2005. However, the univ
conducted in 2006, revealed that signi
isfied with their long working hours an
to investigate the various WAMs in
approach to managing workload. Thi
which examined the types of WAMs i
cons and impacts of these various ty
managers and their academic staff.

The investigation

Views of
both academic managers an
across the
university from late 2006 t
were held with all 50 academic Head
how workload was allocated, and dis
process as well as issues in general ab
These interviews revealed 22 differe
defined as models that contain rules
limits to the amount of work allocat
above) with Heads allocating in oth
guidelines). Analysis of the 22 WAM
contact hours, actual hours or points
Focus groups were then convened ba
in a contact hours focus group, an ac
mixed models group. The focus group
two academic staff participated repres
meeting, the focus group members we
to discuss these with their colleagues

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 502 High Educ (2009) 57:499-508

The comments from both the Hea

summarised and collated by category
and Excel to provide a comparison o

The findings

Analysis of the findings reveals both commonalities and differences between the different
categories of model.

Commonalities across workload allocation models

Across all categories of model, Heads commonly felt that their model is useful for
identifying over and under load staff, and that it provides transparency and equity. Most
Heads encourage their staff to work collegially on the approach taken and this was felt to
be an important factor contributing to transparency and equity. While this was an
important aim, however, Heads pointed out that several other factors also impact on
allocation including: the number of staff available to do the work; their expertise, skills,
qualifications, level of appointment, experience, competence, preferences, and career
aspirations; as well as timetabling restrictions, the preferences of students (in the case of
HDR supervision), and the preferences of serviced areas (in the case of service units).
Interestingly, academic staff across all the focus groups (and hence all WAM types)
recognised the attempts at transparency and equity but most did not feel that this was
happening in their area.
Across all model types, there are difficulties in determining what should be included in
the model and how much to quantify. While most areas are reasonably comfortable with
allocations for teaching which involve standard face-to- face delivery (lectures, tutorials,
labs), problems were reported in dealing with other aspects of academic work, such as
fieldwork supervision, online and distance units, administrative duties, research and pro-
fessional practice. Both Heads and focus group members recognised that allocations often
underestimate the real time it takes to complete tasks, and identified that significant
numbers of staff were overloaded. Factors identified by both Heads and focus group
members as contributing to workload included lack of sufficient staff, the rise in general
administrative duties, inefficient processes, change initiatives, technology, and additional
paid work, such as consultancies and offshore teaching.
While there were similarities identified across all the models, there were also distin-
guishing differences. The following examines each category of model in greater detail,
highlighting the distinguishing positives, negatives and impacts of each.

Contact hours based models

The contact hours based models are the least complex of the three model types. Typically,
an area will have in mind a target number of contact hours per teaching week in the
semester study period (e.g. 15 h). Allowances for various duties (e.g. co-ordination,
supervision, administrative duties) reduce the final number of hours actually required to
teach. These models generally do not differentiate between the types of contact (e.g.
lecture, tutorial, laboratory) and include an assumption that for every hour of teaching, an
academic will be involved in a range of teaching related duties, such as preparation,

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 High Educ (2009) 57:499-508 503

marking, student consultation and

models to quantify these teaching re
While this type of model often does
differing student numbers in units a
ratory), several Heads reported using
ensure equity in load. These include:
bilities among all staff; ensuring an
among all staff; and providing additi
istrative assistance.
Overall, the Heads using a contact
this type of model noting that it wa
concerns were reported, over and
determining which aspects of academ
Heads noted that their WAM did not
and clinical training. The contact ho
expectations of the Heads for high t
with such high teaching contact hou
goals for increased research output.
These findings suggest that a simple
well meet both management and sta
trative duties where (i) expectations
models can be supplemented by add
well with a number of management
units through simple spreadsheets m
an area's teaching commitments for
The shortcomings of this type of m
academic work due to its focus on te
ability to deal transparently with work
of academic duties, and where the are
being easily managed through proces
need to complement this type of mo

Actual hours based models

Most of the actual hours models in this study were developed relatively recently by Heads.
These focus on the actual number of hours it is estimated that a task will take. These
models aim to reflect the provisions of the University's current industrial agreement (e.g.
average of 37.5 h per week, maximum of 24 h per week on teaching and teaching related
duties during semester, and 1,725 h of work over the year) and hence usually cover a wide
range of academic duties.
These models can be quite detailed in their quantification of a range of teaching,
research and service activities. Unlike the contact hours based models, they usually dif-
ferentiate between different types of teaching (e.g. lectures, tutorials, laboratories). They
often provide detailed allocations for a variety of teaching related duties. This is done in
different ways in different models, but can include allocations for preparation, marking and
student consultations. For instance, allocations for preparation can vary according to
whether a class is being conducted for the first time or is a repeat, and whether new
material is being developed or modified. Allocations for marking can factor in the type of

£l Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 504 High Educ (2009) 57:499-508

assessment being done and the numb

consultations can include time to mee
the number of students being taught.
Overall, Heads were more positive a
group members. Like the contact hour
human resourcing and costing of unit
way to manage teaching loads where
semesters, trimesters, terms). Further
discussions so staff can see how much
how this aligns with the strategic plan
Over and above the problems noted
focus group members were concerned
difficulty in providing true allocation
teach in different ways. The Heads no
Some Heads were also concerned about
for example, double dipping, when pu
While there was some agreement bet
members, in general, the focus group
expressed several additional concerns.
with complex definitions for allocatio
agement, noting that other staff withi
of the work they do and the amount of
this was overly controlling. Some also
the work is done, resulting automatic
of work or unanticipated work.
However, of major concern to the foc
model, in particular, the cultural chang
between staff as they attempt to m
allocations given. With this intense focu
focus on productivity and quality was
premise should be, 'How can we deliver
lost in all these discussions". Ironically
industrial agreement, several staff com

Points models

The third major category of WAMs involves models that adopt points as a basis for
determining load. Points are typically allocated for teaching and a wide range of other
duties using a set number of points for specific activities (e.g. co-ordination or committee
membership) and/or various formulae for determining points for teaching (e.g. no.
enrolled x 0.333; no. of contact hours/week x 4). The points models in this study had
some similarity with the actual hours based models as the total points allocated aim to
account for an actual number of hours in a week as defined in the industrial agreement.
Of the three main categories of model, this type of model garnered the most negative
response from both Heads of areas and the points based focus group members alike. In
addition to the problems that beset all the models, both the Heads and focus group
members overwhelmingly expressed concerns about the lack of relationship between
points and hours, and the complexity of this type of model.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 High Educ (2009) 57:499-508 505

Heads reported arguments with sta

number of Heads noting that it was
While the aim is to account for a set
type of model cannot account for all t
not doing work unless points are allocat
noted problems of double dipping.
The focus group members had addit
relationship with hours allowed manag
prevailing budget.
that Staff reported
also affects the way in which teachin
"If a lecture attracts more points than
hour lecture and one hour tutorial rath
Staff also reported that where work is
in a loss of community links, and reduc
teaching through less time being de
Similar to the actual hours focus grou
models had a negative impact on staff
In addition to the problems experienc
to act as a useful management tool ap
staff and where further staff are nee
to tie neatly into allocating human res

Discussion

Many faculties and universities across the world have implemented WAMs as a way of
controlling increasing workload. Irrespective of type, these findings show that while
WAMs are useful for equitably distributing load, they do not shield staff from widespread
overload. In the University examined, a full range of the models were used as highlighted
in the literature (Ball 1980; Bitzer 2006; Burgess 1996; Ringwood 2005). A variety of good
practices were also used (Burgess et al. 2003; Houston et al. 2006) to try and ensure that
load is managed well through the models, such as collaborating on and regularly reviewing
the model, and sharing the final allocations. In addition, several models attempted to
directly contain loads by tying to the provisions of the industrial agreement.
Yet despite the use of WAMs and these good practices, a significant number of aca-
demic staff are overloaded across the University. The type of WAM used does not appear
to diminish the incidence of overload, nor manage workload allocation better or more
equitably. These findings bear similarity to those of Houston et al. (2006), who also found
that high levels of dissatisfaction with workload remain despite the mandated use of
WAMs. This appears to be due to a number of underlying factors that are not addressed
through WAMs, such as the number of staff available to do the work, the budget for
resourcing, university change initiatives and the growth in general administrative duties -
factors affecting overload that have also been identified in other studies (Anderson et al.
2002; Burgess 1996; Coldrake 1999a; Houston et al. 2006).
How do WAMs affect the working lives and satisfaction of both the academic staff and
their managers? As the findings show, dissatisfaction and problems with models pro-
gressively increase from contact hours to actual hours to points based models. The main
reason for the differing impact of these models on academics' working lives appears to lie
in their complexity and clarity. While staff overall are unhappy with the load they are

£) Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 506 High Educ (2009) 57:499-508

required to undertake, they find cont

understand. As models become more
problems rise even further among the
hours and points based models, both o
understand.
This simplicity-complexity divide p
terms of structure, the following Bu
focussed versus comprehensive covera
use of time versus non-time units. Sim
to be broad brush in their quantificat
Complex models, such as actual hour
comprehensive in their coverage of
This affects transparency as underst
works varies. It also changes the inter
member. With each element of work b
of micromanagement and loss of col
manage workload through complexly s
of staff dissatisfaction noted by And
These types of problems are further
non-time units which further cloud tr
These same structural features, how
ways. While staff dissatisfaction and c
the models, their usefulness as a man
In terms of the units used, the findi
are useful for identifying under and
the additional advantage of being ab
costing of units. This was found to be
models and was considered an import
With complex models being more d
hensive in their coverage, Heads felt
nature and amount of the work being
points based models, thus contributin
models in this way, however, may "fo
69) particularly as both Heads and the
allocated do not reflect the true time
In terms of purpose, the findings sug
et al. (2003) dimensions, that affects
WAMs allocate only on time, where
element by rewarding certain types
that reward through the weighting
shows that it can also negatively aff
unintended impact on transparency w
undertake necessary (but less valued)

Conclusion

This study has found that WAMs of all types can equitably distribute load. However, to
overcome widespread overload, there is a need for universities to examine other factors,

£j Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 High Educ (2009) 57:499-508 507

such as staffing levels and administra

process of model development as the
However, this study shows the import
lives and satisfaction of both academ
show that WAMs which are simply str
in least staff dissatisfaction.
Thechallenge for universities, how
desirable, the level of complexity requ
characteristics of the area in which t
work duties is narrow and essentially
less need for detail. However, where a
duties, or where the work duties be
greater detail in a model is often dem
that equities (or inequities) in worklo
Even with differing area characte
toward the simpler end of the spect
based quantification, (ii) focussing o
distributed among the staff in the ar
time for all other duties. In additio
allocation.
However, equitably distributing load
question of how academic work can
investigation is use of performance m
academic work. This suggests a mov
WAMs to ones that are developed t
investigation into how performance
how WAMs could be linked to these.
In addition, WAMs currently manage load within the context of academics being
required to undertake an increasingly diverse range of activities and tasks in administra-
tion, management, teaching, and research. However, in Australia, as in a number of other
countries, there is a move for diversity between universities, with the aim of institutions
pursuing their own distinctive mission and excelling in this. This has resulted in some
institutions re-examining how best to capitalise on the strengths in the workforce to meet
particular missions, and reconsidering whether or not all individuals need to excel across
all areas of academia. As the work and role of individual academics within the greater
mission is reconsidered, so the structure and purpose of WAMs will need further inves-
tigation to match with differing university contexts and the changing work profiles of
individual staff.

References

Anderson, D., Johnson, R., & Saha, L. (2002). Changes in academic work, http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/
hichered/otheroub/academic work.pdf. Retrieved 15th December 2006.
Ball, R. (1980). Allocation of academic staff in universities. Higher Education, 9(4), 419-427. ddi:
10.1007/BF00144147.
Bitzer, E. M. (2006). Attempting a fair and equitable academic workload distribution in a faculty of
education. Paper presented at the EASA/Kenton International Conference, Wilderness, South Africa.
Boyd, S., & Wylie, C. (1994). Workload and stress in New Zealand Universities (No. ERIC ED377747).
Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research; Association of University Staff of
New Zealand.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 508 High Educ (2009) 57:499-508

Burgess, T. F. (1996). Planning the acade

university academics. Higher Education
Burgess, T. F., Lewis, H. A., & Mobbs, T
cation. 46(2). 215-233. doi: 10. 1023/A: 1024787907547.
Cataldi, E. F., Bradburn, E. M, Fahimi, M., & Zimbler, L. (2005). 2004 National study of postsecondary
faculty (No. NCES 2006-176). Washington, DC: National Centre for Education Statistics.
Coldrake, P. (1999a). Academic work in the twenty-first century, http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/
occpaper/99H/academic.pdf. Retrieved 25th November 2006.
Coldrake, P. (1999b). Rethinking university work. Paper presented at the HERDS A Annual International
Conference, Melbourne.
Forgasz, H. J., & Leder, G. C. (2006). Academic life: Monitoring work patterns and daily activities.
Australian Educational Researcher, 33(\\ 1-22.
Houston, D., Meyer, L. H., & Paewai, S. (2006). Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: Expec-
tations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(\\ 17-30.
doi: 10. 1080/1 3600800500283734.
Mclnnis, C. (1999). The work roles of academics in Australian universities (No. 00/5). Canberra: Depart-
ment of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
Mclnnis, C. (2000). Changing academic work roles: The everyday realities challenging quality in teaching.
Quality in Higher Education, 6(2), 143-152. doi: 10. 1080/7 13692738.
Paewai, S., Meyer, L. H., & Houston, D. (2007). Problem solving academic workloads management: A
university response. Higher Education Quarterly, 6/(3), 375-390. doi: 10.1 1 11/j. 1468-2273.2007.
00360.x.

Polonsky, M. J., Biljana, J., & Mankelow, G. (2003). Attitudes about work practices, time allocation and
publication output: Profiles of US marketing academics. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 218-230.
doi: 10. 1 177/027347530325755 1 .
Ringwood, J. V., Devitt, F., Doherty, S., Farrell, R., Lawlor, B., McLoone, S. C, et al. (2005). A resource
management tool for implementing strategic direction in an academic department. Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management. 27(2). 273-283. doi: 10. 1080/13600800500120209.
Soliman, I. (1999). The academic workload problematic. Paper presented at the HERDS A Annual Inter-
national Conference, Melbourne, Australia.
Winter, R., & Sarros, J. (2002). The academic work environment in Australian universities: A motivating
place to work? Higher Education Research & Development, 27(3), 241-258. doi: 10. 1080/
0729436022000020751.

£} Springer

This content downloaded from

86.59.13.237 on Fri, 05 Nov 2021 07:21:31 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms