Academic Workload Planning: Understanding Unintended Consequences

1. Academic Workload Planning: Understanding Unintended Consequences Dr Sue Hornibrook Kent Business School 20th November 2012

2. Workload Allocation Models • an effective system “allocates workload equitably to the participants in a transparent manner such that staff behaviour is aligned with departmental strategic goals” (Burgess et al, 2003:230) • A continuum of approaches ranging from informal approach to a comprehensive/complex approach (Barrett & Barrett 2007, 2010; Vardi 2009) • Human Resource Management orientation - a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ approach

3. Workload Allocation Models • What is the impact upon individual academic attitudes, behaviour and achievement of institutional goals? • An Organisational Justice (Fairness) Perspective • Distributive Justice • Procedural Justice • Interactional Justice (Interpersonal and informational) • Perceptions of justice (injustice) impact on Organisational outcomes – positive (negative)

4. A Case Study • Background: A Business School • The Model – comprehensive/complex points based approach • Consultation (35 responses) • Benefits of the Model: academic staff identified need for effective management and transparency in planning individual workloads (Vardi 2009; Barrett and Barrett 2007; Houston et al 2006)

5. A Case Study • Disadvantages of the Model: • Measurability – inputs or outputs? • Negative impact on collegiality • Manipulation? • Accuracy and transparency • Stick or carrot? • Workload Allocation Models not only add to the administrative burden but can also impact on perceptions of unfairness. • Resistance, negative retaliatory behaviours and withdrawal of discretionary behaviours