Docstoc

workloadworklife task force report

Document Sample
workloadworklife task force report Powered By Docstoc
					WORKLOAD/WORKLIFE TASK FORCE REPORT
March, 2009

submitted to the President of the Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AASUA) and to the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), University of Alberta (UofA) by the Workload/Worklife Task Force representing the AASUA and UofA

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

INTRODUCTION
The Workload/Worklife Task Force is pleased to present this Report in the hope that the Actions, Recommendations, and Discussions herein will stimulate further activities across the institution relating to workload, work life, and work-life issues at the University of Alberta. Effectively addressing the issues identified in our complex academic environment will require the commitment and action of academic and administrative units, as well as individuals themselves. Establishment of the Task Force: The Workload/Worklife Task Force was formed in November of 2005 in response to a section of the 2005 Memorandum of Settlement between the Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AASUA) and the Governors of the University of Alberta (UofA) (see Appendix 1). At the same time, the AASUA was planning its “Workload/Work Life Study” (including an on-line Survey) and the Task Force decided to use selected information derived from the AASUA Study in guiding its own activities (see below). Terms of Reference: The Workload/Worklife Task Force developed Terms of Reference (see Appendix 1) which were reviewed by both the AASUA Executive and by the Executive Planning Committee (EPC) of the University. The Terms of Reference include a list of members of the Task Force, and provided guidance to the Task Force in its activities. Brief Statement of Mandate: • Confirm issues of workload, work life, and work-life balance (see below) at the University of Alberta. • Identify and examine factors that contribute to the workload and work life environment of AASUA members. • Prepare recommendations based upon the findings from the above, considering: “useful/valuable” recommendations (likely to be implemented); innovative routes to novel findings/ideas (fit with Dare to Discover and/or Dare to Deliver); short-term and long-term approaches; “pilot studies”; and further/future or on-going input/study.
! ! ! ! !

Process for Information-Gathering: The Workload/Worklife Task Force used the following sources of information: • AASUA Research & Scholarly Activity Committee Report of 2004-05 and Interview with the Committee Chair. • AASUA “Workload/Work Life Study” report (accessible at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/aasua//pdfs/AASUAworkloadReportJune30.pdf)1 • Literature from other universities and institutions (See Appendix 3). • Focus groups, including input from the Health Promotion Advisory Committee.
1

Please note that this Task Force Report makes reference to some of the findings of the AASUA Workload/Work Life Study but does not summarize or review the contents of the Study report. The reader is referred to the actual report for details of that study (http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/aasua//pdfs/AASUAworkloadReportJune30.pdf).

!

2

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

• • • • • •

Town Hall Meeting (November 24, 2006). Meetings with selected individuals. E-Mail solicitation. Meeting with, and survey done by, APO Committee. Other informal feedback. Regular meetings and discussion by Task Force members.

Caveats: 1. The members of the Task Force wish to emphasize that this brief report expresses the consensus views of its six members. 2. The Task Force is most grateful for all of the input and feedback provided. A great number of issues and ideas were expressed by AASUA members through various mechanisms and that input included divergent views. Although it was not possible to express all ideas and issues in this report, varied perspectives were considered by the Task Force in developing its recommendations. 3. The Task Force would also like to thank the AASUA for access to its on-line survey results and wish to acknowledge the feedback from the author of the resulting Study report, Dr. Marianne Sorensen. That report expresses summarized data from those who chose to participate in the on-line survey (the overall response-rate was 31 per cent). 4. The current Task Force report cannot include views of the majority who chose not to respond to the AASUA Survey or to the Task Force’s calls for inputs through various means (see above). 5. The University of Alberta is one of Canada’s premier universities and has a number of unique attributes including a bold vision (“Dare to Discover”) and a novel academic plan (“Dare to Deliver”). The commentary presented in this report should be considered within the UofA context. Definitions: Issues related to workload and work life include:

1. issues of workload (i.e., requirements, demands and expectations of work); issues include: increasing demands, higher or unclear expectations, and limited supportive resources; 2. issues related to quality of work life (i.e., workplace environment); issues include: sense of community and collegiality, appropriate recognition for accomplishments, and gaps in supportive infrastructure; and 3. work-life balance (i.e., a sense of being in control and being able to manage both work and personal/family obligations to reduce role-conflict); “balance” does not imply equal weighting between work and other obligations but rather that, at a personal level, the
!

3

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

conflicts that individuals feel when obligations to career interfere with obligations to family, and vice versa, are minimized. Research demonstrates that reducing role-conflict is an effective strategy to positively impact creativity, productivity and excellence (Duxbury, L., and Higgins, C., 2003a). The Report The Task Force considered the various inputs received from the Information-Gathering sources listed above and, during its deliberations, found that four themes emerged. The themes were labeled as “Emergent Themes” and “Key Actions” and related Recommendations were derived from within the Themes. This report is organized into sections as follows: A. The list of Key Actions B. Key Actions and Recommendations C. Discussion of Emergent Themes: I. Supportive Infrastructure II. Expectations and Rewards III. Collegiality and Community IV. Organizational Structure and Complexity Accompanying the Discussion of Emergent Themes, in sidebars, are selected quotations from respondents to the AASUA Workload/Work Life Study. D. Appendices.

A. KEY ACTIONS
The Task Force identified the following five key actions for consideration: 1. Commit to an explicit and continuing joint effort of the AASUA and the Administration to proactively address Workload/Worklife issues. 2. Ensure appropriate allocation of administrative resources to support all levels of the organization and to effectively manage change and transition. 3. Promote programs, processes, and resources to support individual academic staff in meeting challenges of workload, work life, and/or work-life balance. 4. Increase both structured mentorship of academic staff and on-going leadershipdevelopment initiatives. 5. Ensure the clarity of job expectations, and the alignment of the associated reward systems.
!

4

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

Illustration of Workplace Factors to be Modified by Implementation of Key Actions The following diagram illustrates some of the inter-relationships of selected key workplace factors that the Task Force concluded could affect workload, work life, and work-life balance:

Institutional support Collegiality & Morale

Evaluation & Reward

Job Satisfaction Demographics & Health

Performance

Mentoring

Workplace Expectations Institutional Goals

Citizenship

“Dare to Deliver” In late 2006, the University of Alberta released its Academic Plan, 2007-2011, “Dare to Deliver” and, in that Plan, outlined four areas of commitment: Discovery Learning, Incubating Scholarship, Community Engagement Near and Far, and Building the Transformative Organization. Of interest, the action items listed under the four Dare to Deliver areas of commitment, although derived independently, are reflected in three of the five Key Actions above, and in 11 of 22 detailed Recommendations presented below.

!

5

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

B.

KEY ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Commit to an explicit and continuing joint effort of the AASUA and the Administration2 to proactively address Workload/Worklife (workload, work life, and work-life balance) issues. The Workload/Worklife Task Force found evidence of concern among many members of the Academic Staff about issues with their workload and/or work-life balance. To fulfill our vision to be one of the world’s great universities for the public good, all members of the University community must have the opportunity to reach their full potential. Provision of an environment wherein workloads and work-life balance can be managed is one way to foster the vision of building a great University. The issues discussed in this report represent possible impediments to the achievement of the vision. However, addressing the workload and work-life issues that arise will empower academic faculty and staff to contribute to the vision more fully. The establishment of the Task Force was a first step in the recognition that issues of workload and work-life balance exist. The members of the Task Force believe that a commitment from both the AASUA and the Administration, indicating their on-going recognition of the importance of these issues and their willingness to be proactive in managing them, is a necessary feature of the great university.

Our Vision To inspire the human spirit through outstanding achievements in learning, discovery and citizenship in a creative community, building one of the world’s great universities for the public good. Dare to Discover Cornerstones: ! Talented people ! Learning, discovery and citizenship ! Community engagement ! Transformative organization and support

One less tangible point which was frequently expressed by those who chose to respond to the AASUA on-line survey or to provide input in another forum, was the importance of sustaining a collegial community of scholars where differences are valued, ideas stimulated, and achievements celebrated by all. Collegiality connotes respect for another’s commitment to the common purpose, and the ability to work together toward it. Many respondents noted a perception of increasing workloads and time pressures, and, as a result, they no longer feel that they have sufficient time to have stimulating and idea-generating discussions with colleagues, or to seek collaborations with other researchers in their field. Increasing availability of social space on campus is one means to provide a forum for these discussions, and to increase opportunities for interdisciplinary interaction and collaboration. These features of collegiality are cornerstones on which community is built and lead to the academic excellence being sought through “Dare to Deliver.” The infrastructure to promote this stimulating campus community must also recognize and understand differences in work values between and across all demographic groups in the
Administration in this case, includes Directors, Department Chairs, Deans (and their Associate Deans), and Central Administration (the President, Provost and Vice-Presidents, and their delegates [e.g., Deputy Provost, ViceProvosts, Associate Vice-Presidents, etc]).
2

!

6

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

workforce. Generational differences, gender, ethnic background, and career stage are all important factors that must be considered in establishing a framework to support academic excellence. Recommendations 1.1. As an institution, adopt a statement of commitment to supporting a high-quality work life experience. Similar statements can also be included in the preamble to academic agreements. An example for consideration: The University of Alberta is committed to the ongoing development of an institutional framework for a workplace culture supportive of personal and career excellence. In aspiring to achieve such a culture, the University will foster worklife balance and support strategies that enhance the quality of the work environment and promote civility, citizenship, and community. The University, having accomplished this, will maximize the productivity and successes of its diverse faculty and staff, and achieve the University’s goal of excellence in teaching, research and service to the community. 1.2. Designate and publicize a specific person and/or office, responsible for monitoring workload issues and enhancing the quality of work life on an ongoing basis. Activities could include: input into the coordination of the implementation of major University projects affecting faculty and staff as well as input into the review of faculty and staff agreements with a view to identifying issues affecting workload and work life. 1.3. Establish an effective mechanism for ensuring workload and work life considerations are routinely identified and addressed by Administration as institutional goals, policies, practices, processes, benefit plans and agreements change or are introduced. 1.4. Promote the development of a collegial community within the University by: 1.4.1. creating a physical environment which enhances opportunities for faculty and staff to interact informally in “social space” (in renovated/upgraded and/or new space; the Long-Range Development Plan [LRDP] and the Centennial Centre for Interdisciplinary Science [CCIS] illustrate such opportunities); 1.4.2. developing a culture which fosters collaborative and collegial interactions; and 1.4.3. organizing and promoting activities that bring together faculty and staff, and that engage family members in experiencing the University community (the “Family Matters”3 document illustrates an approach to supporting academic staff and their families).

3

Please see www.hrs.ualberta.ca/HPAWS/Family_Matters.pdf.

!

7

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

2. Ensure appropriate allocation of administrative resources to support all levels of the organization and to effectively manage change and transition. The Task Force was told that academic staff members are expected to deliver on increasingly complex and varied expectations related to their jobs (including professional and nonprofessional administrative activities as mentioned in the AASUA Workload Work Life Study report, p. 40). In part, these expectations are being driven by changes in technology, escalating accountability standards, increasing emphasis on risk management and due diligence, and some decentralization of administrative duties. For example, it is recognized that the increased ability to manage administrative tasks on-line by individual academic staff may eventually result in greater efficiencies. However, assigning responsibility for such tasks to Faculties, Departments and individuals can lead to increased personal workloads of both administrative staff and faculty without corresponding reductions in the expectations for performance of other duties. To support success of major change/transition initiatives, resources adequate to support the additional tasks, such as effective training and technical and staff support, need to be made available in a timely manner. The Task Force heard from some individuals that there is also a perception that as the University expands in size and complexity, there is less opportunity to provide meaningful input into policy decisions and their implementation, by those who will be affected. The absence of sufficient input on implementation strategies can unnecessarily and inadvertently have a negative impact on workload at the level where they are being implemented, and this impact may appear not to be recognized in many cases. A greater degree of coordination and prioritization of key institutional initiatives would avoid a sense of being overwhelmed when multiple initiatives are expected to be implemented over the same time period. In addition to communicating a change, ensuring appropriate time for meaningful input earlier in the process will also aid departments in more effectively identifying and addressing operational impacts and challenges.

Recommendations 2.1. Ensure prioritization and impact assessment at the upper administrative levels, for all new initiatives and requests for information/documentation that are sent to Faculties, Departments, Units and individuals. 2.2. Rationalize assignment of administrative duties and resources at the personal, Departmental, and other local levels. 2.3. Ensure that project budgets are adequate to support the implementation and ongoing maintenance of new initiatives (e.g., implementation of the Areas of Commitment of “Dare to Deliver”). 2.4. Involve constituents/stakeholders in a meaningful way in the discussion of issues and possible solutions before implementation, and allow for additional communication and feedback on the impact of new initiatives, post-implementation.

!

8

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

3. Promote programs, processes, and resources to support individual academic staff in meeting challenges of workload, work life, and/or work-life balance (reducing roleconflict). Academic staff, similar to other members of our complex society, have many responsibilities outside their work. Many have young children and others have care of elderly or infirm relatives. Crises occur in personal lives, which require staff to leave their work responsibilities for short or long periods of time. Mechanisms are needed such that many of the duties of staff can be covered without adding a burden of guilt to the already stressful crisis situation. This problem is exacerbated when a Department or Unit does not have its full complement of faculty and/or administrative staff or when a significant proportion of the faculty in a particular Department, Faculty or Unit have reduced flexibility in their position descriptions due, for example, to administrative duties or due to endowed Chairs or other salary-source requirements (e.g., stipulating minimum research commitments). Within the University workplace, issues are becoming more complicated, more accountability is required, and there is an expectation of strong ownership by both Chairs and administrative staff at the Department level. The responsibilities shouldered by staff in these positions need to be recognized and appropriate support measures in place. Just under 63% of respondents to the AASUA on-line survey indicated their work frequently takes up time they would like to spend with family, and 35% indicated they are rarely or never able to balance their work life with their personal life. Research done by other institutions (Duxbury, L., and Higgins, C., 2003a) has demonstrated that individuals who have experienced difficulties balancing work and personal life are also more likely to report chronic job stress, and that those aged 35 to 44, as well as “knowledge workers,” experience the most significant challenges in this regard. The AASUA Workload Work Life Study report also highlighted workload unmanageability as a contributor to stress (p. 53). This perceived challenge to achieve work-life balance may also impact both productivity and the intention of the individual to consider leaving an organization (AASUA Workload Work Life Study report, p. 75). Recruitment and retention of outstanding academic staff and students is a priority for the University. Notwithstanding the significance of salary and research support, the quality of work life offered, along with an ability to achieve both a successful career and fulfilling personal life, may be factors which can distinguish us from our competitors and help define the University as an institution of first choice. Changing workforce and family dynamics are also impacting work-life balance. Child care is a family responsibility and an inadequate number of high-quality and conveniently located childcare spaces, was cited as a stressor (e.g., presented at the Task Force Public Forum). This, coupled with the lasting impact that a prolonged maternity/parental leave can have on tenure and subsequent career progression, places additional stress on both female and male faculty members during the childbearing/rearing years. Ensuring that resources are available to support academic staff in addressing increasing eldercare/caregiver responsibilities was also cited as an issue by some AASUA on-line survey respondents. The extent to which individuals experience roleconflict and how they respond will vary. Solutions will also vary and, by nature, academic staff are passionate about their work, have very personal career aspirations, have relative independence, and work within discipline-specific traditions. While it is not an expectation that
!

9

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

the University has the ability to “mandate” work-life balance, there is a role insofar as creating the conditions where role-conflict can be managed and academic staff have the opportunity to excel.

Recommendations 3.1. Fill the current “team roster” of academic faculty and staff in order to create the capacity to allow individuals to achieve work-life balance. 3.2. Increase flexibility to allow for temporary adjustments to workload in times of personal crisis or to meet changing personal/family circumstances. Approaches adopted by other institutions include stopping the tenure clock or adjusting tenure timelines for faculty working a reduced workload, and supporting non-traditional work arrangements as a means to provide administrative staff with flexibility in meeting both career and personal/family responsibilities. 3.3. Increase individualized support and resources available to academic staff, recognizing that the nature of support will vary based upon career stage, organizational level or role, etc. Associate professors expressed a significantly higher degree of job dissatisfaction in the AASUA on-line survey. Partnership in COACHE (a collaborative [of colleges and universities] to improve the quality of life for junior faculty) or a similar program should be considered to better support early-career faculty. 3.4. Increase the number of high-quality day care spaces available to academic staff.

4. Increase both structured mentorship of academic staff and on-going leadershipdevelopment initiatives. The University depends upon faculty taking administrative leadership positions within Departments and Units. Moving from academic to administrative leadership requires a significant new skill-set. The Task Force is aware of the current programs in place for helping new incumbents develop this skill-set and is pleased that the University is in the early phases of establishing a strategic, and clearly understood process for developing leaders. Such leadershipdevelopment should integrate and align best practices in human resources, with University aspirations. At the organizational level, leaders must be able to effectively initiate, manage and lead change. At the department level, they must consistently manage resources effectively and efficiently and maximize the contribution and commitment of their staff. Allocation of time and resources to in-depth orientation, training, and mentoring of University leaders must ensure human resource values and practices are adequately addressed. Faculty members assume academic leadership roles on a part-time basis and appointees are expected to maintain research, teaching and service responsibilities. These responsibilities must be reconciled so that faculty members can manage their workloads and will continue to be willing to assume important leadership roles.

!

10

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

Effective mentorship at all stages of an academic career is recognized as one of the major contributors to success. With the current increased rate of hiring of both junior and senior faculty, intentional or formal mentorship is also one way of developing collegiality and a sense of community. The importance of mentorship may be even greater for members of minority groups, and for those who are recent immigrants to Canada. For those who provide intentional mentorship, their services must be seen to be recognized and valued by the institution. Recommendations 4.1. Provide strategic skills training for administrative leadership. 4.2. Provide adequate support, either through increased resources or by adjustment in workloads for those in academic leadership. 4.3. Formalize mentorship programs for academic staff throughout their careers. 4.4. Recognize the special needs of minorities and recent immigrants to Canada for career guidance and mentorship. 4.5. Value the service of those who provide intentional mentorship.

5. Ensure the clarity of job expectations, and the alignment of the associated reward systems. Staff members at the University of Alberta have a desire to excel in all aspects of their work (feedback to the Task Force). As an institution, the University needs to show, in tangible ways, that this commitment to excellence in all job areas is being noted and will be rewarded. For the professoriate, research, teaching, and service to the community are the major components of the job, with various administrative tasks related to all three components. Achieving the requisite balance among research, teaching and service, requires explicit guidelines that add personalized detail of the expectations in each area of responsibility to the applicable AASUA/University Agreement, and that align with clear and transparent policies for evaluation and promotion. Additionally, the system needs to be flexible enough to recognize and reward approved non-traditional contributions and recognize distinctions in what constitutes academic excellence across disciplines. Despite attempts to require a clarification of guidelines for the assessment of increment, tenure, promotion, and similar decisions, the Task Force heard repeatedly that there is much uncertainty within the community of academic faculty and staff. While the revised Section 13 of the recent Faculty Agreement (including the establishment of the President’s Review Committee [PRC]) may be helpful in this regard, it is clear that efforts to communicate evaluation processes and standards are still needed. It is equally important to ensure that a clear and explicit discussion of expectations takes place during the recruitment process so that new faculty can make informed career decisions.

!

11

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

Annual performance evaluations of tenured faculty may not take into account the non-linear achievement of success, especially in research. A less frequent evaluation of these faculty members may be more productive and would reduce the administrative load of Department Chairs and Faculty Evaluation Committees (FECs). Contract Academic Instructors, Librarians, Administrative Professional Officers (APOs) and Faculty Service Officers (FSOs) are evaluated based on their job descriptions. The link between the University’s goals (Dare to Discover) and the career goals and structures for employees in these categories is not always clear. In many cases, the rapid rate of change in recent years has resulted in a significant disconnect between the actual current job expectations and the description captured on paper. Improvements in organizational succession planning, individual career planning, performance evaluation, salary scales, professional development opportunities, and associated career-related opportunities and programs would be advantageous for both individuals and the organization. The Task Force is aware that some of these issues are already under discussion (e.g., the performance evaluation process for APOs) and we encourage discussion on career progression, and alignment of recognition and reward systems with institutional values for all staff categories.

Recommendations In concert with the relevant Collective Agreements and evaluative guidelines: 5.1. Clarify the relative percentages of time that individual faculty are expected to allocate to research, teaching and service. The department and Faculty have responsibilities in stipulating requirements and it is suggested that effective mentorship programs (see below) would also be of assistance in this regard. 5.2. Ensure that the promotion and reward structure reflects performance in all aspects of the job as defined in 5.1. 5.3. Continue discussions with a view to negotiating the resolution of various employmentrelated issues for Contract Academic Instructors, Librarians, APOs and FSOs including: improved career and organizational succession planning, improved performance evaluation processes, adjustment of salary scales and/or removal of salary caps and improved professional development and career-related opportunities and programs. 5.4. For tenured faculty, examine the FEC process including frequency of performance evaluations and definition of expectations for various disciplines. This may be an appropriate role for the President’s Review Committee. 5.5. Recognize and reward non-traditional contributions to scholarly activities that advance the University’s goals (e.g., personal work with key decision-makers, diplomatic and supportive work with special communities, expertise accessible to the media, etc).

!

12

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

C.

DISCUSSION OF EMERGENT THEMES

Introduction
The Task Force on Workload/Worklife was formed with a mandate to conduct a limited study and to report on the workload and work life of academic staff at the University of Alberta. The on-line survey commissioned by the AASUA confirmed and helped the Task Force to identify concerns of both faculty and administrative staff. That this is not an issue being faced only by the University of Alberta, is clear in reports from a number of other Universities, reports considered by members of the Task Force, to give context to the current report (see Appendix 3). Further, a recently released survey by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) “Occupational Stress Among Canadian University Academic Staff” (Summer 2007) found that the overall level of stress in Academic Staff employed in Canadian Universities is very high. Respondents to the CAUT study reported a high level of agreement with stress indicators on the following measures: Work Load, Work Scheduling, Role-Conflict, Role Ambiguity and Work Life Balance and a smaller majority on Fairness-Administration and Fairness-Rewards. Many of the findings of the CAUT study mirrored those of the AASUA Study and the concerns expressed directly to the Task Force. Expressions of experiencing work-related stress are often used as indicators of workload/work life issues. Such findings, however, must always be considered in light of the fact that most academic faculty and staff positions are relatively demanding and that incumbents to these positions knowingly choose them as career options. That said, optimizing the support and other circumstances of these academic positions will reduce stress and maximize job satisfaction, career development, and overall institutional success. Addressing these factors will also help to position the University of Alberta as an institution of choice among our peer universities. Undeniably, the quality of the student learning experience is influenced by the quality of work life of academic staff. A measure of the concern of academic staff at the University of Alberta can be seen in stress indicators in the AASUA on-line survey, aspects of which can provide values for future comparisons: 74% of academic staff who responded, reported experiencing work-related stress “very” or “fairly” frequently. Not surprisingly, 90% of the respondents who reported their workload as unmanageable also report experiencing stress. This is compared with 55% of staff reporting stress when they did not report their workload as unmanageable. It is noteworthy that women academic staff, regardless of position, were significantly more likely than men to report frequent work-related stress. When considering such stress, three categories appeared to emerge from the AASUA Workload Work Life Study report, that are generally recognized: role-based stress (resulting from unclear responsibilities and criteria for evaluating success [pp. 65, 66]), task-based stress (resulting from work overload [pp. 49, 53]), and person/system-based stress (resulting from high selfexpectations and pressure to compete [pp. 61, 66]). It is important to recognize the differing impacts of self-imposed versus externally imposed stress. Throughout this section of this Task
!

13

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

Force report, sidebar comments have been drawn directly from the AASUA on-line survey responses to highlight a sample of the different perspectives of the academic staff who responded. It is the cumulative, continuous, excessive stress, without opportunity for control and “downtime,” that can lead to loss of productivity and to ill health (AASUA Workload Work Life Study report [pp. 52, 59, 78]). Therefore, among academic staff, it is recognized that stress, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad. Stress presents interest and challenges, contributes to achievement, and stimulates creativity. It was self-reported in the AASUA Study report that work-related stress has resulted in psychological health problems for 38% of academic staff and physical health problems for 61% of academic staff in the previous year. In the academic context, it is noted that there was no direct correlation between hours of work and job stress. While hours worked per week have increased in recent years, it is not the length of the work week that is the issue; rather, it is the pressure and nature of the work required. The greatest increase in the workload over the past three years was reported to be in professional and non-professional administrative tasks (AASUA Workload Work Life Study report [pp. 42, 46, 47]). If the University is to take its place among the great Universities of the world, it needs to maintain and continue to foster a culture of scholarship, so that faculty can value time spent interacting with colleagues and with students rather than feeling constantly pressured to complete an undue number of urgent administrative obligations. As the Task Force examined the factors which were reported by academic staff (directly or via the AASUA Study survey) to give rise to excessive stress related to workload/work life, four themes emerged: Theme I: Theme II: Theme III: Theme IV: Supportive Infrastructure Expectations and Rewards. Collegiality and Community. Organizational Structure and Complexity.

The issues of workload and work life are briefly developed under these themes.

!

14

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!
The work load is NONstop. Although, I believe that I manage my time well, my work is never done. This creates stress for all in the work environment and results in people becoming impatient and frustrated with each other because commitments are not kept. There is no time to develop relationships with co-workers and this impacts the environment. This manifests in disrespect and unresolved conflict. The work volume is just too great. You always have to make decisions at the end of the day about whether or not you’re going to get home in time to do what you ought to be doing or whether you’re going to stay an extra hour to finish up. It would be nice if the power just went off at 5:30 and then you wouldn’t have to decide. I think that’s the challenge – you have to be able to just walk out and that’s a really hard lesson to learn. (FSO) No one has time to have a coffee and get to know colleagues as people – there are people in my department whom I have never had a conversation with – I have no idea if they have a family, let alone if they have particular stressors to cope with. We have developed an “everyone for themselves” culture.

Theme I:

Supportive Infrastructure

Related key actions: 1. Commit to an explicit and continuing joint effort of the AASUA and the Administration to proactively address Workload/ Worklife (workload, work life, and work-life balance) issues. 2. Ensure appropriate allocation of administrative resources to support all levels of the organization and to effectively manage change and transition. 3. Promote programs, processes, and resources to support individual academic staff in meeting challenges of workload, work life, and/or work-life balance (reducing role-conflict). 4. Increase both structured mentorship of academic staff and ongoing leadership-development initiatives. The formation of the Workload/Worklife Task Force is an indication of the joint commitment of the Administration of the University of Alberta and the AASUA to take seriously concerns about workload, quality of work life and work-life balance. It has become clear to this Task Force that recognition of these concerns is timely, and that the University of Alberta is not alone in desiring to address these issues. The Task Force heard that there is deep concern among academic staff that these are factors which have resulted in a build-up of increasingly negative workload/work life issues. Of these, the most pressing in the near-term are increased job expectations without corresponding enhanced support, and a generally greater accountability and perceived “downloading” of administrative duties. As these issues are only likely to become greater in the future, the Task Force recommends a person or office be established with responsibility for on-going monitoring of the situation, and for the initiation and assessment of appropriate remedial actions. Such an office would be proactive in cultivating balanced infrastructure supportive of those who work at the University of Alberta. On a more fundamental level, the office could be charged with recommending structural changes which would foster a fundamental expectation of academe, the intellectual creativity of the academic staff. Currently, the University expects each individual academic staff member to remain creative and perform at internationally-high levels for a few decades. However, existing conditions regarding workload and resource availability, could cause some individuals simply to stop ’playing the game’. There is a widespread sentiment that many 15

!

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

Faculties, Departments, Units, and individual faculty do not have access to the necessary administrative support to meet the demands of their job. There is a general feeling that individual researchers are being required to perform a number of administrative duties, many driven by changes in technology and increased or new financial accountabilities. There is a perception presented in the AASUA Workload Work Life Study report (pp. 40, 46) that many of these tasks (e.g., e-mails, completing forms, photocopying) could be more efficiently handled by administrative staff, providing individual researchers with more time to conduct the ‘core’ academic duties of research, teaching, and service. It is recognized that specific allocation of funding for support versus academic positions is generally a Faculty/department decision, but the current staffing levels and assignments are likely inadequate to meet the needs required to achieve the University’s vision. Resolution of this issue could require a large commitment by the Government of Alberta and by the University. Nonetheless, exploration of non-traditional staffing or resourcing arrangements (e.g., strategic redeployment of staff) may provide opportunities to partially alleviate the administrative load on academic staff and balance administrative workloads within the University. The members of the Task Force believe that recognition of these issues is fundamental to its further recommendations; there has to be a mechanism imbedded within the administrative structure of the University to respond to workload and work life concerns. Theme II: Expectations and Rewards

As my colleagues work 70 hour weeks to compete at FEC, the pressure to do the same is huge. Less collegial pressure to work ridiculously long hours would help.

People have to take control of their own lives. I have never been forced by anyone to take on activities that I did not feel I could handle. I am offered many exciting opportunities but have learned to say “no” when I feel I am at my limit. I think most stress is self-imposed by accepting too much in terms of academic responsibilities.

I think there ought to be a reevaluation of the present system of evaluating courses and lecturers by students. Students need to held more accountable for their written comments, particularly comments that are intentional and meant to 'slam' or 'hurt' or 'demean' a lecturer/ professor. The present system for evaluation is subjective, which affects the quality of evaluation and is a significant variable in managing stress.

Related key action: 5. Ensure the clarity of job expectations, and the alignment of the associated reward systems. The mechanism for evaluation of academic staff and the connection to recognition and awards must reinforce: ! ! !
!

Clarity of expectations of job performance. Work-life balance as the norm. Tangible reward systems distinctly aligned with expectations.

When I started teaching I did so because I wanted to work with students: to teach them, to advise them, to be a mentor, to develop ways they could interact administratively and through committee work in our Department, to establish ways to supplement their curricular experience with structures for extracurricular activities, etc. I have always put my focus, and my time and energies, on working with students in all these ways. As a result, my research and publication output has been inconsistent, and I have not advanced professionally through incrementation and promotion. I would have wished that the University had ways of acknowledging properly these contributions.

16

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

Information provided to the Task Force identified two major concerns which relate to expectations and rewards. One was the continually increasing expectations of productivity in all areas of responsibility; the perception that the bar will continually rise with no clear understanding of what is expected. The second relates to the lack of alignment between the reward system and the time, effort, and achievement in specific areas; perceptions exist that time required to meet service expectations is not acknowledged, that teaching accomplishments are not as “valued” as research accomplishments, and an inequity exists with respect to some FEC processes. The Task Force heard that academic staff members are excited by the pursuit of ground-breaking research, the participation in outstanding teaching, and the provision of creative community service; staff are proud to be good citizens of the University. The Institution needs to continue to show, in tangible ways, that contributions to excellence are being noted and will be rewarded (e.g., through the FEC and similar evaluation processes, through recognition via internal awards, and through celebration of external awards). Only in this way, will people continue to perform at the expected high level. The Task Force also heard the concern that in the pursuit of excellence, there is a fear that only the few ‘high achievers’ will be recognized, with little meaningful acknowledgement of the contributions of the many excellent scholars who consistently do “very good” work. For the professoriate, work is generally divided among research, teaching and community service. Among faculty there is excellence in all of these areas; however, there is a sense that everyone is expected to be good at everything. At the individual level, it is difficult to achieve balance between the components. Guidelines suggesting the percentage of time to be allocated to each component would lessen stress. Well-communicated transparency and clarity in the increment and promotion criteria would indicate what is expected. In addition, the system must be flexible enough to reward excellence in any one of the components together with strong job performance in the others. Such a reward system would enhance morale and job satisfaction, important to both retention and recruitment of faculty. The critical role of the evaluation process for academic staff is key. For faculty, the Faculty Evaluation Committee (FEC) and its effective and informed functioning are critical. The new Article 13 of the Faculty Agreement may assist faculty and FEC members in understanding the requirements and procedures essential to a thorough and transparent FEC process. Despite efforts to have the FEC processes made clear, the Task Force heard repeatedly that requirements and expectations are unclear (at least in some Faculties). Recognition awards need to be aligned with the vision of the University so that they include such contributions as improving the undergraduate experience, introducing new and effective teaching technologies and mentoring. It is not only tangible awards that are important. Faculty told the Task Force that they feel rewarded when positive feedback and appreciation (verbal and otherwise) are received from various levels of the Administration and from their peers. It is traditional within our institution to have annual performance evaluations of faculty. This process may not take into account the non-linear nature of research achievements (or teaching assignments, graduate student progress, and community service). Lengthening the time between
!

17

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

I love the actual mechanics of my job. I love teaching. I love my research. I love the professional activities I do. The problem is that it is not possible to do the volume of work required to be at the top while appropriately parenting children and taking care of oneself. I would advise people not to take this job if they value family or maintaining their own health. (Full Professor) We are all members of an increasingly fragmented, stressed society but we should have the ability to lead a thoughtful and productive examination and rebalancing of work life issues rather than be run around by them. We need to change the fundamental expectations of academic life with a greater focus on life outside work. Family life is important to well-being and should be recognized. (Full Professor) I do not believe a general or generic solution can be applied to all situations. There is a multitude of factors (external and internal) that contribute to one's "stress level" including one's own being and perception. Access to individualized support is what would be most warranted – i.e., someone skilled in facilitating an examination of the factors contributing the excessive workload, pressure, as well as stress level and formulating an individualized plan.

evaluations for tenured faculty would both reduce the pressure to get fast results and reduce the administrative burden on Chairs and Deans as well as members of FECs, something addressed under Theme III of this report. Contract academic sessional instructors, administrative professional officers (APOs), faculty service officers (FSOs), and librarians have very varied responsibilities and are evaluated according to their job descriptions. There is a cap on their salary scales. Thus, when they reach the cap, superior performance by members of these groups can no longer be recognized. Improved professional development programs, evaluation, and reward systems along with greater attention to organizational succession planning, career planning, and mentoring of individuals would be valuable in developing the organizational potential in these groups. The contract academic sessional instructors, APOs, FSOs, and librarians provide essential services throughout the University. They too need to feel that their work is valued by the institution if they are to perform to their potential. The APO Agreement review process currently underway provides a strategic opportunity to focus attention on quality of work life and supporting work-life balance, and could provide a model for other agreement review committees to follow. Theme III: Collegiality and Community

Related key actions: 1. Commit to an explicit and continuing joint effort of the AASUA and the Administration to proactively address Workload/Worklife (workload, work life, and work-life) issues. 3. Promote programs, processes and resources to support individual academic staff in meeting challenges of workload, work life, and/or work-life balance (reducing role-conflict). 4. Increase both structured mentorship of academic staff and on-going leadership-development initiatives. 5. Ensure the clarity of job expectations, and the alignment of the associated reward systems. Many of the points raised in this report relate to specific administrative structures and to an open and accessible reward structure. Much less tangible is the strongly articulated desire, heard by the Task Force, for a collaborative community. People feel more valued when they work within a collegial community of scholars where differences are valued, ideas stimulated and achievements 18

!

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

celebrated by all. Such a community reflects a high quality of work life and strong morale among members of the academic staff. A high degree of collaboration and creativity is also essential in meeting institutional goals. It could be suggested that the absence of collegiality could lower job satisfaction and may lead to challenges with respect to recruitment and retention of staff. With increasing workloads and time pressures, some AASUA on-line survey respondents noted that they no longer have time to work collaboratively with colleagues, nor is this necessarily rewarded. The increasing workload also allows insufficient time to socialize and have intellectually stimulating discussions with students or with one another. The Task Force heard that academic staff at the University of Alberta have become a community of strangers. A lack of “social space”, attributed by respondents to reallocations arising from an overall space shortage on campus has resulted in fewer opportunities for informal interactions, which creates an added barrier with respect to fostering interdisciplinary interactions. Respondents to the AASUA on-line survey and those who provided input to the Task Force cited a lack of mentorship as a possible outcome of an overly competitive workplace, and recommended formalized mentorship programs as a possible solution to assist in addressing challenges with respect to the implicit and unstated rules about the way things are done, or to learn how to successfully balance a career with family life. Sensitive and effective mentorship is seen as being particularly important for persons who belong to minority groups within a Department, Faculty or Unit. APOs and FSOs noted that increased interaction among their groups would result in greater sharing of knowledge, thus increasing efficiency and building a stronger sense of community. Sessionals, especially those hired on temporary short-term contracts of eight months or less also report feeling isolated and without the ability to contribute to the overall development of the Department (input to the Task Force). They distance themselves partly because there are no incentives for being involved. Intentional involvement of sessionals in more aspects of the life of a Department would enhance their job satisfaction (noted in the AASUA Study report, to be low). The Task Force heard that, in addition to the impact of technology on workload discussed under Theme IV, reliance on technology to communicate, was felt to increase the sense of isolation among academic staff, and to contribute to lack of collegiality and increased workload. E-mail has “raised the bar” in terms of expectations of communication and productivity and the anticipated speed of response. The need to encourage interpersonal face-to-face communication is a strategy mentioned to the Task Force as a way to address this “electronic” challenge, with responsibility being placed on both the individual and the institution. Specific suggestions included: ! ! ! Provide more common spaces to encourage socialization and decrease isolation Make the time to talk with colleagues Remove barriers to collegiality

!

19

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

!

Respect boundaries [reasonable communication protocols and expected response times]
“I think today's professional has a very different role to play than their counterpart a few years ago. Now we are expected to be the professional, the secretary, the filing clerk, the supply clerk, the instructor, the researcher, the administrator, etc. The assistant to help with tasks that keep one's work environment under better control is a thing of the past. Over the years, my role has become fragmented with less time to really focus on the bigger projects and issues; it is often hard to deal with the frustrations that come from being pulled in so many directions at the same time. Quite honestly, I am often at a loss as to how to feel in more control of my workload. This is one of the reasons I wanted to make sure I participated in this survey. “In the Globe and Mail last Saturday, there was a cover story about how e-mail has changed the professor’s role to being on-call 24 hours a day, and really changed the relationship between professors and students. This really resonated with me, although I do not think that it is all bad. In many ways, it has improved the relationship; but e-mail is completely overwhelming, and the lack of support for administrative procedures and tasks is very frustrating. Each professor should have a 0.5 FTE admin support position dedicated to supporting that professor, who is not paid for out of research trust dollars from specific grants.

A component of developing a culture of appreciation is mentioned by AASUA on-line survey respondents. Theme II addresses the need for alignment of reward structures, but the importance of individualized acknowledgement of contributions was also cited. Faculty members tend to receive very little personal feedback from various levels of administration (typically expected from chairs/deans) and equally as important, from their colleagues. From inputs to the Task Force, differences also emerged with respect to the perceived “value” among disciplines (i.e., humanities are not perceived by some as being as highly regarded by the University as the sciences). The Task Force also heard that there is a perception of an inordinate degree of attention being paid to the few “high achievers” in terms of attracting significant research dollars, at the expense of the many excellent scholars who make consistently strong contributions on a day-to-day basis in ways that do not translate into significant research funding. In the AASUA Workload/Worklife on-line survey, 43% of the respondents indicated that they have seriously considered applying for, or have applied for other positions in the past year due to job dissatisfaction. Overall, respondents felt that the quality of work life would improve with higher morale, a less competitive atmosphere, and a shift in what many perceive to be a culture of excessive workload and overworking (pp. 43, 61 of the Study report). For mid-level administrative staff, perceptions of teamwork and interpersonal collegiality are the best predictors of job satisfaction. The Task Force recognizes the uniqueness of the University as a workplace, especially for academic staff. There is a tradition of individualism, self-motivation, and freedom of choice. Yet, like all human beings, academic staff members face crises or significant events in their personal lives, when they require the support of the institution. For example, there are times when academic staff must leave their teaching or administrative responsibilities to respond to a personal crisis, but there is inconsistency within Departments and Units for ensuring that their duties will be covered during the time of their absence. This leads to a sense of guilt, that already busy colleagues have to take on additional duties, and sometimes, resentment on the part of colleagues asked to take on an increased load. This problem has been exacerbated by vacant academic positions not being filled and by more people being appointed to positions such as Canada Research Chairs (CRC) and endowed Chairs which may have limited teaching components in some cases.

!

20

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

AASUA on-line survey respondents noted the need to develop a culture of work-life balance as the norm. The University is perceived by some as not being “family friendly” (however, see Footnote #3, above). Issues related to the length of maternity/parental leave for biological and adoptive parents, inequities in leave provisions across staff groups, and the impact that a leave of this nature has on career progression were raised in various forums. Respondents with young children cited an inadequate number of high-quality child-care spaces, including spaces for infants, as adding stress to their work life. Sixty-three percent of overall AASUA on-line survey respondents, and approximately 70% of faculty, indicate their work frequently encroaches on family time. Being rarely, or never, able to balance their work life with their personal life was reported by 35% of overall respondents, and by 42% of faculty. Academic staff would like more opportunities to involve their family in University life, and greater appreciation for the interrelationship between career/academic success and success in achieving work-life integration or balance. An increasing incidence of physical and mental health problems attributed to work-related stress were cited by many AASUA Study survey respondents (61% reported physical health problems and 38% reported psychological health problems in the past year). Although benefit utilization data does not conclusively identify this as a trend, self-reported excessive job stress has been demonstrated in other studies to have impacts ranging from reduced quality-of-life and health concerns, to reduced quality and quantity of work (Duxbury et al., 2004). Talented and motivated staff members in a supportive, well-resourced work environment will contribute to success for the institution as a whole. Creating a culture supportive of both personal and career excellence, the conditions where academic staff can excel in an environment that fosters work-life integration, and strategies that promote civility, citizenship, and community will position the University of Alberta as a leader among its peers. This will directly impact the ability to achieve the aspirations outlined in Dare to Discover/Dare to Deliver. Theme IV: Organizational Structure and Complexity

Related key action: 3. Ensure appropriate allocation of administrative resources to support all levels of the organization and to effectively manage change and transition. The Task Force heard that academic staff members are being expected to respond to increasingly complex and varied responsibilities. This is resulting in higher workloads and accompanying work-related stress. A recurring theme reported to the Task Force was that responsibilities are being “downloaded” to Faculties, departments, units and individuals, without sufficient support in the form of additional staff, appropriate training, and technical resources. People undertaking the new responsibilities reported that the organization did not always recognize and value their time and effort.

!

21

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

"I think the University has a great deal to learn from successful businesses and industries about getting value for their employment dollars by ensuring that workloads are manageable, that job descriptions are wellwritten, and that employees are able to balance work with family life and other values; [employees] who are honestly valued by the organization are, at the end of the day, significantly more productive than those who are overworked."

Both the University’s vision, Dare to Discover, and academic plan, Dare to Deliver, describe the need for transformative organization and support. The Task Force realizes that many factors have contributed to the current situation including: ! Budget cuts of the 1990’s, which were delivered, in many areas, through a reduction of supporting infrastructure; ! increased accountability required of recipients of public funding; ! increased complexity in today’s workplace, driven in part by technology changes and in part by expectations of funders and other legislative bodies as they relate to health and safety, labor relations, privacy issues, etc.; ! increased pressure to “find your own funding” conflicting with demands to take on increased committee, administrative and expanded teaching duties; ! the pursuit of the new initiatives, even if existing ‘core’ operations are not sufficiently funded; and ! on-going efforts to ‘raise the bar’ with regard to the international competitiveness of the University. Central administrative units are also experiencing the increased demands due to greater internal and external accountability and funding constraints. However, the Task Force was told that it is perceived, in general, by the AASUA membership that as the organization grows in size and complexity, there is decreasingly little opportunity to provide meaningful input into policy decisions and their implications. The Task Force would suggest that efforts be initiated to ensure that AASUA members are aware of, consult with members of, and/or participate in, various representative decision-making bodies on campus (e.g., Academic Planning Committee, General Faculties Council, etc). As well, members of such committees and councils should assume a responsibility to routinely report key issues to their constituents. Such interactions will create opportunities for input by academic staff who are dedicated and sincere in their efforts to fulfill their larger University community obligations, and who value involvement and debate as indicators of the respect with which they are held as a member of the organization. Combined with improvements in the reward and evaluation system described under Theme II in this report, the University will enhance its ability to attract and retain highly qualified personnel (HQP). 22

"The greatest 'loss' to the University in the last decade or so has been the sense of community, of belonging. The employer is frequently seen as unresponsive or uncaring, and yet demanding ever higher levels of performance. This has eroded the sense of community, as has the ever increasing overall workload. This undermines solidarity toward the institution and towards the particular department in which we work. We desperately need new strategies backed by policy and action which seek to re-establish a new sense of community. A new emphasis on building community and a satisfactory workplace would be a key factor in retention, productivity, etc."

!

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

The impact of technology changes has also had huge implications for workload in virtually all sectors; the Task Force was informed that not all such changes are viewed as positive. Although initially hailed as a valuable tool to manage work, it is now generally recognized by staff that there should be limits to the expectation of having to be in constant contact with the office and having to “self-serve” on a wide range of University systems and processes. More and more, individuals are saying that electronic devices are stressing them out – rather than being a good tool to keep in touch in case of emergency. For many people, the electronic tools have become a trigger for anxiety related to feeling unable to ever be “disconnected” from the office. Workable e-mail protocols could be established for both faculty members and students. Feedback to the Task Force from faculty who have accepted leadership responsibilities at the Department or Faculty level was strong. They expressed concern that the many (usually important) requests for data, reports, and studies, initiated by Administration, were making the workload unsustainable. In the AAS:UA survey, 70% of faculty administrators reported that they worked more than 50 hours a week and 63% that their workload was unmanageable. It is noteworthy that 87% of women in this category and 67% of men reported that they suffered frequent work-related stress. Increased administrative support could counter increasing hours of work and related stress. End-Note The topics of workloads, work-life, and work-life balance, to be fully addressed, would require much more in-depth study than that undertaken by the Task Force. Nonetheless, consistent messages were heard from a variety of sources and the Task Force has presented them in the current report. Four “Themes” and five “Key Actions” emerged from information gathered and are presented above. The workload, work life, and work-life balance issues at the University of Alberta seem similar to those at other universities. However, there was a sense that, with its long-standing history of collegiality and “can do” spirit, the University has the ability to address the issues identified and can enhance the likelihood of fully realizing the vision advocated in, “Dare to Discover.”

!

23

!

D. APPENDICES Appendix 1
FINAL: TERMS OF REFERENCE UofA/AAS:UA Joint Task Force on Workload/Worklife ________________________________________________________________________ The Workload/Worklife Task Force (WWTF) was constituted as a joint UofA/AAS:UA Task Force in response to, and as required by, the 2005 Memorandum of Settlement between the Association of Academic Staff: University of Alberta (AAS:UA) and the Governors of the University of Alberta (UofA): “Workload/Worklife Joint Task Force 8.1 The parties agree to the establishment of a Workload/Worklife Joint Task Force to study the workload and worklife of academic staff at the University of Alberta with recommendations prepared by June 30, 2006. 8.2 The membership of the Workload/Worklife Joint Task Force will consist of not more than three individuals appointed by the University and not more than three individuals appointed by the AAS:UA.” The mandate of the Workload/Worklife Task Force is to identify and examine factors that contribute to the workload and worklife environment for AAS:UA members at the University of Alberta. The Task Force will prepare recommendations based upon its findings. The Task Force will not take a structured approach to assess workload or worklife issues for other members of the University community (e.g., members of the Non-Academic Staff Association, students, etc) although such information may arise incidentally. The Task Force will solicit input from, and on behalf of, member groups of the AAS:UA (faculty, APOs, FSOs, Librarians, RAs, and others).

Mandate:

Scope:

Background: The Committee for Research and Scholarly Activity of the AAS:UA had earlier raised a number of issues relevant to workload and worklife for AAS:UA members at the University and had discussed a number of these with AAS:UA members, the Vice-President (Research), and others. The resulting AAS:UA report may be viewed through a link from http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/aasua/nav01.cfm?nav01=33141 . In parallel to the current Task Force initiative, the AAS:UA had contracted with TANDEM Social Research Consulting (Dr. Marianne Sorensen) to conduct a research project, the “Workload/Work Life Study,” intended as a means to gather information on the experiences of AAS:UA members in a wide variety of UofA activities. The Study would include UofA demographic data collection, literature review, and interviews and focus groups followed by an on-line survey. Follow-

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

up focus groups (to develop possible solutions) and a final report with recommendations were proposed. Issues of workload and work life are being raised at an interesting time in the history of the Province and the University of Alberta. 1. The matter is being raised immediately following years of budget re-allocations. 2. Coincidentally, advances in computing availability and on-line access to systems and information, have made it possible to effect individual access to needed information and services. 3. There has been a pervasive increase in requirements for accountabilities of various kinds (finances, ethics, safety, etc) as exemplified in the Tri-Council MOU. 4. There has been an increase in external requirements “post-9/11” and following financial misdeeds (e.g., Enron); these requirements include more aggressive audits and legislated regulations for transparency. Membership of the WWTF: Representing the AAS:UA: Margaret-Ann Armour, Professor Emerita, Faculty of Science (Co-Chair) JC Cahill, Associate Professor, Biological Sciences Tara Mish, APO, Political Science Representing the UofA: Vivien Wulff, Executive Director, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry Melanie Goroniuk, Manager, Health Promotion and WorkLife Services Bill McBlain, Senior Associate Vice-President (Research) (Chair) Sources of Information: 1. The WWTF has met with Dr. Marianne Sorensen (TANDEM Social Research Consulting) and Dr. Jeremy Richards (representing the Committee for Research and Scholarly Activity of the AAS:UA). 2. The Task Force will use the results of the AAS:UA on-line survey/study and the report from the Workload/Work Life Study in informing itself regarding a number of the issues that have been, or will be, raised. A delay in conducting the Survey has resulted in an agreement to move the above-mentioned date of June 30, 2006 to September 30, 2006. 3. Options of a Town-Hall meeting, focus groups, and individual interviews will be used in the acquisition of further information, input, and feedback.

!

25

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

!

4. The Task Force will consider what other possible sources of information may add value, including the UofA senior administration, the Chancellor and Senate, the Board of Governors, and others. 5. An attempt will be made to assess similar workload and worklife issues and experiences at other universities. 6. Annual Reports of Faculties will be examined for any identified issues in the workload and worklife areas. Constraints: 1. Findings that could evolve into bargaining issues for the UofA and/or AAS:UA will require careful consideration. 2. Availability of resources may dictate the likelihood for implementation of any recommendations. 3. Workloads of committee members. Communications: 1. The Workload/Worklife Task Force will develop effective communications in the acquisition of key information. 2. Effective communications will also be required to provide feedback to stakeholders and to broadcast results of the Task Force’s work. 3. Recommendations and solutions to be suggested for implementation will be communicated effectively. Deliverables and Expected Outcomes: Findings from the AAS:UA Workload/Work Life Study will be known as the WWTF begins its real work. The Workload/Worklife Task Force will examine/analyze those findings and the statistical rigour. The WWTF will need to be imaginative and creative in generating ideas to address identified issues in a value-added way, given the nature of the likely concerns. In some cases, recommendations may include both short-term and longer-term approaches and/or solutions. On-going consultations and feedback may be one part of the future monitoring of workload and worklife issues. It may be necessary to assign selected specific issues for further study. Time-Lines: Regular meetings: Information-gathering: Final Report Goal: Every two weeks or as otherwise agreed Spring, 2006 On or before December 31, 2007

!

26

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

Appendix 2
References Consulted: ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. An Agenda for Excellence: Creating flexibility in tenure-track faculty careers (2005). American Council on Education, Office of Women in Higher Education, Executive Summary, 12 pp, url=http://www.acenet.edu//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home. 2. Amelink, C.T. & Hyer, P. (2005). Worklife issues at Virginia Tech: A report of faculty discussion groups held in April 2005. Commission on Faculty Affairs and the AdvanceVT Policy Workgroup, Virginia Tech, 23 pp. 3. Balancing Faculty Careers and Family Work (2004). American Association of University Professors (AAUP), Academe, Special Issue, 90(6), url=http://www.aaup.org/pubsres/academe/2004/ND/. 4. Catano, V., Francis, L., Haines, T., Kirpalani, H., Shannon, H., Stringer, B. & Lozanski, L. (2007). Occupational stress among Canadian university academic staff. Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Bulletin, Summer, 42 pp, url=http://www.caut.ca/uploads/CAUTStressStudy-EN.pdf. 5. Duxbury, L., Higgins, C. & Coghill, D. (1999). An examination of the implications and costs of work-life conflict in Canada. Health Canada, Ottawa, 109 pp (url=http://www.phacaspc.gc.ca/dca-dea/publications/pdf/duxbury_e.pdf). 6. Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2003a). Work-life conflict in Canada in the new millennium: A status report. Health Canada, Ottawa, 130 pp (url=http://www.phacaspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travel/rprt_2_e.pdf). 7. Duxbury, L., Higgins, C. & Coghill, D. (2003b). Voices of Canadians: Seeking work-life balance. Human Resources Development Canada, Quebec, 88 pp (url=http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/lp/spila/wlb/pdf/Voices.pdf). 8. Duxbury, L., Higgins, C. & Johnson, K. (2004). Exploring the link between work-life conflict and demands on Canada's health care system. Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, 74 pp (url=http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/worktravel/report3/pdfs/fvwklfrpt_e.pdf). 9. End of Year Report: Faculty development and diversity (2006). Harvard University, Office of the Provost, 49 pp, url=http://www.provost.harvard.edu/reports/. 10. Family Matters @ Stanford for Faculty (2005). Stanford University, Office of the Provost, 28 pp, url=http://www.stanford.edu/dept/provost/family.pdf. 11. Jacobs, J.A. & Winslow, S.E. (2004). Overworked faculty: Job stresses and family demands, U. Pennsylvania. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPS), 596(1), 104-129. doi: 10.1177/0002716204268185.
!

27

AASUA/UofA Workload/Worklife Task Force Report March 2009

Appendix 2
12. Johnsrud, L.K. (2002). Measuring the quality of faculty and administrative worklife: Implications for college and university campuses. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 379395. 13. The Leadership, Community and Values Initiative: A Report to the UW Community (2006). University of Washington, 8 pp, url=http://www.washington.edu/president/leadership/. 14. Leslie, D.W. (2006). Faculty careers and flexible employment: Policy brief. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement Equity Fund (TIAA-CREF), 23 pp, url=http://www.tiaa-crefinstitute.org. 15. Mason, M.A. & Stacy A. (2006). A family-friendly package for ladder-rank faculty at the University of California. Work/Family Initiative, University of California at Berkeley, 17 pp, url=http://www.berkeley.edu/. 16. The Measured Academic: Quality controls in Ontario universities (2006). Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) Research Paper, 26 pp, url=http://www.ocufa.on.ca/research/Measured_Academic_May_2006.pdf. 17. Rosser, V.J. (2005). Measuring the change in faculty perceptions over time: An examination of their worklife satisfaction. Research in Higher Education 46(1), 81-107. doi: 10.1007/s111162-004-6290-y. 18. Stepping Up: Companion paper 4, faculty and support renewal (2004). University of Toronto, 13 pp, url=http://www.provost.utoronto.ca/plans/framework/faculty.html. 19. Tytherleigh, M.Y. & Webb, C. (2005). Occupational stress in higher education: GMP240 end of project report. University of Plymouth, pp. 1-27. 20. University of Pennsylvania Flexible Work Options Program Overview and Guideline (1999). University of Pennsylvania, Flexible Work Options, 2 pp & Introductory Guide, 15 pp, url=http://www.hr.upenn.edu/Quality/worklife/FlexOptions/FlexGuide99.aspx. 21. Winnefield, A.H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., & Hapuararchchi, J. (2002). Occupational stress in Australian universities: A national survey. National Tertiary Education Union, 98 pp, url=http://www.nteu.org.au/policy/current/stress/osau/fullreport. 22. Yuan, X-B. (2006). Colleges should take action to combat occupational stress, report says. Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle Daily News (06/05/2006), url=http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/06/2006060505.htm.

!

28


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Stats:
views:58
posted:12/8/2009
language:English
pages:28
Description: workloadworklife task force report