Workshop 4: MAW and Equality Challenges

This sheet is a synthesis by Dr Lucinda Barrett, MAW project coordinator, of the network activity. For more details please contact or

The work from the Equality Challenge Unit shows that different demographic groups behave in different ways, and this is important to managing academic workloads and the longer-term consequences for those different groups. For example, research shows that there is a significant lack of women in senior positions in higher education owing to a wide range of reasons. Women’s reluctance to put themselves forward to the same extent as men may be one reason, however, when women do apply for promotions they do well.

It seems that there are groups that are more at risk of disadvantage from certain institutional practices. For example staff on fractional contracts will find difficulties in being submissable to the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which is widely believed to help promotion. It is perhaps no coincidence that 42% of female academics work part time, compared to 27% of males (HESA, 2006/7) and of submitting departments, 58% of women were entered in the 2001 RAE compared to 74% of men. Another area highlighted through the statistics is that 69% of white, other and Asian staff were submitted in 2001 compared with 50% of black staff. In a HEFCE (2006) report on this it was suggested that evidence from the bibliometric analysis indicates that there was not evidence of ‘unjustifiable bias’ in selection (p4). However the implication is that certain groups are less able to be active in research. For example, carers will find themselves disadvantaged in a work culture that favours those who are able to work for long and unsocial hours. Further, although it is recognised that for many part-time work offers flexibility, opportunities for promotion can be affected through the resultant difficulties in building a balanced CV. Further research done in HE in Australia has found that flexibility, such as from home working, can mean that they can not use their absence to ensure sharing of child care responsibilities (Probert B 2005) (p69).

European law (the European Court in Danfoss C -109/88) anticipates that informal workplace systems will tend to favour men in terms of pay, and that transparency is necessary if there is to be a shift from the status quo. By analogy, transparency of the information in workload systems could help to raise general awareness and sensitivity to the above type of issues when allocating work.

Decisions made at an individual level may seem appropriate and defensible, however, analysis at an organisational level can highlight particular trends and areas of unwitting discrimination. To help avoid this, risk and impact assessments can create focus and prioritise action. But in order to do this information on workload allocation needs to be visible so that an institutional view can be gained. To support MAW processes at school level the university policy on transparency, equity and equality requirements needs to be disseminated widely through a training and development programme. This can be supported by human resource departments, which can then monitor for equitable processes and outcomes.

The main theme coming through from this discussion on MAW and equality issues is the benefit that a transparent MAW system, at department and institutional level, can deliver for the effectiveness of an institution’s response to equality issues.

Table 1: The Contribution of MAW to Equality Challenge Issues: Using the Example of Gender and Career Progression

Issue

/

Problem

/

MAW Contribution

Transparency / -Informal system of allocation with no ability to assess equity in the size and distribution of roles allowing for any discriminatory process to go undetected. / -Criteria and outcomes of allocation transparent, through agreed process/model highlighting any areas of unfairness and discrimination
- Planning for and providing a more equitable distribution of work
Fractional contracts /

Inability to create balanced CV to build portfolio of activities necessary for career progression

/

- Incorporation of staff on fractional contracts into work planning model

- Consultation leading to provision of balanced work portfolio, incorporating other work areas in proportion to overall contract time.

- Discussion on work patterns e.g. flexibility and availability, to inform work planning model

- Linkage to appraisal process- training and development needs

Allocated Roles /

Tendency for women to take on or be allocated certain roles[1],[2],[3]such as pastoral care, which are often heavy in work terms, but do not facilitate career progression / promotion. Other research has shown women recruited to ‘high risk’ leadership roles [4]

/

-Through consultations in development of a model and transparency of its outputs: raising awareness of potential problems/ trends leading to more equitable distribution of roles and defensible decisions.

- Linkage to appraisal process as above.


Figure 1: MAW and Equality Challenges: example of Gender and Career Progression
Workshop 4: Health and Safety Executive and MAW

Dr Lucinda Barrett, MAW coordinator, November 2008

From the occupational group statistics from the labour force survey (Jones R et al. 2006) it can be seen that teaching and research professionals are amongst the most high risk groups for work related stress. Kinman and Jones (2004) in their study of HE staff suggest that this is not due alone to hours worked, but to a more complex set of factors, such as control within the work environment and this ties in with HSE studies in organisations generally. Through their work the HSE have developed standards to help reduce the levels of work- related stress through addressing six key areas that they see as the primary sources of stress at work: These are demands, control, support, relationships, role and change.

The HSE insists on the difference between work pressure, which can be positive, and work related stress, that is an adverse reaction to excessive demands. In brief, as part of an organisational risk assessment an initial stage would be to understand how the six risk factors translate to the institution in question and the specific risks for staff. Through gathering and analysing information and data an assessment could then be made about who is likely to be harmed and how. The HSE have found that it is after this stage that the process is most likely to break down and not move onto the next stage of: evaluating the risks and exploring/ consulting about the problems en route to developing solutions/actions to the specific issues found and giving feedback on the process. When this does occur action plans can then be developed and implemented further and recordings made of progress. Within this cycle the agreed work should be monitored and reviewed, for example through meetings and surveys, to assess effectiveness and decide on any further work or data collection needed to help improve outcomes. Whilst this process looks towards issues likely to affect groups of staff the standards place a duty of care on employers to protect the wellbeing of individuals and address their concerns.

Although the focus and objectives of MAW, in aiming for a transparent and equitable use of human resources, differs from these, it can be seen that information made available and the processes used in explicitly managing academic workloads should assist in meeting the HSE objectives. The data from this could also help the institution monitor allocations of work and to highlight potential problems and take action accordingly.However although having a University wide system does create the potential to have an institutional level view, it also needs to be twinned with an explicit (evidenced) institutional audit process to check that high workloads are actually being addressed and, if not, that action is demanded and delivered. MAW can significantly contribute to a risk assessment, but we are not suggesting that it is a suitable, sufficient and documented risk assessment in itself.

Table 2: (Draft) The Contribution of MAW to Health and Safety Issues

HSE Stress Management Standards / MAW Process Contributions via:
Standard / Relates to
1 / Demands / -Volume of work undertaken within reasonable range. / -Agreements on reasonable loads within schools and transparency of allocations.
- Use of MAW to optimise equity through fair spread of work across staff
-Encouragement for staff to be aware of the dangers of working in a way that exceeds requirements of a role.
- For Heads of school responsibility to use model to check for staff working widely outside school norms. Curtailing unproductive activities
- Use of model to help smooth peak periods of workload e.g. exam marking
-University monitoring for workloads outside normal parameters.
-Skills and abilities matched to the work.
- Response to concerns on work environment / - Consultations with work allocator to match work with staff skills/ abilities/preferences.
2 / Control / -Ability to inform decisions about how work is undertaken-this includes work pace, patterns and use of skills. / - At university level provision of broad framework to indicate minimum expectations on MAW
-Within that scope at school level to develop a model suited to own needs
-Transparency of process to control process and show equitable spreads.
Systems in place to respond to individual concerns / - Individual and peer group consultations / discussions such as on how activities may be undertaken within agreed model
- Opportunity to develop skills to respond to new challenges / -Support and acknowledgement within allocation for new development-programmes, module, enterprise, research
3 / Support / Receiving adequate information and support from managers and colleagues / - Policies and procedures- including university policy agreement, school model, and needs of new staff –e.g. teaching certificate.
- Information on how MAW model works and on data information access. Training on model system use.
Systems in place to respond to individual concerns / - Use of individual and peer group consultations / discussions to elicit and provide help and support e.g. newly appointed staff. Linkage to appraisal process.
4 / Relationships / Standards of acceptable behaviour
Conflict avoidance and resolution / - Agreed procedures within schools and at university level for MAW.
- Transparency of MAW for all staff in a group by sharing staff MAW plans.
- Opportunities for individual and peer group consultations / discussions to help avoid or alleviate conflict
- Explicit forum to discuss workload issues
Systems in place to respond to individual concerns / - Opportunities for individual consultations / discussions to report and respond to issues/ problems
5 / Role(s) / Understanding roles and responsibilities. / - Use of MAW model to ensure inclusion of all work areas into allocation and to optimise compatibility of roles
- Clear understanding of roles and a broad sense of the anticipated proportion of overall work that role should cover.
- Use of MAW to provide clear defensible criteria for work allocator on their judgements
Systems to respond to any individual concerns / - Opportunities for individual and peer group consultations / discussions aimed at achieving a fairer distribution of roles - A consequence of latter may be fewer roles for some staff and a less fragmented working pattern.
6 / Change / Rationale for change explained and how it is initiated and managed consulted on and discussed / - Management Information derived from consultative MAW approaches will have been agreed by staff and possess credibility in making a case for change.
- Consultation will allow staff influence on what is included in the model and how/ what units/hours are allocated to activities.
- Timescales for process discussed and agreed.
- Use of MAW system will help continuity when changes of allocating staff occur.
Systems to respond to any individual concerns / - At subject group or departmental level MAW information may be discussed by staff, pilot studies or trials to be used to assess proposed in model or framework.
- Systems in place for feedback on the process and responsive adaptation at locally level and potentially to university policy framework.

References

Barrett L and Barrett P (2008). The Management of Academic Workloads: Full Report. London, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Frankforter S A (1996). "The progression of women Beyond the Glass Ceiling." Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality11(5): 121-132.

HEFCE (2006). The Selection of Staff for Inclusion in RAE 2001, HEFCE August 2006.

Jones R, Huxtable C and Hodgson J (2006). Self -Reported Work related IIlness 2004/05: Results from the Labour Force Survey. National Statistics Publication, Health and Safety Executive.

Kinman G and Jones F (2004). Working to the Limit. London, Association of University Teachers: 1-64.

Probert B (2005). "'I just Couldn't Fit It In': Gender and Unequal Outcomes in Academic Careers." Gender, Work and Organization12(1).

Ryan M and Haslam A (2008). Women in the Boardroom: The Risks of Being at the Top. Change Agenda. London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

1

[1]Frankforter S A (1996). "The progression of women Beyond the Glass Ceiling." Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality11(5): 121-132.esearch showing predominance of success for women in ‘staff based’ professions/positions rather than line positions.

[2]Barrett L and Barrett P (2008). The Management of Academic Workloads: Full Report. London, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.From case study interviews (HoS and lecturers) evidence of quite a strong perception that there was a tendency for women to be given pastoral care roles.

[3]Probert B (2005). "'I just Couldn't Fit It In': Gender and Unequal Outcomes in Academic Careers." Gender, Work and Organization12(1).(p60)

[4]Ryan M and Haslam A (2008). Women in the Boardroom: The Risks of Being at the Top. Change Agenda. London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Research on preferences for recruiting women to a leadership position characterised by: declining performance/ high risk /conflict