Gaps and Opportunities for Faculty Workload Policies in Pharmacy and Health Professions Education

Concerns With Current Measurements and Metrics

While there are various reasons why faculty workload should be measured, the task could be challenging to manage or controversial to implement. Faculty workload can be difficult to define and quantify fairly and equitably because diverse factors can play a role in the workload equation. Faculty workload policies must take into account different types of faculty appointments (eg, research focused vs teaching focused, clinical vs nonclinical, precepting Doctor of Pharmacy [PharmD] students and residents vs nonprecepting roles, teaching in PharmD vs PhD or master’s programs) and levels of responsibilities and activities (eg, administrative duties at the school, campus bound, clinically focused). However, optimal policies must transcend disciplines, gender roles (eg, women faculty are given more mentoring and advising responsibilities; promotion and tenure time constraints are affected due to maternity leave),^6,20 and career paths of all faculty if they are to be perceived as fair.^1,20,21 Even within the didactic environment, the extent and type of teaching in health professions programs (eg, lecturing vs laboratory teaching, traditional vs blended or flipped, coordinating vs instructing, chairing vs contributing) may not be easily captured compared with research productivity outcomes (eg, the number of publications, the number and funding amount of grants).

Another area of concern pertaining to faculty workload is how workload is used in promotion and tenure processes. The outcomes needed to demonstrate a satisfactory performance evaluation may not always match with workload assignments, and it is unclear whether the workload should be used in the consideration for faculty promotion or reviewed only for productivity or outcomes. One of the reasons for a lack of consistent effort in measuring faculty workload may be due to its futility and the impossibility of accurately tracking and measuring all efforts. Doing so may jeopardize good citizenship for faculty and foster a culture of “bean counting” (ie, expectation of tracking and receiving credit for everything that faculty does). This scrutinization, while well-meaning, may decrease faculty morale and increase disengagement, burnout, and turnover among faculty.²² The ultimate goal is to recognize faculty excellence in different areas while trying to be equitable, and to balance their good citizenship while encouraging them to excel in their areas of focus. Alternatively, using generic workload policies that do not track and measure all efforts can potentially disincentivize faculty from activities that are not clearly tied to a workload value. This may promote individualism and further complicate workload distribution among faculty.

Accurately measuring faculty workload in the name of equity, transparency, and outcomes may be too prescriptive to capture the essence of what faculty do. Faculty, especially clinical faculty, typically earn less than their counterparts in other professional sectors for the same level of knowledge and skills. However, faculty work hours are somewhat flexible, which provides an intangible benefit for faculty. Thus, is there a value to quantifying workload and, more importantly, who actually benefits from workload evaluation? Quantifying faculty workload may be necessary and measurable for a “typical” faculty but may not be sophisticated enough for faculty with unique positions or responsibilities, as their duties might be too unique and time-consuming to quantify and compare with others. Measurements and evaluations not well constructed or highly prescriptive may complicate the supervisor's ability to assign various roles and responsibilities. When too broad or generic, the workload assignment does not properly serve its intended purpose.

Establishing Faculty Workload Metrics Based on Equity and Transparency

The cornerstone for establishing workload policies within institutions is to provide equity and transparency among faculty. There should be a formal process as to who makes the decisions for an individual faculty member’s workload and how and when that is negotiated, in the context of institutional needs. The individual who makes the decisions should be fully informed regarding all facets of the individual faculty’s roles and responsibilities (Table 1) and recalibrated when circumstances change. The policy should also reflect the emphasis of the institution (eg, teaching intensive vs research intensive) and factors that are critical to the promotion and tenure process. It is important that this policy is introduced to the faculty when they are hired or, arguably, in the interview process, to serve as a guidance for setting mutually agreed expectations and engagement and reviewed with their supervisor at annual performance evaluations.

There are several benefits to the institution and the individual faculty member when establishing a transparent workload policy. For the institution, the workload policy allows justifiable assignment of work to a faculty member that is critical to the missions of the institution, whether it be teaching a course or leading a search committee. Having a transparent policy also minimizes the perception of unfair distribution of workload that could be based on gender, seniority, race, or other factors.^1,20,22,23 Having a well-grounded policy allows the administration to make equitable decisions regarding merit, promotion, and tenure and protects the institution from perceived bias or discrimination claims regarding workload assignment or promotion/tenure processes. Finally, establishing a fair workload distribution process ensures that individuals who cannot or who are unwilling to perform certain mission-critical duties are informed of their underperformance as a first step to correcting such imbalance. Promoting a fair and transparent policy for workload distribution is important for ensuring good citizenship, improving faculty morale, increasing collegiality, and, ultimately, promoting faculty retention. Awareness of workload data and fair assignments can also assist institutions in justifying additional faculty positions if they experience program growth and innovation or when replacing a vacancy.

For the individual faculty, a transparent workload policy can increase engagement with their colleagues and can help one recognize elements of the workload that are critical to the institution and, perhaps, may be beneficial for promotion and tenure decisions.²² Faculty may also be less inclined to feel injustice toward their workload, since the expectations of workload are clear for everyone. Additionally, such policies improve perceptions of equity.^6,23 Workload policies should be dynamic and regularly updated as the needs of the institution change over time; as such, policies should include rotating or sharing of time-intensive tasks. They should be periodically reviewed and approved by the faculty to ensure transparency and full disclosure.

Considerations for Improvement in Workload Evaluation

While the merits of adopting workload policies and the need for workload quantification can be debated, there is a documented inequity of workload distribution in higher education,⁶ and anecdotal perceptions related to workload inequity are frequently shared. The Academy needs to explore workload policies, processes, and metrics across pharmacy programs through the lens of potentially disparate impact of their implementation. If they currently exist in certain pharmacy schools/colleges, policies might be variable in nature and limited in utility. Perhaps national academic pharmacy organizations (eg, AACP, Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education [ACPE]) can propose guidance that aims to promote fair workload distribution among pharmacy faculty and minimize perceptions of workload inequities. Such guidance can serve as a starting point for pharmacy programs when drafting their own policies. Common terminology and metrics should be proposed, particularly given the complexity of academic pharmacy and other health professions and the differences across faculty in their responsibilities. Typical academic roles (ie, teaching, scholarship, research, service, clinical) may overlap or have many gray areas that cannot encompass all faculty activities. Therefore, the Academy may consider moving away from this classification when trying to quantify faculty effort. Ideally, the Academy can discuss with and learn from other health professions and establish a reasonable and recognized “weights of effort” for all the additional responsibilities that faculty have each year. The Academy may consider adding questions regarding measurement and perceived equity in workload in the AACP Faculty Survey to heighten awareness in this area.¹⁹ Having guidance and best practice recommendations across the Academy can help reach equity beyond individual institutions.