At our meeting with management last week, management said that the first Workload Working Group devoted to Academic Workload Principles will have their Terms of Reference agreed by Thursday 12th June. We note that this is much later than the originally promised deadline of end of February; nonetheless we look forward to agreed principles to make workloads fairer and more equitable.

In anticipation of the discussions about Workload, we shared some headlines from the qualitative analysis of the Workload survey which ran from January to March, for which we received over 300 responses from all parts of the university. A fuller report will be ready and available in time for the first visit by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on 12th June, but in the meantime here is a snapshot.

Workload allocation model (WAM)

Overall, the comments on WAM highlighted concerns over clarity and equity. Only one of all who provided comments on WAM found the system clear, in contrast to the majority that pointed to a wide range of issues related to transparency, fairness and consistency with EDI implications. There was a consensus on viewing WAM as an exploitative tool to extract more work rather than to distribute workload fairly. Line managers often ignore workload concerns, dismissing staff appeals for adjustments without consequences for overallocation that exceeds the 1,000 point threshold. Some respondents who refused extra work faced gaslit, guilt-tripping or public shaming for not meeting the threshold even when their actual workloads were unsustainable.

Lacking transparency, fairness and consistency

Many respondents described the WAM as opaque, arbitrary, and inconsistently applied across departments within the same colleges and across colleges. Discrepancies between disciplines can be observed among departments and colleges. Law School staff, for example, noted that WAM does not account for their massive student numbers or legal education demands (e.g., frequent legislative updates). Fixed-term and teaching-focused staff report heavier workloads without proportional compensation or career progression opportunities. Staff from specific groups, including women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+, report being disproportionately assigned undervalued, high-effort roles with fewer WAM points, leading to overwork. Teaching fellows/part-time staff report being excluded from WAM, leaving workloads unchecked.

Lacking recognition of demanding tasks

Most respondents reported that their workload allocation exceeded the 1,000-point threshold, with some regularly reaching 1100–1300 points (equivalent to 47+ weeks of work per year). Many also reported some roles, such as academic integrity officer, admissions tutor, and tasks such as large lectures, administrative duties were significantly under-credited despite requiring far more time than allocated, suggesting that points allocations often did not reflect actual workload. More specifically, teaching and marking were consistently under-credited, particularly for large cohorts. Time required for offering student support that may include office hours, emails, plagiarism hearings, pastoral care, and formative feedback were rarely accounted for in WAM. Law, humanities, and professional courses highlighted unique challenges such as doctoral teaching and school visits. A few respondents highlighted lacking recognition of teaching rotations, new module prep, or interdisciplinary differences. Pinch points such as marking periods created extreme stress, with no flexibility in the model.

Research time, including for funded projects, was often eroded by teaching/admin demands, particularly for those supervising PhD students, despite being contractually protected. Meanwhile, citizenship roles related to EDI, admissions, and open days are often forced onto staff without adequate WAM recognition.

Contractual and EDI-related disparities

The reliance on fixed-term, hourly-paid, and teaching-only contracts contributed to job insecurity and stress, particularly for early-career and female staff. Several responses highlighted late or incorrect payments for precarious staff, further undermining morale. Workload allocation was often described as inequitable, with some staff, particularly those in teaching-focused or junior roles, taking on disproportionate responsibilities while others avoided core duties. The lack of clear workload models and accountability mechanisms exacerbated resentment and burnout.

There was widespread dissatisfaction with the university’s approach to staff development. Many respondents felt there was little encouragement or opportunity for career progression, particularly for those on teaching-only or temporary contracts. Women and staff from minority backgrounds reported systemic disadvantages, including isolation and lack of sponsorship compared to their male colleagues. Training opportunities, when available, were often impossible to take up due to workload constraints, with staff expected to carve out time from already overstretched schedules. The dissolution of supportive networks, such as HEFI, further eroded opportunities for mentorship and shared good practice.

Several responses highlighted systemic inequities, including racial and gender disparities in workload distribution, career progression, and everyday support. International staff faced additional stressors, such as visa insecurity and a lack of institutional investment in retaining skilled workers. Temporary and hourly-paid staff reported being treated as expendable, with late payments, unclear contracts, and no pathway to permanence. The university’s failure to address these inequities resulted in a climate of alienation, particularly for marginalized groups who felt unsupported both professionally and personally.

Poor managerial practices

A significant number of responses criticised management at various levels, specifically as authoritarian, unsupportive, and disconnected from frontline realities. Line managers were frequently described as overburdened, untrained, or ineffective, with some accused of fostering toxic work environments through criticism rather than support. Several respondents highlighted a lack of transparency in decision-making, particularly around resource allocation, contracts, and workload distribution. Many staff reported feeling excluded from discussions that directly affect their work demands, with management often dismissing their concerns. The absence of feedback mechanisms exacerbated this frustration, as staff saw no evidence that their input led to institutional improvements. Several respondents suggested that a more democratic and collegiate approach, where staff had genuine influence over policies, would improve morale and productivity.

A prevalent theme across responses is the poor quality of line management, with many staff describing their experiences as the worst they have encountered in their careers. While some individual managers were praised for their kindness and effort, the overarching sentiment is that leadership was often unsupportive, overstretched, or entirely disconnected from staff needs. Several respondents noted that managers themselves are struggling with excessive workloads, leading to delayed responses, anxiety, and an inability to provide meaningful support. There was also frustration with senior leadership’s top-down decision-making, which frequently disregards frontline realities, particularly in resource allocation and workload distribution. Many staff expressed frustration with top-down decision-making, which often disregarded departmental needs and imposed arbitrary policies without consultation. The lack of consistent leadership training exacerbated these issues, leaving many managers ill-equipped to handle their roles effectively.

A few respondents also highlighted a toxic environment characterised by blame culture, bullying, including by HR, and lack of collegiality that appeared to worsen stress levels. Resentment rose when some staff avoided duties, forcing others to compensate. There was also a perceived disconnect between senior leadership and frontline staff, with management seen as out of touch with daily challenges.

Lacking flexibility and formal support

Despite occupational health services being available, staff reported that recommendations were often ignored by management. There was a strong demand for better mental health support, including confidential counselling and stress-management training that does not require managerial approval. Additionally, many noted that line managers themselves were overworked and lacked the capacity to support their teams effectively. Flexible working arrangements, particularly for those with caring responsibilities, were also frequently requested as a way to alleviate stress.

Disputes over hybrid work arrangements arose when staff were pressured to be on campus unnecessarily, including some roles mandated unnecessary campus presence despite tasks being manageable remotely. Requests for flexible working, particularly from parents and caregivers, were frequently denied due to rigid timetabling and inflexible policies. Excessive administrative work contributed to mental and physical health issues, with some staff working while ill to avoid falling behind. Long hours, weekend work, and missed breaks were also common due to unmanageable workloads. Parents and caregivers also faced inflexible timetabling and rigid policies.

While many respondents praised the support of immediate colleagues, this was often framed as a grassroots effort in spite of rather than because of university structures. Teams frequently relied on personal goodwill to cover gaps, producing an unsustainable patchwork of mutual aid. This informal support was insufficient to counteract the broader institutional failures, with staff expressing despair at the university’s refusal to address systemic issues such as understaffing, bureaucratic bloat, and the erosion of permanent contracts.