Dr Sue Hornibrook
Kent Business School
20th November 2012

an effective system “allocates workload equitably
to the participants in a transparent manner such
that staff behaviour is aligned with departmental
strategic goals” (Burgess et al, 2003:230)

A continuum of approaches ranging from informal
approach to a comprehensive/complex approach
(Barrett & Barrett 2007, 2010; Vardi 2009)

Human Resource Management orientation - a
‘hard’ or ‘soft’ approach

What is the impact upon individual academic
attitudes, behaviour and achievement of
institutional goals?

An Organisational Justice (Fairness) Perspective
◦ Distributive Justice
◦ Procedural Justice
◦ Interactional Justice (Interpersonal and informational)

Perceptions of justice (injustice) impact on
Organisational outcomes – positive (negative)

Background: A Business School

The Model – comprehensive/complex points
based approach

Consultation (35 responses)

Benefits of the Model: academic staff identified
need for effective management and transparency
in planning individual workloads (Vardi 2009; Barrett and
Barrett 2007; Houston et al 2006)

Disadvantages of the Model:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦


Measurability – inputs or outputs?
Negative impact on collegiality
Manipulation?
Accuracy and transparency
Stick or carrot?
Workload Allocation Models not only add to the
administrative burden but can also impact on
perceptions of unfairness.
Resistance, negative retaliatory behaviours and
withdrawal of discretionary behaviours