The Work That Nobody Sees
An academic spends their weekend reviewing a paper. A professor agrees to mentor a junior colleague. Another member of staff stays late to help a student who is struggling. Somebody volunteers to serve on another committee because nobody else is willing to do it.
None of these examples is particularly unusual. Indeed, they are often regarded as part of being a good academic citizen, and most universities would struggle without such contributions.
But collectively, these activities represent an enormous amount of time and effort, much of which is not formally recognised, recorded or adequately accounted for in institutional planning.
This raises an interesting question. If everybody in your university decided tomorrow to do only what they were formally required to do, how much of the institution would continue to function as effectively as it does today?
I suspect the answer might make some university leaders rather uncomfortable, myself included.
Goodwill Is a Two-Way Street
Before going any further, it is important to recognise that goodwill is not inherently problematic. Universities are academic communities, and collegiality, professional generosity and a willingness to contribute beyond one’s immediate responsibilities have always been important features of higher education, as they are in many industries.
It would also be misleading to suggest that these contributions benefit only the university. There are often considerable personal and professional benefits for the individuals involved.
Reviewing papers, for example, helps academics remain abreast of developments in their field. Serving on an editorial board, or becoming an Editor-in-Chief, can enhance their professional profile and networks. Delivering keynote presentations, externally examining PhD candidates and participating in professional associations can similarly increase an individual’s standing within the academic community.
These activities can create a mutually beneficial relationship. The scholar gains experience, visibility and professional recognition, while their university benefits from the expertise, reputation and connections that these activities develop.
Indeed, I would argue that universities should actively encourage such contributions. They are an important part of academic life, even when they do not directly support an immediate institutional objective. I see it as an important part of an academic’s development in the scholarly community.
The difficulty arises when something that was initially voluntary gradually becomes an expectation. There is an important difference between an institution benefiting from goodwill and becoming dependent on it.
When Goodwill Becomes an Invisible Subsidy
Consider a university that decides to introduce another academic programme, increase its research expectations, expand its international activities or launch a new strategic initiative.
The proposal goes through the appropriate approval processes, a budget is agreed and the initiative is launched.
On paper, the resources appear sufficient. In practice, however, the initiative only succeeds because existing staff absorb much of the additional work. They attend meetings outside normal hours, undertake additional administrative responsibilities or spend evenings and weekends ensuring that everything gets done.
The initiative is subsequently declared a success, perhaps even financially successful, without anybody fully accounting for the additional effort required to deliver it.
If this happens occasionally, it might simply reflect a willingness to help the institution achieve something important. However, if it becomes routine, goodwill effectively turns into an invisible subsidy.
here are two important consequences.
First, the true cost of institutional activities becomes obscured. Something that appears financially sustainable might be considerably less attractive if all the resources required to deliver it were properly accounted for.
Second, institutional planning can gradually incorporate an assumption that people will continue contributing beyond their formal responsibilities. What began as a voluntary contribution becomes an expected part of normal operations.
If an institution’s operating model depends on people regularly doing more than they are resourced to do, perhaps that operating model is not as sustainable as it appears.
The People Who Contribute Most May Pay the Highest Price
Another complication is that goodwill is rarely distributed evenly across an institution.
Most of us can probably identify colleagues who regularly volunteer, agree to additional responsibilities or step in when something needs to be done. They may be particularly conscientious, committed to their institution or simply reluctant to disappoint others.
Unfortunately, their willingness to help can make them the first people approached whenever another task needs doing. It brings to mind the old adage: “If you want something done, ask a busy person.” Over time, the same relatively small group of individuals may find themselves carrying a disproportionate share of these additional responsibilities.
There is also a potential career-development issue.
Although professional service can enhance an academic’s reputation, it does not always translate into tangible institutional recognition. Somebody might make a substantial contribution through mentoring, editorial responsibilities, external examining or professional service, yet still be assessed primarily against research publications, grant income and teaching performance.
Ironically, those who contribute most generously to academic citizenship may find themselves with less time to undertake the activities that their institution formally rewards.
There is also an organisational risk. When individuals who have quietly supported numerous activities leave, reduce their contributions or simply decide to establish firmer boundaries, the institution may suddenly discover how dependent it had become on them.
We should not mistake somebody’s willingness to help for evidence that they have unlimited capacity.
Is This a Leadership and Governance Issue?
I think it is.
University leaders face difficult decisions, particularly when financial pressures are increasing and resources are constrained. It is understandable that they welcome colleagues who are prepared to contribute additional time and effort to help their institution succeed.
However, university leaders have a responsibility to understand the true resources required to deliver institutional objectives, rather than allowing goodwill to conceal unrealistic expectations or inadequate planning.
This raises several questions that leadership teams, and perhaps governing boards, should be asking.
Do institutional workload models adequately reflect the range of activities undertaken by staff? When approving new initiatives, do we consider their cumulative impact on colleagues who are already busy? Are academic citizenship and professional service appropriately recognised in promotion and reward systems?
There is also the question of fairness. Are some individuals quietly carrying a disproportionate burden simply because they are more willing to help? Conversely, are those who establish reasonable boundaries around their working time perceived as less committed to the institution?
I am certainly not suggesting that universities should attempt to quantify every contribution or introduce another elaborate workload-monitoring system. That could easily make matters worse.
I discussed workload allocation in a previous edition of this newsletter, if you are interested.
But universities cannot necessarily provide additional resources whenever somebody agrees to undertake something beyond their formal responsibilities. Financial constraints are real, and difficult choices are sometimes unavoidable.
Nevertheless, leaders should recognise the difference between encouraging colleagues to contribute and developing institutional plans that can only succeed if they continue to do so.
That distinction is fundamental to responsible institutional management.
Protect Goodwill Rather Than Exploit It
The answer is not to create universities in which everybody rigidly follows their job description and refuses to do anything beyond it. Such institutions would probably be unpleasant places to work, and the academic community would be considerably poorer as a result.
Rather, I would argue that good leadership involves creating an environment in which people want to make additional contributions, while ensuring that the institution does not become dependent on an unlimited supply of their goodwill.
This means recognising academic citizenship, distributing responsibilities fairly, understanding the true demands placed on colleagues and occasionally being prepared to stop activities that cannot realistically be supported.
It also means celebrating the external contributions of academics, even when the immediate benefits accrue primarily to the individual. Over time, those contributions can strengthen the institution’s reputation, networks and academic standing.
Above all, goodwill should be something that institutions nurture and value, rather than something they automatically assume will always be available.
Which brings me back to the opening question.
If everybody in your university decided tomorrow to do only what was formally required of them, would the institution still function as effectively as it does today?
If the answer is no, perhaps that tells us something important about how the university is being managed.
Two Free Newsletters
I publish two free LinkedIn newsletters each week. If you enjoyed this edition, you might also be interested in subscribing to one or both.
Governance, Leadership & Research
Published every Tuesday. Exploring the challenges, opportunities and realities of university governance, leadership and research, drawing on experience and developments across higher education.
Published every Thursday. Examining scholarly publishing through an ethical lens, including research integrity, peer review, editorial practices and the challenges facing researchers and publishers.
Both newsletters are free. If you subscribe, LinkedIn will notify you when new editions are published.
About the Author
Professor Graham Kendall is an experienced university leader and researcher who has held senior positions at universities in Malaysia and the UK, including Vice-Chancellor, Provost/CEO, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Vice-Provost. He is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham.
With more than 300 peer-reviewed publications, his academic interests include artificial intelligence, operational research and research integrity. He writes about the practical challenges facing higher education, drawing on his experience in academic leadership, governance and research.