Vice-rector Gunilla Widén recently decided that we will prepare plans in Excel for the teaching provided in the study programs, and that the Heads of subject are responsible for maintaining the plans of their subjects. The local branch of the Finnish Union of University Professors has reacted critically, claiming that the decision was made without sufficient discussion. Perhaps this is an important point. At our faculty, we had to remove the issue from the Heads of subjects’ meeting as the Vice-rector’s decision was postponed by a week.

It’s regrettable that we missed this opportunity for discussion.

For quite some time now, we at ÅA have been struggling with the issue of workload. It partly stems from having a broad responsibility for teaching and research, and partly from the fact that the few teachers and researchers we have in small subjects must juggle all the responsibilities that in larger departments are distributed among several staff members. Looking back, we see the effects of previous cuts in personnell at ÅA combined with relatively decreasing state resources for core activities. Our basic needs are currently not secured with state funds.

The result of all this is increasing workload, fragmentation, and stress in our work.

This has been evident in both workplace climate surveys and in our internal discussions, both formal and informal. The survey results have been worrying for the faculty, as well as for ÅA as a whole; we have had a working group within the faculty addressing the issue, but the challenges also emerge in our everyday work as we struggle with various tasks and assignments that land on our desks. Dealing with the fact that different processes are being changed and new tools are being introduced simultaneously only adds to the stress.

This undoubtedly includes plans for teaching in Excel.

For several years now, we have actively waited for the challenges with workload to be addressed on the agenda of the rectorate, for someone to tackle it, and to seek and identify solutions. There has concurrently emerged a consensus that work plans must be managed in a transparent way so that they can be monitored throughout the academic year. It has been a clear shortcoming that the tools we have used so far have not guaranteed any of this.

Monitoring workload doesn’t by itself mean it decreases.

However, effective monitoring of workload does provide an opportunity to seek changes and prioritize. Transparency also contributes to a sense of security within the work community and enables us to choose and prioritize together. In other words, this is not solely a question for professors or Heads of subjects. It’s a question for everyone at ÅA and within the faculty; we must seek solutions for all, this a question of solidarity in our work.

Heads of subjects have a special responsibility for workload.

Heads of subjects are managers and with that comes responsibility for how teaching is managed within their respective subjects. This means allocating teaching assignments but also ensuring that the assignments fit within working hours. Therefore, it’s the Heads of subjects who preliminarily approve teachers’ work plans. Our way of monitoring and supporting work planning has been inadequate, not serving its purpose. In line with the overall managerial responsibility, we must therefore also seek new approaches.

So, I want to be clear how I think: the decision is a step in the right direction.

The effort to start tackling the workload resulted in the need to make plans in Excel, a task that falls under Heads of Subjects’ responsibilities. This is not a solution, but an important step towards revising systems that don’t serve us well enough. It is also a step towards a work community where we can better work together for a reduced workload, and less fragmentation and stress. Without such changes, we will soon find ourselves at a dead end.

I was greatly relieved that ÅA finally took this step.