Should you be working 100 hours a week?

The output of a research establishment is seldom "widgets" that can be counted and sold to determine whether sufficient money is coming in to pay salaries. Research output is paper in the form of published and unpublished articles which are demanded by the grantor claiming they are needed to justify the grant payments. This written output cannot be computer automated and counted like widgets, so the alternatives are few. It is the delay time between research grants and ultimate payback that makes research seem so expensive and so frustrating at times especially if the payback is not clearly traceable to particular grants.

A late-comer to academia, I long since decided to drop the concept of 'work/life balance' in favour of a balanced life in which work is just one amonst a myriad of things that I do. Coupled with good organisation of time to reach a 'work smart, not hard' approach, I get stuff done whilst feeling contented and unstressed... and that includes hobbies as well as academic work. I'm not a social animal, so socialising isn't in the mix, I probably do spend 100 hours a week at the computer, but some will be at things other than computer science, PhD work... I'm in the middle of writing a paper on the medals of the Republic of North Macedonia, far from my academic work - the study of orders, decorations and medals is one of my hobbies :)

If I'm doing more than my contracted hours - I'm billing someone! The problems for people in the HUMs is too many people, too few jobs so throwing hours at is often the only way to stand out against other people willing to have no life.

For many years I regularly worked 70+ hrs a week in my post as a lecturer in Ecology and Plant Science. I became ill and through a range of other issues I made a rule to my-self that I would restrict my hours to contract hours (37.5hr a week), which as you all know doesn't work, jobs did not get done, I could not attend important meetings etc. I became unpopular with a number of colleagues who continued to do more than the contract hours. This made my illness worse and so on. In the end I chose to retire from academia in my mid 50s. I miss elements of the role but I do believe academics should give serious consideration to working to contracted hours, people that work over these hours our devaluing their role and if you work out the hourly rate it will depress you.

Joining academia after a traditional '9-5 + suburban commuting' day, I cherished the flexibility, and I still do. But, as others noted, the production units we are to keep up with are out measure of worth, not the number of hours we work. But, the number of units has increased dramatically over the years -- papers, conference proceedings + presentations (who ever counts the travel time!), larger classes (=more grading, more student supervision), grants to write (with lower success rate, so more applications) and run (=supervision of students, funds, etc.). Personally, I generally have enjoyed my pleasure time as work time, but after a stint in admin, I find the overload effects of that still linger. A colleague also said it took 2 years to get over an admin position, I agree! But in those 2 years you don't look productive, you make wrong decisions (because you are overloaded and exhausted and don't know it and thus can't correct it). Sigh ... love the academic life. What I produce is mine, not owned by the company. It has its rewards, but its pacing is ridiculous.

Here is my story: https://drnevillebuch.com/higher-education-research-and-employment-income-statistics-here-is-my-face/

The hours are not the fundamental issue. They are the manifestation of over-auditing, unreasonable KPIs and targets, far too many professional service personnel who make more and not less work for academics and who now effectively control every aspect of academic life. If you are passionate about your research area, enjoy teaching students and delight in their successes as well as in your own, the hours worked become less relevant because you are doing what brings you satisfaction. The pointless tasks that take up time and produce nothing but ever more pointless tasks are what is driving down morale, creating stress and destroying academia. Our natural habitat is dying.

Where is the institution in all of this? Where are the structural supports and/or constraints? The demands on staff have expanded considerably in the past decades and it is irresponsible of HEIs to leave individual academics to figure it out for themselves. The 'Responsible University' would take better care of its employees - it would have humane professional services and processes. At a minimum. it would have an HR department that understood the academic environment and life-cycle, and who intervened when the pressures became unreasonable and excessive. Instead, we have structural silence - with policies, processes, systems and functions, attitudes and behaviours, better suited to the 20th Century than the 21st, and with individual staff working excessive hours and struggling to cope with the demands of a changing 'habitat'.

I think there is also another major key problem when it comes to this issue with regards to diversity within the academy. How can universities claim to be driving for diversity in recruitment if success means having to work excessive hours, regardless of whether you enjoy the large bulk of the work or not and, more importantly, whether you are actually *able* to? Talk often turns to how all this *affects* mental and physical health, but we also need to consider how this culture is in fact creating even further barriers to those with mental and/or physical disabilities. I am diagnosed bipolar and have acute endometriosis that results in periods of crippling pain and exhaustion. When discussing my frustration at this affecting my work at times (though I have by rights been successful and a high achiever to this point regardless), a senior colleague simply stated "then maybe academia is not for you". Harsh? Yes? Offensive and discriminatory? Possibly. True? To that I do not have the answer, but this overwork culture has cast some doubts. There of course will be those coping with much worse physical/mental health conditions than mine. Do we really want a single model for the successful academic within an industry where we are often tackling and questioning the very nature of inequality and discrimination? This, of course, is not to also mention the problems with diversity that arise in this working culture in terms of class and low socioeconomic status, in early career precariousness in particular. Here I am literally speaking of those who have barely eaten for days so they can afford to travel to that conference to get their next - usually short-term - contract. The need for food (or lack thereof) and living stability of course directly affects productivity and the ability to meet those excessive hours. But a great deal of academia remains stubbornly blind to the relationship between social class and equal opportunities (a quick glance at any equal opportunities form for job applications will tell you that - I am asked about my gender, sexuality, religion, and so on and yet not one single question about the most difficult barrier that I have faced traversing this career path to date - my social status). So the academic work culture is both threatening to people's mental and physical health, and also a barrier to those who already suffer with disabilities in those quarters, potentially negating all the intiatives for diversity recruitment that it apparently has at the top of its agenda.

It is very difficult to work so many hours a week. I hope we can work less. For this, we can improve ourselves in the field of <a href="https://www.finansblogu.com/">Finans</a>.Best regards