The Cover


The overwork myth

Geniuses, superstars, and infallible strivers are not the whole story – why eradicating myths, whatever their origin, is a crucial step to improve the academic workplace

By Claudia Civinini

Share this page

Subscribe to QS Insights Magazine

If you google ‘Nobel Prize Factory’, the results will take you straight to the Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB).

Located in Cambridge, the research institute is behind an array of discoveries that gained 12 Nobel prizes.

But not everyone likes the nickname. Sir Aaron Klug, one of the LMB’s former directors and a Nobel laureate, was quoted in a 2002 article saying: “In a factory, you know what you're going to make. Here, we plant things that grow and mature. It takes a long time.”

For those interested in the complexity behind its nickname-generating track record, the LMB seems the perfect environment to study in a bid to understand how to drive excellence and innovation in science.

Dr Luka Gebel, Assistant Professor in Strategy and Entrepreneurship at University College London, is the co-author of a new analysis of the laboratory's policies and practices.

Originally interested in biology, Dr Gebel eventually chose economics to dedicate time to studying complex phenomena. Understanding the complex phenomenon of innovation and applying it to basic science motivated him personally to look into the LMB, which he researched as part of his PhD at King's Business School, he tells QS Insights Magazine.

What fuelled his motivation was also the drive to get away from certain myths, sometimes simplistic or superficial, that negatively affect science management. The first myth, he explains, is the idea that science is “this phenomenon where we are just scrambling around hoping for something new to happen”.

The second is the naïve assumption that the only thing an institution can do is hope for a genius to come around.

"When you make science only about heroism... we can never build a strategy."
“University staff have higher levels of stress and burnout than the general population and evidence of increasing numbers of staff accessing support.”
"It's not natural for [academics] to say, 'Hey, I need some support here’'"

“If you look at the history of science, we have always loved to create these stories of heroism. When you make science only about heroism, or say it’s unpredictable and we can’t do anything about it, then we can never build a strategy,” he explains.

“That’s what it really became for me: trying to understand this phenomenon, getting away from just making it chaotic and unpredictable, to actually figure out the underlying simple rules.”

He and his co-authors found that a specific management strategy is behind the laboratory’s success. Some of its points may even strike as unconventional. (See Fail fast and home grow your talent)

Not all universities need to attract record numbers of Nobel Prizes. However, they need to be supportive workplaces where academics can excel and thrive, maintaining a good work-life balance that protects their mental health.

The management strategy to achieve that is not as clear-cut, and success, in this case, may be harder to define.

However, the question can be approached in the same way: leaving myths aside to look at what the situation is, what works, and what doesn’t?

Stressors: what the research says

“Universities can be places in which staff are able to pursue meaningful work, in a supported and stimulating environment, that benefits their wellbeing,” write the authors of The University Mental Health Charter published by UK charity Student Minds.

Just like any other workplace, however, there are stressors that can negatively affect staff and influence both performance and wellbeing. And not all universities, or even departments, are the same.

In fact, the report warns that mental health is a growing area of focus for the sector, citing research indicating that university staff have higher levels of stress and burnout than the general population and evidence of increasing numbers of staff accessing support.

Crucially, the authors explain that studies have found significant variations between and within universities in terms of staff mental health. “Good, or at least improved, mental health and wellbeing is not impossible and poor mental health should not be accepted as inevitable,” they write.

The factors the report lists as having a negative effect on staff – both academic and professional service staff – include workload, low levels of autonomy, external audits and performance metrics, and job insecurity.

Research in a variety of countries found high levels of work-related stress in academia and many of the factors above, together with pressure to publish and lack of influence in decision making, among others, often come up as culprits in research on the topic of academic wellbeing and stress.

The results of another report, published by UK charity Education Support, also show some disillusionment among staff. Gathering responses from 2,046 academic and academic-related staff, results show that most of the respondents (78 percent) disagreed or strongly disagreed that the psychological health of employees is considered as important as productivity.

The survey responses also indicate excessive workload as a particularly urgent problem to tackle: 79 percent of respondents said they needed to work intensely often or always, and over half (52 percent) reported experiencing unrealistic time pressures often or always. Over six in 10 respondents (62 percent) said they regularly worked over 40 hours a week, and two in 10 (21 percent) over 50.

Respondents rated strategies tackling stressors at the organisation level as more helpful than those at the individual level. Workload management and increased autonomy, together with institutional policies and practices around wellbeing, were considered more helpful than stress management training or guidance on wellbeing.

The need to tackle the problem at source was exemplified in the comments gathered by the survey. One respondent said: “Individual interventions such as mindfulness and relaxation will not help when we are working 100 hours a week and still can’t meet our deadlines.”

Glorifying overwork

Myths are not only detrimental to developing an understanding of how to drive innovation in science.

In academia, the myth of the researcher driven by passion alone to work round the clock in the pursuit of success can contribute to fuelling counterproductive work cultures and prevent people from accessing support, Dr Marie-Hélène Pelletier comments.

Especially for non-permanent staff, this type of work culture can be particularly conducive to unhealthy work habits.

“The culture may at times not value overall the individual non-permanent faculty, and it doesn’t encourage them to look after their own health. It continues to glorify extreme numbers of hours work, extreme overtime, and encourages people to see it as, ‘oh, that's a normal thing’,” she explains.

Dr Pelletier is a work psychologist and executive coach. Working with academics for over 20 years, she has seen plenty of burnout cases.

Reflecting on her clients’ experiences, she thinks one particular workplace feature would have made a difference to their working lives: a strong support system that requires staff to regularly check in, reframing support as something normal and part of a routine.

“Often, universities don't have structures that would require academics to check in,” she explains.

“But in a culture where everyone is supposed to be a hero and a star and doing everything on their own, then no one talks about it, and no one asks for help,” she explains.

“Academics are also often very high performers, so it's not natural for individuals to say, ‘Hey, I need some support here’.”

According to the Education Support report, there are a number of barriers preventing staff from accessing support – for example, lack of communication or insufficient provision. While the most common barrier was lack of time due to workload and inflexible schedules, results show that seeking help is still stigmatised.