Faculty Workload Policy

Policy Number: EC.04.02.260505

Applies to: Washington State University’s Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine full-time and part-time paid faculty across all tracks (tenure-track and career-track, with clinical, scholar, research, and teaching sub-tracks).

Date: 05/05/2026

1.0 Policy

This policy outlines the principles and procedures for assigning, reviewing, and adjusting faculty workload within the Elson S. Floyd College of Medicine. It applies to all full-time and part-time paid faculty across all tracks (tenure-track and career-track, with clinical, scholar, research, and teaching sub-tracks). The policy is designed to ensure equity, transparency, and flexibility in workload assignments, recognizing the diverse roles and contributions of faculty. It aligns with the WSU Faculty Manual and the University Workload Policy.

Each department within the College of Medicine is responsible for maintaining current, accessible bylaws and a unit-level workload policy aligned with this college-level framework. Department policies must: (1) define unit-specific expectations for satisfactory and meritorious performance in each workload category; and (2) outline processes for creating, reviewing, and revising workload assignments. The College may issue supplemental implementation guidance or templates to promote consistency, clarity, and equity across departments.

2.0 Definitions

N/A.

3.0 Responsibilities

Responsible Office

• Office for Faculty Affairs and Continuing Professional Development 
• Department of Medical Education and Clinical Sciences 
• Department of Community and Behavioral Health 
• Department of Translational Medicine and Physiology 
• Department of Nutrition and Exercise Physiology 
• Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences 

Oversight Committee

N/A.

4.0 Procedure

Guiding Principles

In alignment with the college’s commitment to fairness, inclusion, and academic excellence, the following principles shall guide all decisions related to faculty workload assignments.

Equity

Faculty workload assignments should be fair and balanced, ensuring that all faculty members contribute appropriately and that effort is distributed in a just manner across the domains of workload categories.

Transparency

Workload allocation processes and criteria are developed collaboratively with faculty and across departments. The allocation must be clearly communicated and easily accessible to all faculty members. This includes documenting decisions and ensuring that all faculty understand how assignments are determined within the college and among the departments. An appeals process is available and clearly communicated.

Clarity

Expectations and evaluative benchmarks for faculty work are clearly defined and communicated. Departments should ensure that metrics for teaching, service, and research are applied consistently.

Contextual Appropriateness

Whenever possible, workload assignments should match faculty members’ expertise, professional goals, discipline norms, and career stage. Departments should consider individual circumstances and responsibilities when assigning and evaluating workload.

Recognition and Credit

Faculty contributions beyond standard workload expectations—such as additional mentoring, institutional service, and administrative or leadership roles—shall be acknowledged and properly included in workload calculations.

Norms and Accountability

Departments should establish and uphold clear workload standards. Systems must be in place to ensure that all faculty fulfill their professional duties and that workload expectations are applied uniformly.

Flexibility

Workload policies should be reviewed regularly to ensure they stay aligned with institutional priorities, faculty roles, and evolving academic practices. Flexibility in workload policies is needed to foster innovation, collaboration, and career development.

Workload Categories

WSU has traditionally defined most faculty effort as research/scholarship, teaching, and service. In practice, however, many activities, including administration and clinical practice, are grouped into a single service category due to a lack of a more specific match. In recognition of these shortcomings, as well as the broader definition of faculty efforts outlined in recent editions of the WSU Faculty Manual, the following workload categories will be incorporated into the college’s faculty workload plans and annual review forms. Department workload policies should accommodate them as applicable:

• Administration
• Clinical Practice
• Research/Scholarship
• Service
• Teaching

Baseline Workload Allocation

The department chair, in consultation with the faculty member, is responsible for determining workload assignments for all faculty members at the time of initial hire and when adjustments are needed based on substantial changes in duties (e.g., a change in faculty track) or specific needs of the department/college. Any changes in workload assignments for the upcoming academic year should be finalized by the end of the preceding fiscal year.

For research-intensive (see criteria below) tenured and tenure-track faculty in the college, the standard workload distribution is 50% scholarship, 30% teaching, and 20% service (50/30/20). For less research-intensive tenured and tenure-track faculty, the workload will be 40% scholarship, 40% teaching, and 20% service. Each 3-credit didactic course (i.e., a course based on 3 lecture hours with no lab or experiential component) is considered equivalent to 20% effort per semester, or 10% for the calendar year. The FTE for teaching (including advising or coaching) in the Doctor of Medicine Program (MD Program) will be determined by the office or department that oversees that educational activity.  A research-intensive faculty member (i.e., 50% scholarship) must secure 25% of their salary and benefits through extramural funding, averaged over a period of three years. If the faculty member’s research workload distribution differs from 50%, they are expected to secure external salary and benefits support equating to 50% of their research effort (e.g., if research workload is 40%, 20% of their total salary, or half of the 40% research workload should be covered by external funding). If funding is not secured within the standard timeframe (which is negotiable with the chair and may be extended over a 3-year period), the faculty member will work with their chair and must increase their workload in other areas. The faculty workload may then be redistributed to better reflect the actual workload.

Workload deviations from this baseline must be explicitly justified and documented. Units that require alternative workload models due to mission-specific needs must clearly articulate the rationale for deviation. Justifications must be based on accreditation requirements, disciplinary pedagogical practices, or other documented institutional priorities—not solely on disciplinary norms. Such workload structures will be subject to review by the dean or their delegate to ensure equity and consistency across units.

Faculty who secure extramural funding sufficient to support at least an additional 10% of their salary (beyond 50% of their research workload) may be eligible for workload re-distribution, subject to departmental and unit guidelines. All such adjustments must be made in consultation with the department chair to ensure alignment with the academic calendar and to avoid disruptions to academic programming.

In some cases, faculty may use extramural funds to support a significant portion of their salary, enabling a temporary or sustained increase in their research effort allocation. For example, a research-intensive faculty member with external funding that covers 55% or more of their salary (covering 30% salary above the 25% required for a research-intensive faculty) could reduce or eliminate their teaching responsibilities, resulting in a workload allocation of 80% research and 20% service. The department chair and dean must approve such arrangements and ensure they align with institutional and programmatic needs, and adjustments greater than 10% may require approval by the provost. These adjustments must be reflected in the faculty member’s annual workload plan.

For career-track faculty in scholar, teaching, clinical, or research sub-tracks, the expectation is that 80% of their workload will align with their designated track. For example, teaching sub-track faculty will have 80% of their effort allocated to teaching activities; research sub-track faculty will have 80% allocated to research. A baseline of 20% service effort is expected across all tracks unless otherwise justified.

If a scheduled course is canceled for reasons outside the faculty member’s control, the associated teaching effort is not automatically reassigned within the same calendar year. Instead, the canceled teaching obligation is deferred to a future term, with the expectation that the faculty member will deliver equivalent instructional effort when the course is next offered or when another appropriate assignment becomes available. Any deviation from this approach requires approval from the department chair and dean to ensure alignment with academic programming needs.

Course buyouts (salary and benefits) may be approved when supported by extramural funding or other eligible sources. To minimize disruption to academic programming, buyouts for professional programs, undergraduate, or graduate courses may be approved when feasible, provided the department or responsible office can ensure adequate instructional coverage. Departments working with the MD Program should articulate any unit-specific restrictions or preferences in their local workload policies.

Faculty members with appointments in multiple departments must have workload allocations proportional to their assigned FTE in each unit. Departments are responsible for clearly documenting expectations, coordinating assignments, and establishing transparent evaluation criteria. Collaboration among departments is essential to prevent duplication of effort and to ensure consistent, equitable workload standards across all units.

Workload Assignment and Review

Every faculty member will have an individualized workload plan, which will be reviewed annually. The workload plan must reflect actual assigned duties and align with the total faculty FTE. Updates to workload allocations typically occur during annual review, but must be documented when significant changes arise mid-year (i.e., a change of 10% or more).

Changes to workload allocation exceeding 10% FTE for more than one year require formal approval from the department chair, dean, and the Office of the Provost, except for faculty involved in teaching with professional programs in the college. Automatic approvals apply in specific cases, such as appointment to administrative roles, receipt of extramural funding, negotiated terms at hire, or approved professional leaves.

Significant changes in a faculty member’s workload allocation must be considered in evaluation and promotion processes. Significant changes should be avoided during the pre-tenure period. Faculty who transition to roles with increased teaching or service loads must have clear pathways for recognition and advancement based on their revised duties and demonstrated excellence in those areas. Adjustments may occur ad hoc with documented justification and must be reflected in Workday.

Workload Measurement

Workload Calculations

Workload calculations are based on a full-time annual workload of 1,880 hours, which reflects 47 working weeks per year. This total includes five weeks of vacation (200 hours), which has been excluded from the calculation. All contact hours, service commitments, and other professional responsibilities are proportionally derived from this 47-week framework to ensure consistent and fair workload distribution. For faculty with nine- or ten-month appointments, workload expectations scale to the 12-month standard and apply during the academic year. A ten-month appointment is roughly 83% of full-time FTE, and a nine-month appointment is about 75%. These percentages reflect appointment length, not the scope of teaching. Faculty are expected to teach and complete instructional tasks during the academic year, balancing duties across teaching, service, scholarship, and other areas. Work outside the contract is assigned only through separate agreements or extra pay. For example, faculty on nine- and ten-month appointments, FTE values are adjusted upward to reflect the shorter appointment period when effort is equivalent to a 12-month assignment (e.g., multiply by 12/10 for ten-month appointments or 12/9 for nine-month appointments).

Teaching

The standard teaching effort is calculated using a contact-hour-based model. A 3-credit didactic course typically represents 10% of annual effort. Adjustments to effort can be made for course development, class size, presence of a laboratory component, mentoring, and clinical instruction. For instance, developing a new course adds an extra 5% to workload in its first year, making the course worth 0.15 effort. Departments have the flexibility to monitor and adjust effort for each course as needed.

MD Program Teaching, Assessment, and Coaching

MD program education and assessment effort equivalence is maintained by the Office of Educational Affairs, and coaching/advising by the Office of Student Experience are listed below, as the MD program is not delegated to a specific department within the college. The roles and teaching effort equivalences are subject to change with program evolution; changes may be made no more frequently than once yearly.

Role	Teaching Effort Equivalence
APM Assistant Director	0.3
APM Director	0.5
APM Facilitator Year 1	0.2
APM Facilitator Year 2	0.2
CBL Facilitator Year 1	0.2
CBL Facilitator Year 2	0.15
Community Patient Encounter Lead	0.2
Course Contributor, Rural/Underserved	0.05
Course Contributor, Longitudinal	0.5
Scholarship and Inquiry Associate Director	0.2
CBL Director	0.5
Clinical Skills Education Director	1.0
Health Equity Education Director	0.3
Leadership Education Director	0.5
Scholarship and Inquiry Director	0.25
Faculty Lead (co), Orthopedics	0.025
Faculty Lead (co), Subspecialty Surgery	0.02
Faculty Lead, Anesthesia	0.09
Lead, Assessment Pillar – Written Exams	0.35
Faculty Lead, Dermatology	0.07
Faculty Lead, Genetics	0.025
Faculty Lead, Pathology	0.03
Faculty Lead, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation	0.02
Faculty Lead, Radiation Oncology	0.02
Faculty Lead, Radiology	0.2
Faculty Lead, Sports Medicine	0.05
Faculty Lead, Subspecialty Internal Medicine	0.1
Faculty Lead, Subspecialty Internal Medicine	0.2
Faculty Lead, Subspecialty Internal Medicine	0.2
Faculty Lead, Urology	0.03
OSCE Assessor*	0.025
Programmatic Assessor*	0.05**
Scholarship Inquiry Facilitator	0.1
System Director, Behavioral	0.1
System Director, Cardiovascular	0.1
System Director, Complex Immunologic System	0.1
System Director, Endocrinology	0.1
System Director, Gastrointestinal	0.1
System Director, Genitourinary	0.1
System Director, Integumentary System	0.1
System Director, Musculoskeletal	0.1
System Director, Respiratory	0.1
System Co-Director, Nervous system	0.1
Systems Director, Reproduction	0.2
Thread Director, Genetics	0.05
Thread Director, Imaging	0.1
Thread Contributor, Cellular Physiology	0.05
Thread Contributor, Pharmacology	0.3
Thread Director (asst), Anatomy	0.9
Thread Director, Anatomy	1.0
Thread Director, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology	0.15
Thread Director, Cellular Physiology	0.1
Thread Director, Ethics	0.125
Thread Director, Clinical Genetics	0.05
Thread Director, Global Health	0.05
Thread Director, Health Systems	0.1
Thread Director, Histology	0.1
Thread Director, Immunology	0.1
Thread Director, Interprofessional Education	0.3
Thread Director, Micro/ID	0.25
Thread Director, Neuroanatomy	0.1
Thread Director, Nutrition	0.1
Thread Director, Pathology	0.1
Thread Director, Pharmacology	0.2
Thread Director, Physiology	0.2
Thread Director, Population and Community Health	0.3
Thread Director, Professionalism	0.1
Skills Development Panel	0.011
Clinical Competency Panel	0.02
Pre-clerkship and Clerkship Coaching	0.4

Involvement with Graduate and Professional Student Scholarship

Student Type	Teaching or Service Effort Equivalence*
Rotating graduate student	0.025 per semester
Undergraduate research student	0.025 per semester
MD Student	0.01 – 0.05**per academic year
Graduate student	0.06 per year

Service

Service within the college encompasses a broad range of contributions that support the mission and operations of the departments, college, university, and the broader academic and professional community. All faculty are expected to engage in service activities, with the default service workload set at 20% FTE by the college, unless otherwise specified in the faculty member’s offer letter, departmental needs, or annual workload agreement. Formal administrative roles should be reflected in the administration workload, not the service category.

In the college, a standard service workload of 20% equates to approximately 8 hours per week, averaged over the full calendar year. This calculation reflects the college’s 1,880-hour annual full-time workload model. Faculty with strictly academic nine- or ten-month appointments may have proportional adjustments as appropriate.

Service contributions may include, but are not limited to:

• Participation in departmental, college, or university committees
• Engagement in professional organizations or editorial boards
• Contributions to accreditation efforts (e.g., LCME, ACGME)
• Mentorship of faculty or students
• Community engagement aligned with college’s mission

The standing committees, as outlined in the college’s bylaws, will have a specific effort associated with each position and shall be established at the college level. Examples are listed in the standing committees table.

Standing Committees

Committee	Service effort for Chair/Co-chair	Service effort for each standing member
Admissions	0.100	0.060
FCEC	0.055	0.015
SEPAC	0.050	0.020
FRP&T	0.025	0.010
Scholarship	0.010	0.005
Equity	0.015	0.010
UMEC	0.100	0.020

Administration

Administrative responsibilities are recognized through adjustments to workload effort and will be included in a faculty member’s total workload. Important roles, such as department chairs, vice deans, associate deans, assistant deans, and other directors, will be included in the workload distribution. Additional administrative duties may be considered for effort adjustment at the discretion of the department chair and the Dean, provided they involve a significant time commitment and meaningfully contribute to the unit’s operations or reputation. Departments should include formal descriptions of administrative titles and duties in their unit bylaws, which must be approved by the dean.

Clinical Practice

Clinical responsibilities are recognized through adjustments to workload effort and will be included in a faculty member’s total workload. Clinical practice includes providing direct patient or client care, with or without trainee involvement. Maintaining clinical licensure and practice requires ongoing professional development and continuous engagement and may be essential to a faculty member’s academic role (e.g., a course director in a clinical discipline may be expected to maintain active practice). Clinical activities conducted outside the university may be considered part of the faculty member’s workload, particularly when they support licensure, enhance instructional quality, or contribute to the unit’s reputation. Effort allocation for clinical practice is determined in consultation with the department chair and Dean, with consideration given to time commitment, relevance to academic responsibilities, and institutional benefit.

Performance Expectations

Expectations for satisfactory and meritorious performance are established for each workload category—teaching, scholarship, clinical, administration, and service—at the department level, with unit guidelines offering additional clarification. These expectations are adjusted based on the assigned percentage of workload for each category and are assessed over a 1–3-year period to reflect the longer-term nature of academic contributions.

Satisfactory Performance

Reflects consistent fulfillment of assigned responsibilities. Examples include meaningful student engagement in teaching, regular scholarly output (e.g., publications or grant submissions), and active participation in departmental, college, or university committees in service. Departments need to establish baseline expectations for workload domains relevant to their units.

Meritorious Performance

indicates contributions that have a significant impact beyond baseline expectations, without requiring additional time beyond the assigned FTE. In line with WSU’s commitment to work-life balance, meritorious effort is defined by outcomes and innovation rather than hours worked. Detailed criteria for meritorious performance in each domain are defined at the department level. Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Teaching: Leadership in curricular revision, sustained efforts to improve student success (including student service learning), or dissemination of evidence-based practices through publications or conference presentations.
• Scholarship: High-impact publications, successful external grant funding, or interdisciplinary collaborations that advance the field.
• Service: Leadership roles in governance, impactful community engagement, extraordinary service to the scientific community, or contributions that enhance institutional effectiveness.

Workload Adjustments and Exceptions

Faculty workload distribution should be reviewed and assessed as part of the annual review process. To promote stability and reduce fluctuations due to year-to-year variability, departments can apply a rolling three-year average when reassessing activity and workload allocation—unless a faculty member formally requests a change or new departmental needs emerge. If the chair determines that a workload adjustment is warranted, they will first consult with the faculty member to discuss the proposed changes. Workload adjustments should be avoided during the pre-tenure period. The chair holds the authority to make final decisions regarding workload adjustments at the department level. All changes must be documented and supported by clear, objective criteria. Significant workload adjustments that lie outside of the MD Program, which have often changed due to accreditation standards, must be communicated to the college Dean, and any such changes require the Dean’s formal approval.

Appeals Process

It is generally expected that adjustment to a faculty member’s workload will be mutually agreed upon between the faculty member and their Chair. However, if a faculty member disagrees with their workload allocation change, they can appeal the process. Faculty may appeal workload assignments through a two-tiered process.

1. Department-Level Review: Submit a written appeal to the department chair within two weeks of receiving a proposed adjustment.
2. College-Level Review: If unresolved, the faculty affairs dean can be asked to evaluate and mediate between the chair and the faculty member. If the issue remains unresolved, the College Faculty Affairs Unit will form an ad hoc Workload Evaluation Committee to review the case, decide within three weeks, and report to the Dean. Faculty can appeal the Dean’s decision to the Provost.

Policy Review and Approval

This policy is reviewed annually by the Faculty Affairs unit within the Office of Faculty Affairs and Continuing Professional Development to ensure it aligns with institutional priorities and evolving academic standards. Any proposed revisions follow the established college governance procedures and require approval from the Provost. Departments are expected to align their local policies with this overarching college-level framework to maintain consistency and coherence across the institution.

5.0 Related Policies and Bylaws

• WSU Faculty Manual
• University Workload Policy

6.0 Key Search Words

Faculty Workload.

7.0 Revision History

Original Approval: 05/05/2026
Policy Number: EC.04.02.260505
Review/Revision:  05/05/2026