Good morning, Cayuse Connect Community!
Michelle, you could not have said it any better!!! At my SBER-only institution, I've worked hard to build a culture of collaboration. First, I needed to make the IRB process collegial. Before I joined the team, IRB was seen as a "blocker" and staff circumvented the process. After many years of making myself available, preparing and delivering training, staff began to see that IRB protects them as well as participants.
For the IRB itself, it was less of effort to create this culture of collaboration. However, found member engagement was lacking. Reviews at my institution are considered a "service" the organization, so have tried to elevate the status of this role as new members rotate on and off the Board.
Similar to other responses, the IRB Office staff (Administrator and Analysts) have an 'open door,' or in the remote world, availability to be contacted at anytime. I also engage our Board more than just via Convened Meetings of federal reviews by sharing the latest from OHRP and sending news articles that relate to the work we do (i.e., a school district sued Google for improperly collecting children's data). I tried the "Drop-in Happy Hour" for both onsite and remote staff, but there was no interest. I make it a point of engaging the staff in some way at least once a month. Our members have a two-year minimum as our intent is to build capacity across R&D staff. Some are very ready to jump ship, others have stayed on for a number of years. I suppose it's about who has interest in the work. Members are nominated to the IRB, however, it is the staff's decision to participate. Not sure if the ability for staff to join or not makes a difference, but appears my institution is different in that in the 11 years I've been running it, I have not been informed of nor seen any "burnout".
The process we've devised is spreading the assignments across reviewers. We know that content expertise comes into play, where 1 member may have more experience and knowledge of the research, but keep a log to manage the work load among the Board. This process has helped at the end of the year with annual accomplishments where I'm able to roll up their contributions. They really appreciate how their work aligns to and connects with our institutional mission, our R&D agenda and compliance to protect participants.
I've been learning a lot from everyone and really appreciate these discussions. Enjoy the upcoming weekend, all?
Dawn
------------------------------
Dawn Leusner
IRB Manager
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, NJ 08541
irb@ets.org------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-25-2022 09:35
From: Michelle Davis
Subject: Building a culture of collaboration to avoid burnout
Building a culture of collaboration in an industry characterized by complex government regulation, hyper-competitiveness, entangled institutional management practices, and unpredictable economic conditions is difficult. It leads to research administrator burnout (Tabakakis et al., 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) defines burnout as a syndrome resulting in chronic workplace stress that is not successfully managed. It has three characteristics: (1) lack of energy or exhaustion; (2) disconnection distance from one's job or negative feelings or cynicism related to the job; and (3) reduced professional performance.
From October 2018 through January 2019, Tabakakis and her research team conducted a cross-sectional study among 2,416 research administrators from four associations in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US. Their findings concluded that there was a significant prevalence of personal burnout, work-related burnout, and client-related burnout in the profession of research administration (Tabakakis et al., 2020). These findings are not an unexpected outcome for those working in the industry. Especially for those of us who have been in the industry for an extended period.
I want to propose a conversation for workplace-related solutions to offset potential burnout situations in this thread. I will start the discussion with steps that we have taken at Boise State to alleviate some of the potentials for burnout in our area, and I look forward to your responses here as well.
At Boise State, we have
- Introduced drop-in happy hours for our remote staff. These are voluntary and there is no agenda. This is an opportunity to collaborate on any topic or to just talk about things that or of importance to the individual.
- Set up a quarterly get-together so that remote employees and hybrid employees, and on-campus employees may have the opportunity to get together. These are social events, but sometimes we discuss business topics and are usually impromptu.
- As managers, our doors, emails, chats, and texts are always available for employee conversations to discuss any concerns, barriers, and frustrations. This management style has changed due to the extreme hybridization of our working environments. We have employees on campus, remote and hybrid, and the needs of these employees vary, and the operating schedules. The managers and directors must alter their contact availability to meet these needs.
I look forward to your thoughts.
=====References
Tabakakis, K., Sloane, K., Besch, J., Quyen, G.T. (2020). Burnout and its correlates in research
administrators. Research Management Review, 24(1).
------------------------------
Michelle Davis, M.Ed.
Research Administrator, Office of Research
College of Health Sciences, Boise State University
michelledavis3@boisestate.edu
------------------------------