Why Working Harder Isn't Working

As academics, we're trained to think critically about research methodologies, theoretical frameworks, and empirical evidence. We can spot logical fallacies in student arguments and identify flawed reasoning in peer reviews within minutes. Yet when it comes to our own work patterns, we consistently fall victim to a cognitive bias we'd easily recognise in others: the effort heuristic.

Academic workload problems stem partly from the effort heuristic; our unconscious belief that time invested equals quality produced. We've all been there. Twelve hours crafting a lecture that could have been delivered effectively in half the time. Multiple drafts of routine emails that add no professional value. Late nights "perfecting" methodology sections that emerge more complex, not clearer. What are we trying to win?

Recent research in organisational psychology demonstrates that this bias significantly exacerbates workload problems. The effort heuristic tricks us into equating effort with value, leading us to persist with time-consuming tasks long after diminishing returns have set in. We assume that because we've invested considerable time, the output must be proportionally better. This assumption drives much of our unpaid overtime and contributes to the chronic overwork that affects four in five academics.

The mechanism is insidious because it exploits our professional values. We pride ourselves on thoroughness, attention to detail, and intellectual rigour. These qualities serve us well in research and scholarship, but they become counterproductive when applied indiscriminately to every task. The same psychological drive that produces excellent research also compels us to over-polish routine lectures, redraft straightforward emails multiple times, and spend excessive time on administrative tasks that require competence, not brilliance.

This matters because misallocated effort undermines both our wellbeing and our academic effectiveness. When we exhaust ourselves perfecting low-stakes work, we have less cognitive and emotional energy for the activities that truly advance our careers and contribute to knowledge. The irony is stark: by working harder on everything, we perform worse on the things that matter most. Our research suffers when we're depleted from over-engineering routine tasks. Our teaching can feel mechanical when we've spent our creative energy on administrative perfectionism.

The research also shows that this bias intensifies under stress—precisely when academic workloads are heaviest. During busy periods, we're more likely to mistake activity for productivity, effort for effectiveness. We stay late believing that more time automatically produces better outcomes, when often the opposite is true.

The solution leverages a strength we already possess. The same analytical skills we use to evaluate research can be turned inward to examine our work habits.

When we notice ourselves falling into the effort trap, we can deploy our critical thinking capabilities to ask a simple but powerful question: "Will this additional hour actually improve outcomes?" Not "Will it make me feel more thorough?" or "Will it look more professional?" but "Will it genuinely improve the result?" This question cuts through the emotional satisfaction of effort and focuses on empirical outcomes.

This approach allows us to maintain high standards where they matter whilst adopting "good enough" criteria for routine tasks. Administrative emails need clarity, not literary polish. Committee reports require accuracy, not eloquence. Routine lectures should be functional and engaging, not flawless performances.

Some might argue that academic work inherently requires perfectionism. However, the research suggests that indiscriminate perfectionism actually reduces overall quality by spreading our finite cognitive resources too thinly. Strategic perfectionism—applying rigorous standards to high-impact work whilst accepting competence elsewhere—produces better outcomes across our entire portfolio of responsibilities.

By recognising the effort heuristic as a cognitive bias rather than a professional virtue, we can reclaim control over our workload. The goal isn't to work less on everything, but to work strategically, reserving our highest efforts for our most important contributions. This shift doesn't compromise our academic standards—it sharpens them by focusing our energy where excellence truly matters.

---

Hi, I am Wendy. I work with overwhelmed academics to help them escape the endless treadmill of competing demands so that they can reconnect with their identity & purpose.

Packages start from £499.

With me you can expect to achieve:

• A comprehensive mapping of where you are now, and where you want to be.

• Clarity on what matters to you both professionally and personally.

• Practical tools to set work boundaries that actually stick in academic environments.

• Strategies to protect your wellbeing while still delivering quality work.

• Emotional support and understanding.

• Confidence to make decisions to support your future personal and professional life.

Book a chat in my diary, it is free for a 30 minute conversation to find out if working with me can help you take the next steps in your academic life. https://tidycal.com/drwendynicholls/letschat

Thank you for reading my article.