Thank you.
At my university, for example, my job says 40% of my time is teaching, 40% of my time is research and 20% of my time is service. I don't think it's always understood outside the academy that professors' jobs are very rich and complex.
For example, when it comes time for promotion to full professor at my university, a person's service dossier will not be taken into account. In my faculty, we only look at teaching and at publications. Even though 20% of faculty time is supposed to be spent on service—which means collegial self-government, curriculum committees, reviewing for journals, sitting on senate, sitting on boards of governors and the rest—this kind of work does not get factored in.
We know from a lot of evidence that minorities—originally women, but now increasingly indigenous colleagues and others—do a disproportionate amount of service work, and yet the institutional reward structure doesn't recognize this fairly. I think one of the things we need to do to recognize excellence—and this is to pick up Tina's point—is to recognize excellence in all the domains of faculty work.
The 40/40/20 that I gave you is a tenure-track colleague's workload. In a teaching stream, it might be 80/20 teaching/research. The point will be that this work is often disproportionately unfairly distributed, and these mechanisms to fully assess the workload aren't always very well done.
It's why at my university, for example, we can see that despite everything, a year and a half—18 months—separates promotion to full professor rates for women and men, and that at year 12, women are 15.5% less likely than men to be full professors, perhaps because the excellence in their comprehensive workload is not recognized in the way that it might be for other colleagues.