Inefficiency: The Biggest Problem in Higher Education

I’m more convinced than ever that the greatest challenge facing higher education isn’t the economy - it’s the inefficient way of operation that is engrained in the culture of the industry.
Hierarchy: The Greatest Enemy of Efficiency
I did a review of the book Good to Great a while back. At the time, I wasn’t really impressed with the book, mostly because I was set up with great expectations for the content of it. While I was let down about its revelations, I agreed with most of its sentiments, particularly as it pertained to hierarchy. It discussed how companies who had made the leap from good to great put excessively hierarchy aside in favor of hiring great people and empowering them to make decisions. Unfortunately, no one in higher education has ever seemed to get the memo.
How much time (and therefore money) do we waste every year in higher education due to our hierarchical structure and rule by committee? Meeting after meeting after meeting, and no one in the room is empowered to pull the trigger. Let’s make it tangible. Say you have five people in a room for an hour long meeting where no one is empowered to do anything. Using a rough estimate based on the cost of salary and benefits, that costs the institution about $250. Ten people in the room with no empowerment? $500. What about your weekly staff meeting when nothing gets done? That could up upwards of $1000, maybe more. How many meetings happen in your office every week that result in nothing?
Meetings are necessary, but if no one in the room is empowered to make a decision because of a director or a VP that doesn’t trust the judgement of their employees, then what is the point? Maybe a written proposal or a white paper comes out of it. Inevitably, that proposal goes and sits on someone’s desk untouched for weeks, or even months. Sometimes something comes of it, but most of the time it doesn’t, and everyone’s time (and institutional resources) has been wasted.
The question keeps coming back: Why would you hire people if you don’t trust them to do their job? You spend months collecting resumes and interviewing looking for the smartest, most competent, motivated people. You finally narrow it down (by committee of course), make them an offer and they accept. You pay their moving expenses, bring them on board, spend thousands outfitting their office, buying their equipment and training them. Then you don’t allow them to do anything. They have ideas that will never get acted on, and suggestions that get laughed at. They can never get a straight answer to a simple question, because a formal policy has to be written for it (again, by committee). When they get frustrated, they get told that they’re acting unprofessionally and that this is just how higher ed works. This is the reason that higher education loses so many great, smart, motivated people.
The hierarchical structure isn’t the only problem.
People also spend a ridiculous amount of time on things that just don’t contribute to the bottom line of the organization. That takes your time away from things that DO matter. For example, I know a lot of people felt very passionately about the Facebook Class of 2013 Groups scandal. But lets be honest folks: The amount of time some of you spent on that was ridiculous. Committees were convened to “decide” if you should create a competing “official” group, webinars were attended to discuss “what’s next”, people wasted countless hours on Twitter, Facebook and Google doing detective work. I get that it’s sexy and more interesting than every day work, but I also don’t think direct business impact was never considered. How many applications does your school get from Facebook? What percentage of your audience is ACTIVELY engaged in your Facebook groups (and, no, I don’t think one or two wall posts means actively engaged)? Can you show me that engagement in a Facebook group significantly increases the likelihood of enrollment?
We’re all over-worked. Most of us have more to do in our job descriptions that can be reasonable achieved, and don’t get paid nearly as well as our corporate counterparts. I’m not suggesting that you dedicate zero time or energy to things like Facebook 2013 - yes, you should create your school’s official Facebook group. But that takes five minutes. What are you going to do with the rest of the 7 hours and 55 minutes of the day? Making pragmatic decisions about how you spend your time is crucial. Ask yourself what areas you can dedicate your energy to, that will affect the bottom line of your institution.
Bottom Line
Schools across the country are slashing budgets by ten, fifteen, twenty percent. People are losing their jobs. Students are getting short-changed. How much of this could be prevented if higher ed took a step back from itself and asked what other ways there were to increase efficiency of operations besides laying people off and slashing budgets? Perhaps this downturn will force this adjustment when administrations find that laying people off and continuing to operate inefficiently only exasperates pre-existing problems.
Update: Jesse Rodgers has written a really great follow-on to this post over at his blog.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like what you read here? Subscribe to this blog through RSS or sign up to receive email updates when new content is posted.






January 5th, 2009
Great post Karlyn - BTW I think there is another position that you haven’t talked about which is often adopted and can add to the inefficiency. People in the room don’t think they have the authority, or are too scared to pull the trigger.
January 5th, 2009
Before “Good to Great” came out, Tom Peters made a lot of great points on reducing hierarchy and empowering authorities in a series of management books in the ’80s/’90s. Everything old is new again.
Committee meetings are the worst time-wasters in the history of the universe (even more than video games). We had some projects overmanaged by committees of 20+ people that were exercises in futility. Even a small group with people chairing smaller subgroups would have been more efficient and less frustrating. More heads in the room don’t necessarily make us all smarter.
As for FB2013, the research I did was on my own time, and it was more exciting and fruitful than, say, watching TV or playing video games. I don’t have time to drop everything and investigate those things during the day. Nonetheless, the overall unmasking was a good thing and I applaud the people who were able to make it possible.
Anyway, great post and it should be mandatory reading material for people in higher education. Unfortunately, many colleges would likely have a reading session, then convene a committee to discuss it and craft a position paper.
January 5th, 2009
The committee issue is something that I was discussing with our VP & Provost before the new year in a committee that oversees staff policies. I need to write a blog post… too long for your comments
but ya, committees are a symptom of a serious lack of understanding that people’s time costs the institution money.
January 5th, 2009
So glad someone finally had the guts to tell it like it is. I also think many colleges waste time and money because they don’t view every hour of employee time as a cost savings potential. In my role at myUsearch.com, I offer a solution that can help colleges significantly reduce the amount of time and money required to recruit students, but I often find that many colleges don’t fully understand the benefit because they don’t include employee time when they consider the cost of acquiring students. Maybe as a New Year’s Resolution, colleges could start including employee time into their cost-per-student-acquisition ratio. It might just solve some of the budget crunch issues.
January 5th, 2009
Thoughtful post Karlyn! Inefficiencies are my biggest pet peeve in an organization. I often feel like I am the only one who notices ways to increase efficiency. Which of course, drive me crazy. Thanks for telling it like it is - but shouldn’t be…
January 5th, 2009
Great points, Karlyn.
Many projects in higher ed have succumbed to the (in)famous death by committee.
Now about the impact of the economy on higher ed, I don’t think this should be taken slightly. According to a recent survey by the Chronicle (in their January 9 edition), 10% of colleges/universities surveyed have already laid off people and 26% plan to do so in the coming months.
If the economy doesn’t pick up soon, I guess we’ll have fewer and fewer people in those committees…
But, the downturn is an opportunity to push institutions to be more efficient. If you can demonstrate that your new initiatives will save/make money, it’s going to be harder for your boss to toss (and forget) it on his/her desk.
And, if any of your readers are looking for ways to save, Rachel Reuben (SUNY at New Paltz) and Joe Hice (University of Florida) will share winning strategies (and practical take-aways) in an upcoming 2-webinar series by Higher Ed Experts scheduled on Feb 4 & 5, 2009 and titled “Saving Big”.
As for the “Facebook 2013″ affair, it showed the power of Twitter, blogs and the new very-tech-savvy admissions community. The fact that it was “uncovered” at the end of a very slow week (for higher ed and media alike) also helped make it balloon as it did. Nice piece of investigative work and a well-orchestrated publicity-driving operation, anyway.
January 5th, 2009
This is exactly why I’ve taken the “better to ask forgiveness than permission” approach to a lot of what I do. Rather than asking, I usually just do it, then tell my boss, tell her why, and go on my merry way. It helps that she trusts my judgment though, so in that way at least “she gets it.” Granted, we still have to deal with hierarchy elsewhere, but at least in my immediate silo it’s mostly eliminated. I’ve not been here long enough to become “institutionalized,” and if I have my way, I never will. I’m not the least bit afraid to call out inefficiency when I see it.
I think that at least around here I’m seeing some leaning towards the need to streamline. I think the camel’s back is starting to bend on this subject, as more smart people are coming in that realize you can’t keep going the way we tend to. Instead of being in the business of business, we’re in the business of non-profit education. The two worlds don’t mesh well. Basically what you’re hinting towards is making our world more corporate, which I think would be a huge improvement. The reason we do so much in committee is that everyone is afraid of personal responsibility in their jobs. If something fails, it was just a committee problem, but I don’t believe committees know how to succeed. In the rest of the world, people work in teams, but are lead and driven by individuals that know The Game Plan. They are trusted, as you mention, to know the right decisions to make.
January 5th, 2009
I agree with you in part, that hierarchy is a problem and does take away from the bottom line. But I would have to add that a lack of clear communication is a also a big problem, if not a bigger one. Staff are usually in fire-fight mode, and usually no one has a big enough view of the big picture to call the shots, or inform other teams of issues. Meetings happen because people don’t keep in touch, and don’t understand the issues. The Facebook fiasco became such an issue because people did not now if it was a serious issue or not - no one really talked to their IT departments. Hierarchy exists everywhere. I’ve worked in corporations with much more vertical structure and it worked like a machine because there was clear communications throughout the chain of command, and a set reporting and evaluation system.
Another major contributor to inefficiency, is that the managers actually aren’t skilled managers (nor trained). As in many other companies, promotions are given based on performance at a certain job. These skills may not transfer well to management positions. This affects planning, allocation of resources, and tracking of progress.
The reducing the hierarchy idea is basically going from vertical to a horizontal structure, which is good for efficiency, but can lead de-motivation amongst staff as they cannot move upwards. This is usually the case amongst higher knowledge/technology workers. So turnover can be an issue, which is another budget problem.
So though, it’s true hierarchy does contribute to problems, the bigger issues are a lack of communication and untrained management.
January 5th, 2009
Wow. Great post. We complain about this on almost a daily basis and get the same “you’re right, but that’s just how it is” answer. I love the action item at the end of each meeting, “yeah, let’s explore that” - because nobody can (or wants to!) make a decision. Nice.
I don’t think *anyone* could disagree with you, but how do we get leadership to not only give us authority (because, at least where I work, some of them are starting to do that), but get staff to act on that authority? I think part of the problem is that people are constantly in CYA mode. At some point, someone needs to step up and take a chance and be ready to back up their decision.
I come from a corporate background and I’m constantly amazed at how little the term “ROI” (or anything like it) is used in higher education.
January 5th, 2009
I posted a thought here:
http://whoyoucallingajesse.com/past/2009/1/5/tackling_the_biggest_problem_in/
I think admitting we have a problem in higher ed is a good first step. Next is identifying why/how/if the workarounds to the problem are perpetuating the culture or not. I like your ‘getting it done’ track at eduWEB and that is probably a good place to think about how to have lasting change in higher ed. Hopefully I can attend as I think the conversation will be really good.
January 5th, 2009
You are spot on with your critique. Micro-management and failure to empower employees is definitely a part of the larger disease that is killing institutions all over the nation.
The hierarchical structure also leads to a ridiculous amount of turf war and silos as well. I can’t tell you the number of times that turf wars have disabled good initiatives at our institution.
But the problems start at the top with the siloing of institutional goals and administrators who behave like monarchs instead of leaders.
But maybe it is just the rebel in me. I have been listening to a lot of punk rock lately.
January 5th, 2009
Interesting post, Karlyn. I wish I could say that inefficiency only plagues higher ed, but it’s something all organizations are faced with. Still, it’s a problem we hear about quite a bit within higher education.
I thought you’d be interested in this interview with William Brody, the outgoing president of Johns Hopkins. He hits the nail right on the head (I think) when he says that colleges and universities should not avoid thinking of their operations as a business. Operational inefficiency erodes the ability of institutions to service their students and pursue their mission. As Brody states, “We’re a mission-driven organization, and in a mission-driven organization, no margin no mission. It’s very simple.”
http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/1108web/brody.html
January 5th, 2009
Ah, inefficiency- a subject near and dear to many of the posts I write. This is a subject that lies at the heart of higher ed’s many problems (and not just websites). I’m glad you’ve written this article as my site doesn’t get anywhere near the readership, but the subject needs attention and action and you’re in a position to make that happen.
One aspect you touch upon is authority. This to me is the flip side of inefficiency. They go hand in hand. When lack of authority exists, inefficiency prospers. So you can tackle the issue from either vantage point, but ultimately you’ll have to deal with both.
January 5th, 2009
@Brendan - completely agree that people not thinking that can pull the trigger contributes as well
@TimN - thanks!
@Elizabeth - absolutely agree with everything you said
@Ethan - thanks!
@Karine - I don’t take the impact of the economy lightly at all. Actually I think this post reflects me taking it more seriously than most senior administrators since I’m proposing cultural changes rather than cosmetic ones that only solve superficial problems. I agree that 2013 was a good investigative job….but also think a lot of colleges wasted a lot of time on it.
@Fienen - unfortunately the “ask forgiveness later” thing just doesn’t go over well everywhere
I don’t understand how you can say that non-profits can’t operate like businesses? I’m not hinting at making our worlds more corporate at all - I’m saying that higher ed needs to acknowledge that there is a bottom line. If anything illustrates that, it’s the current financial crisis and the impending layoffs its causing at a lot of schools.
@Rommil - The hierarchy is a key problem in the lack of communication. If organizations were flat, it would silo as much. Meetings are necessary in any organization, and one could argue that they enhance communication by getting everyone in the same room. I completely disagree that the Facebook thing became an issue because no one talked to their IT departments - it wasn’t an IT issue in any way, shape or form. What you seem to be talking about are processes, which I will agree with you are lacking. In flat organizations, vertical movement isn’t as much of a problem because everyone is at the same level (of course, this assumes that people are being paid fairly, which is often the cause of people wanting to move up. This is another problem in higher ed.) I disagree with you are what the main issues are, but I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.
@Shelby Definitely agree with you on people constantly being in CYA mode.
@Jesse - thanks again for your post!
@Nick - I agree that turf wars are a big problem as well. I almost put that in this post, but took it out at the last minute.
@Dan - Thanks for the article. It’s great and sums up my thoughts on this perfectly.
@MIke - “When lack of authority exists, inefficiency prospers” - brilliant!
January 5th, 2009
You had me at the title. I agree with the rest of what you had to say, too. Effectiveness and doing more than just settling for okay isn’t really the mantra of too many of our institutions and it’s shameful.
Great post, as usual.
January 5th, 2009
Thanks Ron!
January 5th, 2009
Inefficiency: The Biggest Problem in Higher Education
Hierarchy: The Greatest Enemy of Efficiency
Let’s flip these thoughts by filling in the blanks:
_____________: The Biggest Solution in Higher Education
_____________: The Greatest Friend of Efficiency
What would you insert into the blanks? If the problem has been identified, perhaps an antipodal thought can provide seeds of solution.
While the bird graphic at the top of the post shows what often happens in organizations, it does not reflect what could or should happen in organizations. I have no problem with flattening of hierarchies to benefit communication and cooperation in an organization.
What I wouldn’t want to do is be so down on hierarchies that we lose the benefits they can provide (i.e. perspective and trust). How do we improve communication and cooperation/collaboration to strengthen trust? The tallest buildings, trees, etc. achieve their height and expansive influence by having a strong supportive foundation.
How can we create a culture that has a strong breadth (flattening) and a strong height/depth (hierarchy)? Some organizations may never break out of a hierarchy model. What hope can we provide individuals within this model? How do you create a culture of stewardship to combat inefficiency?
Thanks for considering these thoughts.
January 6th, 2009
Take away the chairs! I know this sounds pathetic, but I learned it from a President that returned to his institution after they fired the last President. He said “you people meet too much” and immediately took away the chairs (especially the comfy ones) from the conference rooms.
He also is the one that when they finished building a quad of buildings, he didn’t let them put the sidewalks down for a year. He let the students decide where they wanted to walk and then a year later put sidewalks down where the worn lawn appeared.
Need more smart, focused, efficient people like that in higher education leadership.
January 6th, 2009
Brian, what cool stories you shared about the president. Taking away the chairs is great — I’ve also heard people say to hold “walking” meetings and walk the halls or between buildings to discuss things.
I agree with Karine. My strategy for such meetings is usually — if conversations are getting nowhere — to take charge and say, OK, what’s our next step and who’s doing it? As another poster said, too often, people are just afraid to step forward and start things — it’s not necessarily that they are not empowered to do them. So, I try to be that nudging force when possible.
January 6th, 2009
@Curtis Cline- I agree with your statement that we don’t want to abandon hierarchies because they do provide benefits. So the issue needn’t be a choice between breadth and depth. Instead, the issue for me is why the balance doesn’t seem to work. Does one eclipse the other? That’s a difficult thing to discuss in this type of forum since none of us knows anything about anyone else’s particular work setting, personnel, pay, status, workload, etc. What we can discuss here and perhaps form ideas we can put to use are the attributes found within the breadth & depth dynamic that we are likely all exposed to and affected by. Notable for me is lack of authority, lack of leadership and higher ed’s favorite tactic- design/decision making by committee.
All three of these point toward a weakness or inability to make decisions. Furthermore, committees spread responsibility, sometimes to the point where no one can be held accountable anymore. If there’s no accountability, no leadership and no authority put to bear, then we arrive at inefficiency.
I’d like to write more as I feel I’m only scratching the surface, but ironically, I’ve been pulled into a series of meetings. I hope the conversation continues to unfold. Interesting stuff!
January 6th, 2009
I think I’ll make this post my homepage…
January 6th, 2009
hahaha…john that comment just made my day
January 6th, 2009
always love a chance to complain! in fact spending time complaining about the system may soon overtake the inefficiencies in the system as top reason that the system doesn’t work.
I don’t believe that the ‘higher ups’ are too stupid to realize they universities have structural problems, and I think the fact that its an across the board issue, to me, indicates intent. that’s what you get when you’re not in the commercial sector. here’s a fun geek reference, think of Tolkien and the Ents.
I’ll agree with Curtis Cline, but lets propose more solutions to a problem everyone seems to know has existed for a very long time.
January 6th, 2009
It’s easy to dismiss something as bitching and complaining but what you’ve seemed to have missed is that there are implied solutions in this blog - flatten the structure, get rid of the committees and empower employees. Also, just because something is non-profit doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a budget. It has nothing to do with the sector its in - lots of non-profits are run more efficiently than higher ed. I also don’t think I ever said anything about anyone being “stupid”…but many of them are ingrained in the culture. Even if they acknowledge that a change needs to happen, cultural change takes time and most just don’t want to make the commitment.
January 6th, 2009
I totally think we should learn from the world of business how to be more efficient in higher ed. I’m married to a guy who works in the trades. He’s a shop foreman for a heavy equipment repair company. They’re all about hierarchy. The owner of the shop has final say on big questions, and he determines where to go with the company, gets new contracts, etc. The foreman and the production manager tell the mechanics what to get done and how fast to get it done. But they don’t tell the mechanics how to get it done. They let the mechanics do their job - fix the trucks.To me, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with hierarchy. It can really make things run more efficiently.
It just doesn’t, a lot of the time, because nobody knows what their role is or feels empowered to do their job within that role. Either the higher-ups want to micromanage the lower-down people, or the lower-down people want to believe they can have as much say on big issues as the higher-ups.
January 6th, 2009
It’s called “shared governance” in higher education. Definition: when the leader doesn’t want to make the tough decisions and instead charges a committee to discuss it.
We don’t have shared governance at TargetX. I collect all the ideas from the bright people I was able to attract to work at our company. But ultimately, I am the one that has to make the decision and be responsible, right or wrong.
It didn’t work that when when I worked in higher education. And no one got fired for not making a decision.
January 7th, 2009
I think cultural change, especially in big swaths is unrealistic. I prefer the ‘you be the change’ technique whether its the ‘ask for forgiveness not permission’ approach or simply skipping unimportant meetings, not setting meetings you know won’t accomplish anything, and encouraging your colleagues to do the same.
More quantitative and qualitative change will occur when we lead by example
January 28th, 2009
I am a little late on the reply- but this reminded me of the last college I worked at.
We got a new president who LOVED to meet about absolutely everything. It was a shift from the previous one who ran the college like a dictatorship (that didn’t work either) but all of us found ourselves on so many commitees and boards and and and that we never had time for the students!
I eventually found myself at the head of a few of the commitees and decided that my commitees *would* make decisions, because who was going to argue with 10 people who have come to a decision? At the end of each meeting I would have a vote as to the action we wanted to take (changing orientation, marketing the graduation ceremony differently, etc, so not totally earth shaking decisions) and would present the results to my boss and then the president. They rarely argued with it and when they did there was enough outcry from the commitee members that the changes ended up getting made anyway.
So… moral of the story I guess would be that if someone in the commitee is empowered enough (or just decides to be empowered) to make the decision it can be a force for making change in the college- especially because those involved liked feeling like they were part of something new…
June 5th, 2010
I don’t know why bing sent me over to your blog but I might as well say I am now overall intrigued by the site conent you have pulled together. How many years did it take to begin to get this many users showing up to your blog? I am pretty new to all this.
July 6th, 2010
Hi. I’m working at some university, and my position is non-tenure track. I am very glad you have spoken out this issue. Most people are feeling the same way, but they don’t analyze the situation like you did. Here, I am teaching, doing research, and managing the introductory physics labs now. My one of hobbies is reading business and management related books. I have also been observing a lot of inefficient and ineffective managements at different universities. Then, after I got this job, I attempted to change the lab system from the typical inefficient management to efficient and effective management with a low budget. It was hard, but it works well now. Students and Teaching Assistants are happy to study and work; and quite a few problems have been solved. (I am right now writing a paper for this.) If I may say, the hierarchy structure and other atmosphere lead to, so called, “Dysfunction of Bureaucracy.” (Robert Merton) This is exactly what you have pointed out. In addition to what you referred to the school budget, I can tell this: According to Steve Perry, the tenure track professors are promoted in certain time. Of course, the promotion is associated with their salary. What he pointed out is that promotion doesn’t depend on economical situations. Therefore, to compensate their salary, the school has to raise “students’” tuition and fees. As an insider, I can tell you that the tenure process is not hard at all. If they teach at an OK level; if they publish once a year at an OK level; if they serve community somehow; and if they at least write a few grant proposals, they can get tenure. Once they get it, it is hard to be fired unless the department they belong to is deleted. As other person pointed out, most of the Chairs, Deans, Provost, and President do not have effective knowledge and experiences in management. Thus, problems to be solved are always put off since they do not know how to make decision, which contributes to more inefficiency. As other said, solving problems doesn’t give any incentive, and they want to protect themselves from any hard decision making. My strategy to fix this is: Scrutinize the hierarchic system in terms of the dysfunctions; abolish the current tenure promotion; create effective and more detailed evaluation; involve the students, community, and neighbor industries to check the management of the university (open to society). The students and other outside people can also refer to professors’ hiring and promotion processes. Also, not only checking, but people should spend a little more time to find leaders (or great minded educators & researchers) to keep up the system.