president “would appear to be a kind of superhuman, combining the traits of distinctive visionary, CEO, politician, innovator, academic, fund raiser [sic], and advanced-analytics marketing expert all in one package.”14 The impending cliff bringing increased competition among schools will only further emphasize the need for multidimensional leaders who provide “vision” by seeing the big picture, but who have the technical skills to “get in the weeds” and get things done through effective strategic planning, project management, data utilization, and fiscal accountability.
Administrators and Staff
Administrative bloat is a serious concern. Of equal concern is the time spent by managers in meetings. With more and more administrators introducing and overseeing more and more programs, administrators and managers quite naturally push for more and more meetings to gain input and advice about project objectives and oversight. However, the time spent in such meetings oftentimes proves counterproductive.
New research cited in the Harvard Business Review shows that since the pandemic “about 70% of all meetings keep employees from working and completing all their tasks. While there was a 20% decrease in the average length of meetings during the pandemic, the number of meetings attended by a worker on average rose by 13.5%.” The research also found that ineffective meetings were not only wasting time, but “can negatively impact psychological, physical, and mental well-being.”15
Moreover, the same research found that “92% of employees consider meetings costly and unproductive.” This probably accounted for the fact that “employee productivity was 71% higher when meetings were reduced by 40%.” Equally, the research found that once the meeting schedule was no longer seen as driving agendas, employees actually “owned their to-do lists and held themselves accountable, which consequently increased their satisfaction by 52%.”16
Though the research was conducted on corporate activities, parallels can be made with practices inside higher education. As one college president, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said when discussing the inefficient nature of cabinet meetings: ‘In higher education no problem ever gets solved, it only gets revisited.’ If institutions were to take these findings to heart, they might find the culture improved.
For example, the research just cited found that, when meetings changed, the following results were achieved:
Removing 60% of meetings increased cooperation by 55%. Workers found better ways to connect one-on-one at a pace suitable for them, often using project management tools, such as Slack or Teams, to aid communications specific to each project. In doing so, the risk of stress decreased by 57%, which improved employees’ overall well-being.
When meetings declined by 80%, we found that the perception that employees had that they were being micromanaged lessened by 74%. People felt valued, trusted, and more engaged (44%), subsequently working harder for their company. Communication was 65% clearer and substantially more effective. The reason is that there were far fewer misunderstandings.17
Seems a promising path to pursue.
What additional changes may be made? One additional change that may prove positive is to change the nature and makeup of institutional cabinets. Such a change would involve shifting from presidents and vice president or chancellor models to C-level executives.
The traditional role of cabinet members is to “discuss and advise the president/chancellor by considering previous choices; qualifications; tenets of diversity, equity and inclusion; symbolic messaging; and furthering the
institution's strategic initiatives.”18 Typically, the cabinet is structured around vice presidents
124