Why are Universities so Inefficient?

Universities, like many sprawling organizations, often struggle to enhance efficiency not because they lack capable personnel or even intent, but due to a mismatch between the work structure and where efficiencies could actually be enacted. At the root of this problem lies a strange phenomenon: mid-level managers—those who should ideally oversee, evaluate, and implement improvements in day-to-day operations—are often too bogged down with operational tasks to carry out their managerial roles fully. Rather than being empowered to optimize systems and guide teams toward efficiency, they function more as “working managers,” enmeshed in the same clerical and administrative duties as those they manage. Meanwhile, senior executives are typically removed from the nuanced operational issues that breed inefficiency. This dynamic leaves universities mired in procedural inertia, where small but consequential inefficiencies compound unchecked.

The current structure is problematic because, in effect, it blurs the lines between doing and directing, creating a workforce where mid-level managers wear two hats but lack the support and authority to execute either role well. When managers are entrenched in day-to-day operational tasks—answering emails, processing reports, coordinating schedules—they have neither the time nor the headspace to step back, evaluate workflows, or drive process improvements. They are, in essence, working at cross-purposes: trying to support the system while also participating in its least efficient parts. As a result, even simple tasks can become protracted, tangled in procedures that may no longer serve any purpose other than tradition.

On the other hand, executive leaders, though charged with guiding the overall institutional strategy, often don't have the intimate understanding of granular processes that would allow them to recognize inefficiencies in specific workflows. They know what needs to happen and, ideally, why it’s important to the institution’s goals, but they rarely have the time, context, or bandwidth to dive into the how. Efficiency improvements—like trimming unnecessary steps from a financial aid application process or automating routine departmental reporting—are too specific and procedural for executive focus, yet these are exactly the kinds of tasks that could generate meaningful improvements if someone had the authority and bandwidth to address them.

To foster true efficiency, universities need to recalibrate these roles, freeing mid-level managers from operational duties so they can act as true managers. This shift would involve a few key changes. First, universities must recognize the managerial role as one dedicated to managing rather than doing. This means hiring enough support staff to absorb clerical work, allowing mid-level managers to direct rather than perform. It also means changing job descriptions to include efficiency-seeking as an explicit part of their role. When middle managers are tasked specifically with identifying bottlenecks and redundancies, they can regularly evaluate processes and implement improvements without waiting for senior leadership's blessing. After all, small inefficiencies at one level of an organization may seem minor, but across an institution as large and complex as a university, they snowball, draining time and resources on a grand scale.

By shifting the focus of these mid-level managers and explicitly placing efficiency work in their position descriptions, universities can create a structure in which accountability for streamlined operations is built into the everyday functioning of the organization. This empowered middle tier would, over time, become skilled in addressing inefficiencies as they arise, whether by refining workflows, advocating for new technologies, or adjusting team roles to better distribute workload.

The irony, of course, is that universities, often revered as centers of innovation and intellectual rigor, are among the most resistant to this kind of operational overhaul. Their institutional habits are so entrenched and their bureaucratic structures so layered that meaningful changes require considerable will and patience. Yet if universities could shake off their procedural inertia, they might find themselves in a position to serve students, staff, and faculty better—transforming their institutions into models of efficiency.