Overcoming Academe’s Addiction to Addition

Consider the following email from a campus administrator at your institution:

The Business Office recently adopted a new software that will help you manage [fill in the blank with a specific task such as reconciling expenses, hiring or managing business travel]. We are hosting training sessions to help you navigate this new system. Training sessions are scheduled in person over the next three days during these times, (Note: less than 24-hours’ notice.) Given we are moving towards the end of the academic year, we have set a deadline for completing training and uploading your reports by [date: two weeks from today].

Does that email look familiar to you? Perhaps it’s nearly identical to one you have sitting in your inbox. What is not communicated in that email, however, is that this new system is most likely not replacing an existing, inadequate system. Rather, it’s an addition to the existing portfolio of systems and processes that you are required to navigate to advance the work you do in your role at your institution. As you near the end of the email, you sigh. This is yet another item added to an ever-growing, unsustainable workload.

Inspired by a recent Harvard Business Review article in which the authors called out the “addition sickness” that plagues industry, I too have observed—and experienced—“addition” as the go-to management strategy in the academy in an effort to keep inadequate systems and processes at bay. Rather than engage in a strategic canvas of existing systems and practices that should result in a reallocation and reinvestment of resources and the elimination of those systems and practices that are no longer meeting needs, the path of least resistance that permeates the academy is management by addition.

In my role as a faculty and leadership development consultant—as well as faculty member, department chair and American Council on Education Fellow—I have seen and experienced the academy’s addiction to addition across countless institutional settings and campus units. I am often called on to enhance faculty and leadership development programming, in which the issue of workload rises to the forefront. And I’ve seen a fundamental truth replicated over and over in that work: individual agency can only take faculty and staff members so far when it comes to managing unsustainable workloads. Institutional structures and processes must be revisited, as well, and that means administrators must fight the addiction to addition as a go-to management strategy.

Where are we seeing the management-by-addition strategy employed across the academy? The short answer: everywhere. Look no further than tasks that rely on systems that require managing budgets, processing reimbursements, navigating employee hiring and onboarding, and scheduling classroom space. Reporting processes linked to assessment, tracking workload, and filing year-end reports are not immune either. Further, deliverables that require inputs about student-success metrics and the career advancement of faculty and staff members are included. The result: faculty and staff members are overloaded and ill-equipped due to many inadequate systems, policies and processes.

As part of my consulting work, I urge campus administrators to push back on their addiction to addition and instead encourage them to engage important campus stakeholders in necessary conversations about workload. The aim: ridding themselves, and their institution, of that which no longer serves. Such a review includes systems, policies and practices. Foundational to that effort is a willingness to ask the tough questions and hear the answers.

What to Ask and Why

When I present the idea of “addiction to addition” to campus administrators, whether one-on-one or in larger groups, I see nearly every head nod in agreement that this issue is real and pervasive. In fact, many administrators have personal experience and feel the pain caused by unsustainable workloads. The topic immediately elicits personal stories about this very issue and the challenge it creates. In sum, the broad idea that such a management strategy exists and the need to eliminate it resonates deeply.

Unfortunately, however, that is where the agreement and buy-in ends. Immediately following my presentation of the idea and their sharing of personal stories, campus administrators express concern about opening a Pandora’s box that’s likely to result by directly asking faculty and staff members what tasks, systems and processes can be redefined or eliminated. They fear they will hear “all of it” and such a response is neither actionable nor strategic. I counter by reminding them that the current addiction-to-addition management strategy is not sustainable. Talented yet overwhelmed and burned-out people will continue to leave the institution—the academy has already seen declines in faculty employment, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Staff members are also leaving, particularly from student-facing areas such as financial aid and admissions. Higher education is at a crucial juncture, and collective action must be taken.

Questions to Ask, Steps to Take

How can campus administrators help direct the conversation in more productive ways? Some questions they should ask themselves include:

• In what ways are our current systems and processes impeding faculty and staff members from effectively and efficiently doing their jobs?
• What work tasks and/or systems are the biggest pain points? Which, if any, can be eliminated? What would the impact of that action be on faculty and staff members’ workload? Student learning? Required reporting, such as for accreditation and the like?
• If we need to add new systems, practices, and/or policies, what is currently lacking or inadequate that necessitated the need for another policy and/or new system? Can upgrades or revisions be made to existing systems rather than adding? What is our timeline for eliminating the prior inadequate system, policy or practice?

These questions can provide administrators the needed knowledge to move through the following steps:

• Identify and understand what tools, resources, systems and processes faculty and staff members need to do their job effectively and efficiently.
• Engage in a strategic assessment of tools, resources, systems, and processes identified in Step 1 to determine if they are in fact adequate and enable faculty and staff to meet—or even exceed—expectations. If inadequate, communicate explicit action plans and timelines to address the identified issue(s).
• Review current resource allocations that undergird systems, policies and practices. They might provide a cost-savings opportunity.
• Build in regular systems, policy, and practice checks to ensure workload remains manageable.

Higher education is experiencing challenging times. No doubt the addiction-to-addition management strategy is a response to the continued barrage of demands and dilemmas that institutional leaders must manage, many of which have no obvious solutions. But colleges and universities need to attract and retain talented stakeholders and encourage their involvement and engagement in helping solve those challenges. And engagement is not possible when individuals are overworked, under-supported and not provided the tools, systems and resources they need to do their jobs effectively. Workload, and its effective management, is vital for facilitating strong job performance, employee well-being and institutional success. And that requires halting the counterproductive and destructive addiction to addition in the academy.