OPINION: The institutions tend to operate less efficiently when they pursue changes to their structures.
They promise progress, though all too often university restructures create more havoc than harmony.
The restructure reflex has become a chronic condition in our universities that often adds to administrative inefficiency rather than curing it.
Anyone who has ever worked in higher education knows universities love a good shake-up.
A new leader arrives, a new organisational structure is announced, and a batch of fresh acronyms is created to reorganise the same people into different boxes, with slightly embellished job titles and a whole lot more uncertainty.
A restructure, particularly one engulfing an entire university, usually offers the promise of progress: a fresh design, a flatter structure and a brilliant new strategy.
It is seen as the ultimate organisational makeover, designed to help a university navigate both the challenges and opportunities that come its way.
Yet, when the dust settles and the acronyms multiply, the results fall well short of making any real difference.
While the upside of restructuring might look impressive in a PowerPoint presentation, the downside is more likely to appear in the day-to-day frustrations of academic and professional staff.
This is highlighted in a new study by researchers from the University of Melbourne.
The study, Administrative intensity, organisational restructuring and the changing nature of professional staff roles in Australian universities, published in the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, makes clear the more universities restructure the less efficient they become.
Based on a survey of 138 professional staff across 25 institutions, the findings reveal a sector bogged down by constant change and rising administrative burdens.
Three-quarters of respondents reported that administration was chewing up more of their time following some form of organisational restructure.
The value of restructures should not be written off because of a single and relatively small-scale study.
Some restructures do what they are meant to do – tidy things up, cut through red tape and bring a bit more clarity to who does what.
When done properly, with genuine consultation and a clear reason behind the change, a restructure can make universities run more smoothly and better position them for success.
But those cases tend to be the exception, not the rule.
Too often restructures are rolled out in a rush with little thought for the people doing the work, or the knock-on effects.
The result is more confusion, more administration and more frustration.
In the past, some universities seemingly mistook a restructure for a strategy.
A belief has prevailed that moving teams around, tweaking reporting lines or changing department names somehow counts as long-term planning.
Yet a university restructure is a long way from being a strategy; it is an administrative clean-up and not a plan.
Restructures are often a knee-jerk response to internal pressure that comes about because of shrinking budgets or a change in senior leadership, rather than the need for a new direction.
When the two are mistaken for each other, there is plenty of activity but little clarity.
To make matters worse, the cost of restructuring is often overlooked.
Every restructure demands staff time, not just to absorb the change but to survive it.
Training sessions, realignment meetings and feedback forums eat into the hours meant for meaningful work.
It might seem obvious, but universities should not embark on significant organisational restructuring just for the sake it.
Efficiency does not come from rearranging boxes on a chart.
It comes from trust, clarity and letting people get on with what they are good at.
It comes from investing in tools that help not hinder.
And, above all, it comes from recognising that stability, far from being a sign of stagnation, can be a springboard for success.
If universities want to be smart, they should stop trying to reinvent themselves every other year.
Some of the best-run campuses are those that resist the lure of constant change and instead focus on creating conditions where people feel supported, skilled and steady.
When it comes to endless restructures, the only thing being truly streamlined is staff morale, which often heads straight down the drain.
• Professor Gary Martin is the chief executive officer of the Australian Institute of Management WA
