Faced with risk and scrutiny, universities produce procedures to demonstrate control. Each new problem yields a new office; complexity grows by addition. I explain why compliance becomes a survival language and how it displaces trust and time. The remedy is not nostalgia but design: sunset clauses for policies, negative budgets for paperwork, and public dashboards of administrative load per credit hour.
Universities are very good at teaching complexity reduction to students and very poor at practicing it on themselves. Faced with risk and scrutiny, the institution speaks a survival language called compliance. This language has a grammar: for every irritation, produce a procedure; for every exception, create a form; for every scandal, establish an office. The result is a familiar ecology: complexity grows by addition, never by subtraction. The organization organizes itself until teaching becomes what remains after the paperwork has eaten.
The Organization That Organizes Itself
No villain is required. The drivers are structural. Universities are coupled to law, politics, finance, and media systems that communicate in the grammar of proof: show me the policy, the record, the audit trail. Under this pressure, the university translates trust into documentation and time into certification. Risk managers want evidence of control; accreditors want consistent procedures; journalists want statements. The fastest way to speak to all of them at once is to produce procedures. A new policy can be emailed by Friday. Understanding takes longer.
Why does complexity expand by accretion? Because subtraction is an orphaned responsibility. Any unit can propose a new requirement in the name of safety, equity, ethics, or excellence. Few own the task of killing the old ones. The asymmetry is moral as well as organizational: to add a rule is to care; to remove one is to be careless. And so the procedures multiply, justified one by one and ruinous in aggregate.
The paradox is unlovely. The more energy we devote to demonstrating control, the less control we have over the one thing we exist to do: cultivate capability. The consequences are visible in calendars and corridors. Prime teaching hours are colonized by mandatory training windows and procedural meetings. Office hours become aspirational. Faculty and students develop an expertise in portals and holds; first-generation students discover the hardest problems are not intellectual but bureaucratic. We produce paperwork as compliance theater, demonstrating that something cannot happen while doing little to prevent it. The opportunity cost is staggering: slow hiring, slow curriculum approvals, and partnerships that expire in the queue.
Administrative Hygiene: A Design for Subtraction
None of this argues for anarchy. Rules protect. Procedures can distribute fairness and memory. The question is whether the organization remembers to organize for its purpose or whether it has become self-referential, producing procedures to prove the worth of procedures. The solution is not nostalgia for a mythical past without forms. It is design: build subtraction into the system, make administrative load visible as a cost, and align incentives so that time flows back to teaching.
Here is a minimal architecture for administrative hygiene:
- Sunset clauses as default, not novelty. Every policy and mandatory training should carry an expiration date, an owner, and an estimated time cost. Renewal requires evidence of effect, a current time-cost estimate, and deletion of an equivalent time-cost elsewhere. No renewal, no survival.
- Negative budgets for paperwork. Give each unit a paperwork budget measured in hours. To add a form, the proposing unit must retire or simplify processes equal to 150% of the projected time cost—the “complexity offset.” This creates a market for subtraction.
- Administrative load dashboards, public by design. Track and publish administrative load per credit hour: mandatory training hours, average form fields, median time-to-decision, and active policies per 100 students. If the numbers are invisible, they will grow.
- Risk triage with appetite statements. Not all risks are equal. Create a risk register ranked by severity, with a publicly stated risk appetite. Accept low-probability, low-impact risks rather than building fortresses for reputational phantoms. Write the courage down: “We tolerate X to protect Y.”
- One-in, two-out for rules and offices. To create a new policy or office, retire two. Consolidation counts. Temporary offices must carry a kill switch at inception: criteria and timeline for disbanding.
- A procedural design lab with authority to subtract. Establish a small, cross-functional team trained in service design to map processes and redesign forms with the “once-only” principle. Give the lab veto power over new forms that violate design standards.
- Meeting sobriety and decision SLAs. Impose simple rules: no meeting without an agenda and a decision owner; default to asynchronous when possible. Publish service level agreements for routine decisions (e.g., hiring approvals in five working days). Decision latency is a cost.
- Prime-time protection for teaching. Designate protected teaching windows (e.g., 10 a.m.–2 p.m., Mon-Thu) during which compliance tasks cannot be scheduled. Protect the hours that produce capability.
- Trust credits and targeted controls. Replace blanket controls with differentiated ones. Units and individuals with clean audit histories earn “trust credits”: fewer required approvals, longer renewal cycles. High-variance units receive more scrutiny.
- Student hold amnesty and form discipline. Cap the number of administrative “holds” that can block a student; require that every hold include a human contact and a resolution SLA. Ban non-safety, non-financial holds near exams. Confusion is not a pedagogy.
These measures are not revolutionary; they are counter-habits. They convert subtraction from a heroic act into a routine. Regulators, some will object, require this. Sometimes they do. Then make the requirement explicit in the register and negotiate scope. Others will say this increases risk. In pockets, yes. But the current regime increases a different risk: the risk of hollowing the activity while perfecting its proof. Overloaded systems fail in the name of safety.
This administrative burden is not evenly distributed. Adjuncts often complete the same compliance load as full-time faculty without compensation. First-generation and international students face opaque holds with less social capital to navigate them. Administrative hygiene is therefore justice work: publish the burden by role, compensate where it cannot be removed, and redesign where it can.
The Proof of Control
Organizations are machines that produce decisions by producing decision premises—rules, roles, programs. Under uncertainty, they generate more premises to reduce the risk of arbitrary choice. This is autopoiesis: the system reproduces itself. The trick is to reintroduce time as a governor: add expiration to premises, reinsert judgment into renewal, and make deletion part of reproduction.
A university that cannot subtract cannot teach. Its claims to excellence are a kind of compliance theater. But an institution that practices this hygiene will know it’s working not by its compliance record, but by its calendar. Office hours will reappear. Feedback will lengthen. Students will experience fewer holds and more humans.
The organization that organizes itself must remember whom it is for. The proof of control is not the thickness of the manual. It is the quiet hour that appears on a Wednesday afternoon when a student finally understands something hard because someone had time to explain it.
—
#re_v5 (Article 6 of 10 on global higher education issues: Administrativism)