Research Operations Need More Than Process Fixes

There’s plenty to be said about the current volatility in federally funded research: unpredictable executive orders, shifting rules and compliance notices, open threats of budget cuts or clawbacks. It’s destabilizing—but also a distraction.

Because even without the noise from Washington as of late, the practice of research inside departments and labs is increasingly unsustainable.

This isn’t just about workload or staffing. It’s about structural dysfunction that’s become normalized over time: a patchwork of informal processes, ambiguous roles, and an alarming erosion of professional standards.

At the heart of the problem is accountability, or more precisely, the absence of it.

Faculty Authority, Operational Blind Spots

Most departments run on a model where faculty hold decision-making power but aren’t responsible for operational outcomes. This is rarely called out, but it’s everywhere. Faculty approve hires without understanding workload distribution. They demand proposals or purchases without understanding lead times. They set priorities without consulting the people who’ll execute them.

The result is a chronic disconnect between vision and implementation. Staff are left to absorb the consequences. It burns people out. It invites errors. It corrodes trust.

Leadership, in these cases, isn’t missing—it’s misaligned.

A Shifting Workforce and Gaps in Readiness

At the same time, the research workforce is changing. Newer professionals—many from Gen Z—bring valuable expectations around transparency, purpose-driven work, and a willingness to challenge broken systems. But many also enter the field with limited exposure to complex operations, unclear expectations, or little experience navigating environments where ambiguity is the norm and success requires a high degree of initiative and judgment.

Departments are feeling the gap. Supervisors often find themselves filling in too many blanks—explaining not just what needs to be done, but why it matters, how it affects others, and what constitutes good work. This is less about individual deficits and more about a broader disconnect between how these roles function and how early-career staff are prepared to approach them.

The result? Teams get stuck. Accountability becomes diffuse. And work that depends on critical thinking and systems awareness too often reverts to checklists and dependency.

Repair Requires Process and Psychology

Process improvement is the obvious starting point—and yes, it's overdue. But it isn’t enough. Departments also need to confront the psychological and structural dynamics that fuel dysfunction. That includes:

• Naming the role of faculty authority in operational systems

• Revisiting how positions are designed, staffed, and supervised

• Developing staff beyond technical training—toward autonomy, clarity, and shared ownership

• Using frameworks like the Drama Triangle to surface unspoken power struggles, cognitive labor, and cycles of avoidance that drive turnover

Better tools and workflows can reduce friction. But until departments address who holds accountability, and how it’s reinforced—or ignored—nothing truly changes.

Toward Durable, Sustainable Research Practice

Research implementation won’t survive increasing pressure with duct-taped workflows and vague accountability. It requires clear roles, aligned leadership, and systems designed for complexity. That starts with letting go of myths: that faculty will eventually “figure out operations,” or that new hires just need more training. We need to stop patching systems and start designing them. We need to clarify where accountability lives—and make it visible.

Departments that do this will be better prepared for external shocks. They will retain staff. They will adapt faster. And they won’t just stay compliant—they will get stronger.

That’s not magic. It’s management.