Stop Saying “Do More with Less”

There are phrases that seep into the lexicon of work, repeated so often they lose meaning. Or worse—they begin to reshape what we find acceptable. “The new normal.” “Lean operations” (almost always referring to headcount, not process improvement). And the one I cannot stomach anymore: “Doing more with less.”

In higher education, particularly in research administration, this phrase has become a banner for efficiency that hides a harsher truth: it’s not efficiency at all, it’s neglect.

Long before the current administration took office, research administrators were already overextended—tired, burned out, stretched thin. In mere months the strain has intensified: funding freezes, layoffs, cost-cutting measures, and an avalanche of regulatory complexity.

To tell people already at a breaking point to “do more with less” isn’t a strategy. Not only is it not kind, but it’s also an abdication of leadership. It says: we can’t be bothered with making hard choices about priorities.

This abdication shows up most clearly in hiring. Leaders celebrate the recruitment of new faculty as victories of grant potential, reputation, and prestige. But those decisions almost never account for the administrative weight that follows. Every new lab, every transfer and grant submission, every award received adds complexity and volume that falls squarely on research administration. When leadership ignores this cost, they aren’t just overlooking a line item; they’re undermining the very capacity that makes faculty success possible. And what follows? Complaints from PIs about the quality and consistency of their support. And who gets blamed? Not leadership, but the research administrators already buried under mounting demands. Then comes the insulting refrain: “We need to figure out how to do more with less.”

In the past, leaders have been able to get away with this imbalance, expanding the research enterprise while assuming administration would simply absorb the load. But that margin is gone. The profession of research administration is in crisis. Institutions are struggling to hire and retain qualified research administrators. Training “systems” are inconsistent or nonexistent. Knowledge management – ha! Operations - chaotic. In short: the infrastructure that sustains research is breaking down, and very few departments and centers are thriving by any objective measure of quality of life and workload. No one is happy and the current systems and structures are not serving anyone particularly well.

Research administrators are not widgets in a productivity machine. We are highly skilled professionals who already punch far above our weight to keep the trains running on time. We bridge the gap between faculty creativity and institutional accountability, ensuring that billions of dollars in sponsored research flow responsibly, compliantly, and effectively. Without us, the entire research enterprise stalls. And we are already seeing things caving in from the weight: tasks left undone, execution at a crawl, work quality slipping, compliance at risk.

If we are serious about sustaining research, discovery, and innovation, we cannot continue to normalize the hollow mantra of “doing more with less.” We must ask harder questions:

• What are we choosing not to do when we cut resources?
• What risks are we pushing onto staff, faculty, and institutions by pretending efficiency can stretch indefinitely?
• What does it say about our values if we accept burnout as collateral damage?

Higher ed leaders: stop telling us to do more with less. Reject the mindset it represents.

The alternative is not mysterious, but it is demanding. It requires leaders to:

• Name priorities clearly. Not everything can be a priority, and pretending otherwise makes work unmanageable.
• Measure and protect capacity, like for real. Staff are not expendable “inputs.” They are the infrastructure of research. Treat them accordingly.
• Invest in sustainability. Sustainable systems outlast budget cycles. Austerity thinking does not.

Doing more with less is a surrender. Real leadership means doing what’s needed with the resources required—no less, and certainly no more at the expense of human wellbeing.

The irony is sharp: the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) will soon be releasing a book—Simplifying Research Regulations and Policies: Optimizing American Science—aimed at reducing the administrative load on research institutions. Yet, tellingly, the committee includes no research administrator who works within a department based on an old fashioned Google search. Meanwhile, the Joint Associations Group on F&A Costs (JAG) has crafted the FAIR model to streamline indirect cost calculations—but its subject-matter experts are senior leaders, not frontline research administrators.

This pattern isn’t benign oversight—it speaks to a troubling disconnect. The very people who live the complexity, who buffer faculty and perform hidden work, are rarely invited into the conversation about solutions. That omission isn’t just symbolic; it fundamentally undermines the legitimacy and sustainability of proposed reforms.

For higher ed leaders and policy-makers: to truly alleviate the burden, stop sidelining those who understand the work the most. Real change begins by prioritizing research administrators—not only in discussions, but also in the decision-making rooms. It requires open dialogue, questioning outdated structures, and moving beyond empty slogans.

This is a clarion call to reflect, listen, and do better. The status quo will not hold.