Rewiring the Academy: Leading with Hope in an Age of Chaos

Leading Higher Education Forward with Radical Hope, Trauma-Informed Practices, and a Commitment to the Modern Learner

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Hope Is a Strategy: Why I Wrote This White Paper

This white paper was born from both personal reflection and professional urgency.

Over the past year, I’ve been trying to make sense of the increasing chaos in higher education—both personally and nationally. The sector is reeling from overlapping pressures: political interference, legislative attacks on diversity and free speech, eroding trust in the value of a degree, and a growing culture war aimed squarely at our education system. Every week brings a new headline—another funding threat, another no-confidence vote, another public skirmish between faculty and administration. The system feels disoriented, reactive, and often disconnected from its mission. I’ve contributed to that conversation myself, including my own article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which joined a growing chorus naming the threats facing our institutions.

But naming the chaos wasn’t enough.

This paper began as a way to process my own journey through that disruption. After experiencing burnout, toxic workplace culture, and the absence of psychological safety in my previous role, I made the difficult decision to leave. What followed was more than a career change—it was a reminder of what higher education can be. In my current role, I’ve found the trust, autonomy, and support I had been craving: the opportunity not just to manage, but to lead. To grow. To be seen.

That contrast—the emotional whiplash between exhaustion and renewal—is what compelled me to write this.

In recent months, I’ve immersed myself in books and articles that helped reframe my thinking. Radical Hope, Hope Circuits, The Connected College, Whatever It Is, I’m Against It, and Hacking College have all, in different ways, reminded me that transformation is still possible—even in crisis. And that hope is not a feeling. It’s a practice.

This white paper brings those frameworks together—along with dozens of recent reports, essays, and articles from higher ed publications—to do three things:

  • Map the chaos we’re facing with clarity and care.

  • Name the emotional, cultural, and structural toll it’s taking on our institutions.

  • Offer a path forward rooted in radical hope, trauma-informed leadership, shared stewardship, and design for the modern learner.

This isn’t a traditional research article or policy memo. It’s a call to action.

It’s for faculty who feel silenced. For staff who feel invisible. For administrators trying to lead with purpose in a system built for compliance. For students wondering what kind of institution they’re inheriting.

It’s for anyone who refuses to give up on higher education—because they still believe in its promise

If the paper resonates, I’d love for you to share it. If it challenges or complicates your thinking, even better. And if it helps spark one new idea, one better question, or one act of leadership—you’ve made it worth writing.

Citation:
OpenAI. (2024). Rewiring the academy: Leading with hope in an age of chaos [AI-generated image]. ChatGPT, DALL-E.

Navigating Staffing Challenges in Higher Education: Thoughts on Retention, Support, and Resilience

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

With over 20 years of experience in higher education and more than 8 years overseeing university programs and academic operations, I’ve witnessed the unique challenges faced by different university units. I have directly provided leadership and guidance, leading hiring efforts in career development, academic success, the library, registrar, international education, institutional effectiveness, and academic community engagement. Though I am not an expert in each department, this background gives me a broad perspective on the staffing issues that impact higher education today.

Over the last several years, staffing challenges have intensified, with 84% of institutions now reporting difficulty filling essential staff roles, and 79% indicating that vacancies have surged (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). These widespread vacancies disrupt core functions and heighten pressures on departments already struggling with tight budgets and evolving workforce expectations. Institutions are finding it particularly difficult to recruit for positions in fields like IT, student support, and facilities management, where competition with private sector salaries and benefits is particularly strong (Herget, 2024; Brantley & Shomaker, 2021).

Economic and societal factors further complicate staffing retention, especially for smaller colleges and community colleges with limited resources. According to Querolo, Moran, and Patino (2023), many of these institutions face significant enrollment declines and budget cuts, which restrict their ability to offer competitive salaries or invest in retention strategies. Public institutions and rural colleges encounter added challenges, such as compensation limits and residency requirements, which restrict their applicant pools (Herget, 2024). The financial strain on these institutions not only affects their ability to recruit and retain talent but also compromises the quality of student services and academic support, as remaining staff struggle to meet increased demands with fewer resources.

The COVID-19 pandemic has also reshaped workforce expectations, accelerating a shift toward remote and hybrid work models. While the private sector has widely adopted flexible work options, higher education has been slower to adapt, leading many staff to seek roles in other industries that prioritize work-life balance. Surveys indicate that 74% of higher ed employees now prefer hybrid work arrangements, and institutions lagging in flexibility have seen elevated turnover rates (Deloitte, 2023; Herget, 2024). As a result, colleges and universities are increasingly under pressure to modernize their work policies to retain employees who are reevaluating their career expectations and priorities.

In addition to these external pressures, the faculty-staff divide within institutions remains a significant yet often overlooked factor in staff retention. Professional staff members—many of whom hold advanced degrees in fields such as instructional design, student affairs, and higher education leadership—often feel undervalued and excluded from decision-making processes, despite their critical contributions to institutional success. Unlike faculty, who benefit from tenure protections and greater autonomy, staff generally lack the same job security and recognition. This divide, as Dean Dad (2011) describes, fosters a sense of inequity and limits collaborative innovation, ultimately affecting morale and job satisfaction.

This article explores these multi-layered staffing challenges, examining the factors that drive staff turnover and burnout, as well as strategies for creating a more resilient and supportive workplace culture. By identifying both immediate solutions and long-term approaches, this article aims to provide a roadmap for institutions seeking to improve retention, bridge cultural divides, and adapt to evolving employee expectations within higher education.

The Current Landscape of Staff Turnover in Higher Education

The turnover crisis in higher education is impacted by a complex interplay of economic pressures, demographic shifts, and evolving workforce expectations. According to a survey by the Chronicle of Higher Education, 84% of institutions report challenges in filling staff and administrative roles, and 79% indicate that vacancies have increased substantially over recent years (Anft, 2021). Certain fields, such as IT, facilities, and student support, are experiencing acute shortages due to competition with private sector salaries and benefits (Herget, 2024; Hoover, 2022). A survey conducted in November 2021 revealed that nearly half of all institutions had vacancies in critical roles that remained unfilled for over six months, underscoring the severity of this issue (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021).

The economic pressures facing higher education contribute significantly to this turnover crisis. Rising inflation and stagnant salaries in higher education have created financial strain, particularly as the cost of living outpaces the salary adjustments many institutions can afford. As McClure (2024) highlights, many employees in education-support roles—those in administrative, custodial, or skilled trades—earn less than a living wage, adding further strain to already underpaid positions. This issue is compounded by outdated compensation practices, with many institutions neglecting to update salary ranges or adjust job classifications, leaving pay structures misaligned with employees’ roles and responsibilities. In departments like IT, EDUCAUSE (2024) notes that only 36% of teams feel they have sufficient resources to expand or retain positions, highlighting how budget constraints limit universities’ ability to compete with the private sector for talent.

Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic permanently altered workforce expectations, creating demand for flexibility, hybrid work arrangements, and mental health support. While the private sector has widely adopted these practices, higher education has been slower to adapt. According to Clark (2023), employees now prioritize roles offering work-life balance, which has become a critical factor in turnover. As a result, institutions unable to meet these expectations are witnessing an exodus of staff seeking greater flexibility in other industries (Herget, 2024).

Sector-specific turnover rates further illustrate the challenges faced by higher education. Critical roles in student support, financial aid, and IT are particularly hard-hit due to high demands, stagnant salaries, and limited budgets. These roles, though often viewed as supportive rather than central, are essential to student retention and satisfaction, yet are frequently under-resourced (Anft, 2021). As McClure (2024) discusses, institutions sometimes use flexible job titles as stop-gap measures in place of compensation adjustments, but these practices only add frustration for employees, who may be asked to fulfill multiple roles with no pay increase. This leads to increased workloads and burnout, which in turn contribute to higher turnover rates among staff in these departments, amplifying pressures on those who remain.

Geographical and institutional variations also complicate the staffing landscape. Public institutions and those in rural areas face particular challenges due to compensation limits and residency requirements that restrict applicant pools (Herget, 2024). In addition, rural institutions often lack a local talent pool and may struggle to attract out-of-state candidates, particularly younger professionals seeking vibrant urban locations. Combined with an aging workforce, with approximately 30% of higher ed employees over 55 years old, these factors signal an impending wave of retirements that will further strain resources (Kim, J. 2023; Brantley & Shomaker, 2021).

Specific challenges also impact departments like the registrar’s office, where vacancies and turnover have intensified. The November 2021 60-Second Survey Report from AACRAO highlights that 53% of registrar’s offices reported at least one vacancy, with 70% finding it “difficult” or “very difficult” to fill those positions (AACRAO, 2021). These statistics illustrate the unique pressures facing specialized roles in higher education, where departments essential to core operations struggle to attract qualified candidates amid tight budgets and increased workload demands.

Financial constraints across institutions, especially smaller colleges and community colleges, exacerbate these staffing issues. Enrollment declines have led to budget freezes and cuts that prevent institutions from offering competitive salaries or investing in retention strategies. Small colleges, for instance, are under increasing pressure to reduce costs, making it difficult to prioritize hiring and retention (Querolo, Moran, & Patino, 2023). This shortage has tangible effects on student experience: understaffed financial aid offices and student support departments struggle to keep up with demand, leading to delays in service and diminished student satisfaction, which ultimately affects retention (Hoover, 2022; AACRAO, 2021). These delays not only create obstacles for students but also impact their ability to maintain financial stability, thereby contributing to decreased enrollment and retention rates.

The Faculty-Staff Divide

One factor exacerbating the turnover crisis is the divide between faculty and professional staff, which influences morale and retention. From my experience, this divide often manifests in the perception of different roles and contributions. Professional staff—who frequently hold advanced degrees in fields such as instructional design, student affairs, and higher education leadership—are often excluded from decision-making processes. Although they play critical roles in shaping student experiences and supporting institutional goals, they are not consistently viewed as peers by faculty (Dean Dad, 2011). This can lead to feelings of undervaluation and lack of recognition, especially as professional staff tend to receive lower compensation and limited opportunities for career advancement. McClure (2024) notes that salary compression and outdated compensation structures compound frustrations among staff who observe significant pay disparities with faculty counterparts, reinforcing a sense of inequity in the workplace.

Cultural and structural differences reinforce this divide. Faculty enjoy greater autonomy and are viewed as central to the academic mission, often receiving higher pay and recognition. In contrast, professional staff face more rigid job structures, limited opportunities for career progression, and few merit-based raise opportunities (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021; McClure, 2024). This inequity can create friction, as faculty may view staff as support personnel rather than collaborative partners, thereby limiting the potential for cross-functional innovation and mutual support (Dean Dad, 2011). For example, professional staff in registrar’s offices and student support services often manage increasing responsibilities, such as data stewardship and student engagement initiatives, yet receive little to no additional compensation or acknowledgment for this “invisible labor” (Parks, 2023). This added burden contributes to burnout, which compounds retention issues as staff feel undervalued for their significant contributions.

Moreover, exclusion from shared governance and decision-making further deepens the faculty-staff divide. Professional staff are typically not included in institutional policy discussions, even though their insights could provide valuable perspectives on implementing programs that directly impact students. As McKenna (2022) and Ryder et al. (2023) observe, the lack of inclusion for staff in governance structures not only affects their morale but also limits institutional efficacy by creating policies without input from those who will implement them. This exclusion can lead to a disconnect between policy goals and practical outcomes, ultimately affecting the success of student-centered initiatives.

The divide also impacts institutional culture, weakening collaborative efforts that are essential to student success. When staff feel excluded or undervalued, it diminishes overall campus cohesion, leading to a fragmented workplace culture where collaboration across departments is hindered. According to Clark (2023) and Anft (2021), this lack of cohesion can reduce cross-functional innovation, which is vital for student retention and long-term institutional resilience. Addressing the divide by fostering inclusivity and recognition for staff contributions could create a stronger sense of unity, enhancing the collective mission of supporting students.

Finally, the presence of tenure protections for faculty further highlights this divide, as tenured professors enjoy significant job security unavailable to most professional staff. Staff members, in contrast, are often vulnerable to layoffs during budget cuts, restructuring, or other financial crises. This lack of job security among staff fosters a heightened sense of instability and can lead to high turnover rates, as staff members seek more stable roles in other industries (Herget, 2024). Acknowledging and addressing these disparities is essential for improving workplace culture, enhancing retention, and promoting a sense of unity across campus roles.

Challenges Contributing to High Staff Turnover

Several key challenges drive high staff turnover across higher education institutions, with non-competitive compensation as a primary factor. Higher education institutions, especially smaller public colleges, cannot compete with the private sector on salary and benefits, leading many employees to seek better-paying jobs elsewhere. CUPA-HR data reveal that 57% of higher education employees have considered leaving for higher-paying opportunities (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). Furthermore, data from an AACRAO 60-second survey show that 64% of institutions cite salary limitations as a primary barrier to retention (AACRAO, 2021). This trend highlights the increasing difficulty colleges face in retaining staff within constrained budgets.

In addition to compensation, a lack of workplace flexibility is significantly influencing turnover. The private sector has widely embraced remote and hybrid work models, whereas higher education has been slower to adapt. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the demand for flexibility, with surveys indicating that 74% of higher ed employees now prefer hybrid work arrangements (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). Institutions like Carnegie Mellon University have implemented hybrid models to retain talent; however, many critical roles in student services and support require an in-person presence, which continues to be a limiting factor in retaining staff (Deloitte, 2023). HigherEdJobs surveys indicate that many staff leave academia in search of better work-life balance and flexible scheduling options available in other sectors (Herget, 2024).

A significant challenge in attracting and retaining talent within academia is the appeal of private-sector roles, which often offer not only competitive compensation but also greater flexibility, career advancement, and work-life balance. According to Deloitte (2023) and McClure (2024), many higher education employees are increasingly drawn to industries that meet these evolving workplace expectations. This trend has led to a rise in staff leaving academia for non-academic roles, especially in fields like IT, student services, and administrative support, where private-sector positions frequently offer more attractive work conditions.

Additionally, as experienced professionals exit higher education, finding qualified applicants for critical positions becomes increasingly difficult, particularly in departments like the registrar’s office. From my perspective, the limited pipeline of new professionals entering higher education poses a serious recruitment challenge. Registrar roles, for example, now require specialized skills in data management, compliance, and digital credentialing that extend beyond traditional responsibilities (Pittinsky, 2019; Parks, 2023). However, many institutions lack targeted recruitment strategies to attract individuals from other industries who possess these transferrable skills. Hiring externally could bring in much-needed talent, yet it remains an underutilized approach in higher education recruitment (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021).

The skills gap in specialized roles has only widened as fewer professionals enter academia with the specific qualifications needed. Critical positions in the registrar’s office and student support services are increasingly hard to fill, with 70% of registrar offices reporting hiring difficulties due to the expanding technical and regulatory demands (AACRAO, 2021). Moreover, the same AACRAO 60-Second Survey Report reveals that since 2020, the registrar’s office has experienced a 26% reduction in staff size, intensifying workloads and increasing burnout among remaining staff members (AACRAO, 2021). This data underscores the strain created by staffing cuts and limited hiring, as remaining employees face heightened responsibilities in a high-stakes environment. Parks (2023) suggests that institutions could benefit from recruiting candidates from fields with robust data, compliance, and technology backgrounds, though this requires adopting new recruitment and onboarding strategies. Bridge programs to train external hires on academic policies and systems could facilitate their transition, enhancing retention and leveraging their skill sets in ways that benefit the institution (McKenna, 2022).

Institutions facing high turnover must also address the impact of role demands and limited growth opportunities on retention. Staff in specialized positions, such as those in registrar and student support roles, frequently manage increasing responsibilities without corresponding increases in support or compensation. This lack of advancement and recognition contributes to burnout and turnover (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). The frequent departures in these critical roles disrupt essential functions, diminishing both the quality of student services and operational stability (AACRAO, 2021). Without targeted efforts to improve compensation, expand recruitment efforts, and provide clear career paths, the turnover crisis in higher education is likely to persist.

Certain specialized roles, such as those in the registrar’s office, face unique turnover pressures due to an increase in responsibilities. Today’s registrars manage complex tasks involving data privacy, digital credentialing, and student pathways (Pittinsky, 2019; Parks, 2023). Overall, a survey conducted by AACRAO found that 70% of registrar offices report difficulty filling these positions due to the expanding technical and regulatory demands, which make these roles particularly challenging (AACRAO, 2021). This trend reflects a broader issue in higher education, where roles are becoming more demanding without corresponding increases in support or compensation.

Unit-Specific Challenges in Higher Education

While staffing shortages affect all of higher education, certain units face unique pressures that compound turnover.

  • Registrar’s Office: The registrar’s role has evolved dramatically, now encompassing data security, digital credentialing, and managing complex pathways for student progression and graduation. The registrar is also responsible for compliance with student data privacy regulations, such as FERPA. Today’s registrars manage complex tasks involving data privacy, digital credentialing, and student pathways, reflecting an increase in responsibilities that adds to the difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified staff (Pittinsky, 2019; Parks, 2023).

    According to AACRAO’s November 2021 60-Second Survey Report, registrar’s offices have faced a significant decrease in staff size since 2020, with a reported 26% reduction, which has intensified workloads for remaining staff and increased burnout (AACRAO, 2021). This reduction in staffing places additional burdens on current employees, who are required to manage essential functions with limited resources. Furthermore, 70% of registrar offices report difficulty filling these specialized roles, as expanding technical and regulatory demands necessitate highly specialized skills in compliance, data management, and digital credentialing (AACRAO, 2021). This heightened demand underscores the challenges of recruiting candidates with the right expertise, as registrar roles now require a complex blend of legal, technical, and academic knowledge. 

    This trend mirrors a broader issue in higher education, where roles are becoming more demanding without corresponding increases in support or compensation, creating unique turnover pressures within registrar offices. High turnover in these positions disrupts the consistency of student services and adds strain to remaining staff members who must balance increasing responsibilities. To address these challenges, institutions may need to consider recruiting individuals from outside higher education with transferrable skills in compliance, data management, and digital credentialing, as well as investing in professional development to help current staff adapt to evolving demands

  • IT Departments: IT teams face continuous staffing challenges as the demand for digital services grows, especially following the shift to online and hybrid learning. The EDUCAUSE survey found that only 36% of IT departments feel they have the resources to create new positions, and many lack the budget to compete with the private sector for highly sought-after IT talent (EDUCAUSE, 2024). Smaller institutions particularly struggle in this area, impacting digital infrastructure and overall institutional performance. Additionally, private-sector competition with higher salaries and more flexible work environments further strains IT departments’ ability to retain skilled professionals (McClure, 2024).
  • Student Financial Services: Financial aid offices are frequently understaffed, leading to delays in aid processing and impacting student retention. According to Hoover (2022), critical understaffing in these offices harms student satisfaction, as students face long wait times and delayed financial aid decisions. This is especially problematic for lower-income students who rely on timely financial support to continue their studies. Expanding self-service options could alleviate some workload, but implementing digital solutions requires both investment and IT support, adding to the strain on under-resourced institutions (Deloitte, 2023).

  • Student Success and Support Services: The demand for one-on-one support in advising and counseling has risen significantly, particularly as mental health concerns increase among college students. However, high caseloads and limited staffing in student success units lead to burnout, especially at community colleges, where these services are vital for supporting at-risk student populations (Basko, 2023). High turnover in these roles disrupts continuity of care, impacting student satisfaction and retention. Solutions such as peer-support programs, hiring additional support staff, and providing resilience training for counselors could reduce burnout and improve retention.

  • Library Services: University libraries have expanded their roles, providing academic resources, digital literacy programs, and collaborative spaces. Many librarians now offer workshops, manage digital resources, and assist with academic research, but staff shortages limit these services, exacerbated by budget cuts (Deloitte, 2023). Budget constraints have forced libraries to reduce service hours or limit programming, affecting their ability to support students effectively. Leveraging partnerships with academic departments and hiring graduate students as part-time support staff could help ease these pressures.
  • Institutional Research and Institutional Effectiveness: Institutional Research (IR) and Institutional Effectiveness (IE) play crucial roles in guiding data-driven decisions, supporting accreditation, and shaping strategic goals in higher education. These departments gather, analyze, and interpret data on institutional performance, helping to inform decisions on everything from resource allocation to academic programming (HelioCampus, 2024). However, significant challenges arise in implementing these practices effectively. According to Douglass and Chirikov (2020), many universities underutilize their data or face structural issues, such as siloed information across departments, which limits the ability to create comprehensive, institution-wide insights. This fragmentation hinders data accessibility, making it difficult to use analytics effectively across the institution.

    In recent years, IR and IE teams have increasingly taken on roles in quality assurance, compliance, and accreditation. They are vital in ensuring that institutions meet regulatory standards and maintain data integrity, which supports internal reviews and accreditation efforts (Morgan, 2024). These units also enhance decision-making by identifying student success trends, financial performance, and strategic opportunities. For instance, predictive analytics has emerged as a powerful tool for anticipating enrollment patterns and guiding long-term planning, allowing institutions to adapt proactively to shifting student demographics and financial challenges (Douglass & Chirikov, 2020).

    Despite their critical contributions, IR and IE departments face resource limitations and an ongoing need for staff skilled in advanced data analytics. Many universities struggle with budget constraints, which restrict their ability to invest in necessary tools and training. Moreover, complex data privacy regulations add further challenges, as IR teams must balance analytical needs with compliance requirements like FERPA in the U.S. and GDPR in Europe (Morgan, 2024). To maximize effectiveness, institutions could explore collaborative data-sharing models and cross-departmental integration efforts to strengthen IR and IE capabilities, enhance their ability to support strategic goals, and ultimately foster a data-informed campus culture (HelioCampus, 2024).

Cross-Unit Impacts of Staffing Shortages

Staffing shortages in units such as admissions, student financial services, and student life have far-reaching effects on other departments, particularly student support services and the registrar’s office. From my experience, this cross-departmental strain becomes acute when leadership lacks a holistic understanding of how each unit’s responsibilities are interconnected. When responsibilities shift from one division to another without stakeholder input, it can place undue stress on other units, deteriorating trust and workplace culture. For example, an understaffed financial aid office may delay aid distribution, placing added stress on student support staff who manage inquiries from frustrated students (Ryder et al., 2023). Additionally, delays in financial aid processing can disrupt enrollment timelines and cause a ripple effect, impacting academic departments, course scheduling, and ultimately, student retention (Hoover, 2022). Without adequate staffing across interconnected units, institutions risk creating bottlenecks that harm student satisfaction and retention.

The Role of Interdependencies Between Units

The impact of these shortages is compounded by the close interdependencies between departments. Registrar staff, for instance, rely on timely input from admissions and financial aid offices to process enrollments, verify student records, and ensure compliance with regulatory standards. When these feeder units are understaffed, it creates delays and additional workload for registrar staff, who must often reconcile incomplete or late data submissions (Parks, 2023). According to Douglass and Chirikov (2020), without a coordinated approach to staffing across departments, critical tasks like compliance reporting and accreditation processes are at risk, potentially jeopardizing the institution’s operational efficiency and compliance efforts.

Strain on Student Life and Support Services

The strain between Student Life and Student Support Services also demonstrates how staffing shortages can impact student satisfaction and institutional cohesion. Both units are tasked with enhancing student well-being and success, yet shortages in one area often place additional burdens on the other. For instance, when limited staffing in student life reduces mental health and wellness programming, students often turn to support services like counseling, accessibility, and academic support for assistance. This additional workload can overwhelm support services, particularly in high-demand areas like accessibility services, where specialists already manage large caseloads (Basko, 2023). When students face long wait times or reduced support, it negatively impacts their academic performance and campus experience, increasing the risk of attrition.

Prioritization Imbalances and Their Effects on Institutional Culture

Prioritizing certain departments, such as IT and academic affairs, over critical support areas like the registrar’s office, student life, and student services can weaken workplace culture and degrade service quality. McKenna (2022) and Brantley & Shomaker (2021) highlight that an imbalance in departmental investment not only affects morale but also fragments the institution’s mission. Under-resourced areas, especially in student support and financial aid, directly affect student experience, leading to lower satisfaction and retention. Ensuring balanced investment across departments is crucial for maintaining a cohesive and effective institutional structure that supports both student success and staff well-being.

Consequences for Institutional Research and Strategic Planning

Institutional Research (IR) and Institutional Effectiveness (IE) teams rely on timely, accurate data from admissions, financial services, and student life units to support strategic planning. Staffing shortages in these departments can lead to incomplete or delayed data submissions, forcing IR teams to spend additional time cleaning or reformatting data (Morgan, 2024). This impedes IR’s capacity to provide actionable insights, making it more challenging for institutions to make proactive, data-informed decisions that adapt to evolving student needs.

Accreditation, Compliance, and Technology Integration Risks

Shortages in departments like financial aid and registrar offices pose significant risks for compliance and accreditation. These units contribute critical data for accreditation standards, and understaffing can lead to errors or delays that compromise institutional reputation and funding (HelioCampus, 2024; AACRAO, 2021). From my experience, a loss of staff in Institutional Research (IR) can force other units—such as Institutional Effectiveness, IT, the Registrar, and Academic Affairs—to absorb IR responsibilities. This redistribution places a significant burden on these units, as their staff must quickly and extensively learn key IR functions to ensure timely reporting, including IPEDS submissions, meeting internal timelines for program reviews, administering course evaluations, and providing various internal data and reports to other offices. Such pressures can disrupt regular operations within these departments and intensify burnout, as existing staff are stretched thin to meet compliance requirements.

Additionally, IT shortages delay the implementation of digital tools and self-service portals essential for enhancing the student experience and improving departmental efficiency (EDUCAUSE, 2024). Outdated technology, exacerbated by IT understaffing, causes delays in accessing crucial services, affecting student satisfaction and retention.

Strategies for Building Resilience in Cross-Departmental Staffing

To address these complex challenges, institutions could benefit from cross-training staff to support high-need areas during peak times. For instance, registrar staff trained in admissions could assist during enrollment periods, while admissions personnel could support financial aid inquiries as needed. Clark (2023) notes that flexible, cross-departmental staffing models create a resilient workforce capable of managing fluctuating demands, thus reducing the overall impact of staffing shortages. This approach not only mitigates staffing gaps but also fosters a more collaborative workplace culture, strengthening morale and reducing turnover across departments.

Strategies for Reducing Burnout and Enhancing Retention

Addressing these complex challenges requires a multifaceted approach to alleviate burnout and improve retention. Below are several actionable strategies backed by research and data from multiple sources.

  1. Flexible Work Arrangements
    Providing flexible work options has become essential to staff retention in higher education. Data from CUPA-HR indicate that 74% of higher ed employees prefer hybrid models, suggesting that institutions offering flexibility can improve retention rates (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). Flexible arrangements are especially valuable in IT departments, where remote work aligns with industry standards and helps retain specialized talent (EDUCAUSE, 2024). Additionally, flexible scheduling can benefit high-demand units such as financial aid and student support, where peak times often lead to high stress. Staggered shifts or compressed work weeks can provide relief during these periods and improve work-life balance.

    The AACRAO report further highlights the growing role of remote work in specific departments, with 63% of registrar offices now allowing remote work at least one day a week—a notable increase since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (AACRAO, 2021). This shift toward flexible work arrangements reflects broader workforce expectations and supports retention in roles that have historically been limited to on-site work. For registrar offices, remote work options are particularly valuable as they help to reduce burnout by giving employees a break from the physical office environment while allowing them to complete essential tasks from home.

    Implementing flexible work arrangements not only meets the evolving expectations of employees but also serves as a strategic advantage in retaining qualified staff in competitive fields. In high-demand areas, such as IT and registrar offices, where the complexity of tasks and regulatory demands have increased, flexibility offers a practical approach to balance workloads and support employee well-being. Institutions that adapt to these expectations may see lower turnover and improved staff morale, ultimately fostering a more resilient and engaged workforce across departments.

  2. Internal Talent Development Programs
    Internal development programs are critical for departments that face recruiting challenges. Registrar offices, for example, benefit from “grow-your-own” programs that train existing staff in the specialized skills needed for these roles (Pittinsky, 2019). These programs could include mentorship, job shadowing, and structured training sessions that allow junior employees to gain expertise from seasoned professionals. Additionally, expanding these programs to departments like Institutional Research and IT could help address skill gaps by building a workforce with the precise skills needed, reducing reliance on external hires.

    Programs tailored to recent graduates, particularly in areas like student life and enrollment, can also be highly effective. Institutions should recognize that these positions offer recent alumni valuable experience, serving as a stepping stone to further career growth, whether at the institution or elsewhere. By supporting these alumni in their professional journeys, institutions can build a reputation as an employer that prioritizes long-term professional growth, even beyond the institution. The Chronicle (Anft, 2021) notes that investing in internal growth fosters a sense of loyalty and institutional knowledge that is difficult to replicate with new hires.

  3. Culture of Care and Support
    Building a supportive campus culture that emphasizes transparent communication, trauma-informed leadership, and employee engagement is crucial for reducing turnover. Trauma-informed leadership recognizes the emotional and psychological impacts of trauma and stress on staff, helping leaders foster a culture of empathy, emotional safety, and responsiveness (Lynch, 2022). Trauma-informed practices encourage leaders to approach interactions with empathy and understanding, which can help reduce burnout by creating a supportive environment that acknowledges personal and professional challenges. These practices help institutions model a culture of respect and care, setting a positive tone that influences the broader workplace climate.

    Trauma-informed leaders also prioritize clear communication and openness in handling change, supporting teams with empathy while promoting psychological safety (Pillar, 2024). Initiatives such as regular check-ins, wellness resources, and promoting work-life balance through support systems can further enhance a culture of care. Building cross-departmental collaboration between student support services and student life fosters mutual support across departments, while campus-wide appreciation events, “employee well-being days,” and access to mental health resources contribute to a cohesive and supportive institutional environment.

  4. Professional Development and Succession Planning
    Investing in professional development and succession planning is essential as institutions prepare for an upcoming wave of retirements. The EDUCAUSE survey highlights that career advancement is a powerful retention tool, especially for roles like IT that require ongoing skill development (EDUCAUSE, 2024). Professional development programs should integrate agile and resilient strategies to prepare for turnover, acknowledging that factors like compensation and work flexibility may continue to drive retention challenges. An agile approach helps institutions anticipate transitions and build resilience, minimizing disruptions while still demonstrating a commitment to retaining talent. This proactive planning should not be seen as “giving up” on staff but rather as a strategy to manage inevitable transitions smoothly, reducing the strain on remaining staff.

    Long-term resilience also involves engaging staff in cross-departmental projects, which can improve job satisfaction by strengthening their sense of purpose and connection to the institution’s mission (McKenna, 2022). Offering opportunities for staff to participate in collaborative initiatives and work with colleagues across units fosters a more unified, mission-driven environment. Furthermore, creating clear pathways for employees to advance within the institution provides long-term stability and helps retain valuable institutional knowledge. Succession planning that emphasizes career pathways can empower staff, aligning their professional growth with institutional goals and enhancing their commitment to the organization over time (Douglass & Chirikov, 2020).

  5. Leveraging Non-Salary Benefits
    For institutions unable to compete on salary, leveraging benefits such as health insurance, retirement plans, and mental health resources can enhance retention. A CUPA-HR survey revealed that 75% of employees are satisfied with these benefits, which can be emphasized as part of a competitive retention package (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021). Expanding wellness resources, including mental health services, childcare support, and fitness programs, can improve work-life balance and reduce burnout. HelioCampus (2024) suggests that benefits aligned with employee needs, such as tuition discounts for employees or their families, can foster long-term commitment, especially in education-focused institutions where the mission aligns with employees’ personal values.

  6. Enhanced Cross-Training and Collaborative Staffing Models
    Cross-training employees to assist in high-need areas during peak times or in response to staffing shortages can reduce burnout and support staff resilience. For instance, cross-training registrar staff in admissions functions could allow for more adaptable staffing during enrollment periods, while admissions staff trained in financial aid basics could help manage high volumes of inquiries. Institutions should develop agile and resilient cross-training programs that recognize the potential for turnover while aiming to reduce disruptions. According to Clark (2023), institutions implementing flexible, collaborative staffing models create a versatile workforce that can adapt to shifting needs. This approach not only mitigates gaps caused by turnover but also fosters a culture of collaboration and mutual support across departments, strengthening morale and reducing turnover.

  7. Recognition and Rewards Programs
    Recognizing and rewarding staff contributions can be an effective way to improve morale and retention. Developing programs that celebrate accomplishments, such as “Employee of the Month” or “Service Awards” for milestone years, shows appreciation for dedicated service. Personalizing rewards based on individual or department contributions, such as additional time off or professional development stipends, demonstrates a commitment to valuing staff. According to Herget (2024), institutions that prioritize recognition create a positive workplace culture that promotes long-term loyalty and job satisfaction.

Final Thoughts

The challenges of staff turnover and burnout in higher education are complex and multifaceted, requiring both immediate actions and long-term strategies. High turnover rates and the strain on staff impact not only operational efficiency but also the quality of support available to students. These challenges call for a broad, inclusive approach that addresses the root causes of burnout, such as workload imbalances, limited professional development, and lack of flexibility in work arrangements.

Budget constraints driven by factors like reduced enrollment and economic pressures present a difficult reality for institutions, which often face downsized staff and increased workloads as a result. Rising compliance demands and structural changes further compound these pressures, making it challenging to provide adequate support without substantial financial investment. Yet, institutions that recognize the real challenges staff face and actively work to mitigate them, even within tight budgets, will be better positioned to retain talent and foster a resilient workforce. Failing to address these forces will likely lead to greater instability, as staff shortages and burnout continue to strain resources in an already challenging environment.

By adopting strategies that prioritize flexibility, institutions can accommodate the diverse needs of staff, especially in high-demand units such as IT and student support, where hybrid work models and staggered schedules can alleviate stress (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021; EDUCAUSE, 2024). Trauma-informed leadership principles, which emphasize empathy, psychological safety, and responsive communication, play a critical role in creating a supportive and inclusive environment that acknowledges the personal and professional challenges staff may face (Lynch, 2022). This approach helps to cultivate a campus culture that values and respects the contributions of all employees, fostering greater trust and job satisfaction across departments.

Investing in professional development, internal talent pipelines, and succession planning can strengthen institutional resilience by equipping staff with the skills they need to advance and by preparing for inevitable transitions. Programs that focus on “grow-your-own” models, mentorship, and structured cross-training help address skill gaps and reduce reliance on external hires, while also reinforcing a sense of belonging and long-term loyalty among staff (Pittinsky, 2019; Anft, 2021). Furthermore, recognizing the need for agile and resilient succession planning prepares institutions to handle turnover while minimizing disruption and ensuring continuity in critical roles (Douglass & Chirikov, 2020).

Cross-departmental collaboration is another essential component in addressing the effects of staffing shortages. When departments work together on shared initiatives, it enhances job satisfaction by fostering a sense of purpose and alignment with the institution’s mission (McKenna, 2022). Collaborative efforts between departments like Student Life and Student Support Services, as well as between Institutional Research and IT, strengthen operational efficiency and reduce the siloed structures that often lead to bottlenecks.

Lastly, leveraging non-salary benefits such as mental health resources, tuition support, and flexible scheduling can provide added value, especially in institutions that cannot compete with private-sector salaries. These benefits address the holistic needs of employees, supporting their work-life balance and personal growth, which in turn can reduce burnout and improve retention (Brantley & Shomaker, 2021; HelioCampus, 2024).

Through these combined strategies—flexibility, trauma-informed practices, professional growth, and collaborative culture—colleges and universities can build a resilient workforce prepared for future challenges. A sustained focus on retention will not only enhance operational stability and student experience but also help institutions fulfill their mission of fostering academic and personal growth. By proactively supporting staff well-being and engagement, higher education institutions can create an environment where both employees and students thrive, even as they navigate financial and operational constraints that may persist for years to come.

References

AACRAO. (2021). Registrars’ Office Staffing Size and Primary Responsibilities. American Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers.  Retrieved from: [https://www.aacrao.org/docs/default-source/research-docs/60-sec-surveys/nov-2021-60-second-survey-report-final.pdf?sfvrsn=5b65b30b_4]

Anft, M. (2021). The Staffing Crisis in Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Underwritten by Huron Consulting Group.

Basko, A. (2023, February 3). How to Close the Staffing Gap. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: [https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-close-the-staffing-gap]

Brantley, A., & Shomaker, R. (2021). Higher Education Workforce Challenges and Opportunities. College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. Retrieved from CUPA-HR.

Davis, M. (2022, November 28). How to Retain Your Best Staff Members. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved: [https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-retain-your-best-staff-members]

Clark, C. (2023, April 6). How Universities Can Tackle the Current Talent Shortage. Deloitte Insights. Retrieved from: [https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/multimedia/podcasts/higher-education-staffing.html]

CourseLoop. (2022, January 17). The Plight of Registrars in Higher Education Institutions, is it all Doom and Gloom?. LinkedIn. Retrieved from [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/plight-registrars-higher-education-institutions-all-doom-gloom-/ ]

Dean Dad. (2011, October 23). The Faculty-Staff Divide. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from [https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/faculty-staff-divide]

Douglass, J. A., & Chirikov, I. (2020, May 18). Refocusing institutional research on university needs. University World News. Retrieved from [https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200518114757175]

EDUCAUSE. (2024). The Challenges and Opportunities of Staffing in IT. Retrieved from: [https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/2024/the-it-leadership-workforce-in-higher-education-2024/the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-staffing]

Herget, A. (2024, January 2). Hiring Challenges Persist for Higher Ed. HigherEdJobs. Retrieved from: [https://www.higheredjobs.com/Articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=3758&Title=Hiring%20Challenges%20Persist%20for%20Higher%20Ed]  

HelioCampus. (2024). 3 challenges for institutional effectiveness in higher ed. HelioCampus. Retrieved from [https://www.heliocampus.com/resources/blogs/3-challenges-for-institutional-effectiveness-in-higher-ed]

Hoover, E. (2022, May 24). Financial-Aid Offices Are Short-Staffed — and Some Are ‘Drowning’ as a Result. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: [https://www.chronicle.com/article/financial-aid-offices-are-short-staffed-and-some-are-drowning-as-a-result]

Jussel, A. B., & Topitzes, D. (2022, December 5). How to Support Your Staff Beyond the Pandemic. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: [https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-support-your-staff-beyond-the-pandemic]

Kim, J. (2023, June 12). Future Labor Shortages and the University as a Workplace. Retrieved from: [https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/blogs/learning-innovation/2023/06/12/future-labor-shortages-and-university-workplace]

Lynch, J. (2022). Trauma-informed colleges begin with trauma-informed leadersHigher Education Today.

Morgan, B. (2024, January 11). The role of institutional research in shaping higher education. Marshall University Institutional Research and Planning. Retrieved from [https://www.marshall.edu/irp/2024/01/11/roleofirinhe/ ]

McClure, K. R. (2024, March 21). Your pay is terrible? You’re not alone. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from [https://www.chronicle.com/article/your-pay-is-terrible-youre-not-alone?sra=true]

McKenna, D. (2022, September 29). Five Thoughts on the Future of the Higher Ed Registrar. The Evolllution. Retrieved from: [https://evolllution.com/managing-institution/operations_efficiency/five-thoughts-on-the-future-of-the-higher-ed-registrar#:~:text=Put%20simply%2C%20registrars%20need%20to,it%20is%20up%20to%20us.]

Pittinsky, M. (2019, September 9). The Evolving Role of the University Registrar. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: [https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/09/10/changing-role-registrar-could-increasingly-transform-higher-education-opinion]

Parks, R. (2023, January 18). Understanding the New Landscape of the Registrar’s Office. The EvoLLLution. Retrieved from: [https://evolllution.com/attracting-students/enrollment_strategies/understanding-the-new-landscape-of-the-registrars-office]

Pillar, G. (2024). Building Resilient Leadership in Higher Education: Merging Trauma-Informed Practices with Key Presidential Competencies. Retried from [https://gregpillar.com/building-resilient-leadership-in-higher-education-merging-trauma-informed-practices-with-key-presidential-competencies/]

Querolo, N., Moran, D., & Patino, M. (2023, December 13). The Economics of Small US Colleges are Faltering. Bloomberg. Retrieved from: [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-us-higher-education-analysis/]

Ryder, J. J., Gunsalus, C. K., Luckman, E. A., & Burbules, N. C. (2023, November 29). Transforming Challenged Academic Units. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: [https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/2023/11/29/transforming-dysfunctional-departments-and-other-campus-units]

Beyond the Critique: A Nuanced Approach to Higher Education Reform for the Modern Learner

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

After reading F. Andrew Wolf Jr’s article, “Universities Are Doing Education Badly,” it’s clear that although some of the criticisms he raises hit the mark, there are others I do not fully agree with—whether it’s the foundation of the criticism itself or what specifically needs to be fixed. However, I do believe the solutions to all of them are far more nuanced than what is laid out in his article or what many may think. Having worked in higher education for over two decades, with more than 10 years in various administrative roles, I’ve seen firsthand the complexities universities face. While I agree with his call for better faculty preparation and the need for a curriculum revamp, there are key areas where my perspective diverges. This piece offers a more balanced take, focusing on the need to improve faculty training, emphasize lifelong learning, and make higher education more accessible to everyone.

Faculty Development and Training: Beyond Disciplinary Expertise

“College undergraduates spend time and money taking “general-education courses” under the guise that these will make their education, and therefore them, more “well-rounded.” Yet these courses offer only a superficial treatment of subjects that should have been mastered in high school. Given the testing results and dismal college-completion rate cited above, the only things that truly get “well-rounded” are the coffers into which student tuition money flows, amount to thousands of dollars’ worth of wasted time and effort” — Wolf (2024)

There is no doubt that teaching requires a distinct skill set that goes beyond disciplinary expertise. While universities often place a higher value on research, this leaves many faculty members unprepared to meet the diverse needs of their modern learners. The assumption that deep subject knowledge automatically translates to effective teaching is flawed (Berrett, 2012). Research and teaching demand different skill sets, and expertise in one doesn’t guarantee success in the other.

Recent data reveals that only one in five high school graduates is ready for college-level work (Manno, 2024). This underscores the critical need for faculty to be equipped with tools that support diverse modern learners with varying levels of academic readiness. Faculty need to adapt to the range of skills and preparedness that modern learners bring into the classroom, particularly as they face unique challenges.

Doctoral and master’s programs should focus on equipping future faculty with both research and teaching skills. Yet a study in agricultural disciplines found that 45% of graduate instructors had no formal teaching training, and only 23% received any training before they started teaching (Pillar, Karnok, & Thien, 2008). Faculty need structured pathways to develop these skills, but institutions must also provide ongoing professional development. It’s not enough to expect faculty to figure out how to teach while managing their research and service responsibilities.

The complexity of teaching is heightened by the increasing mental health challenges faced by today’s modern learners. Professors, particularly those on the tenure track, report feeling overwhelmed by the pressure to balance teaching, research, and service (Berrett, 2012). Universities must provide resources to support faculty in navigating these pressures. Addressing these needs means offering training in trauma-informed teaching and making mental health services for modern learners more accessible. Without better support for both faculty and modern learners, burnout and dropout rates will continue to rise.

Furthermore, Centers for Teaching and Learning (CTLs) offer valuable resources for improving pedagogy but are often underutilized. These programs should be mandatory, tied to measurable outcomes like modern learner success and retention, and linked to faculty evaluations (Pillar et al., 2008). This shift would not only improve teaching but also reduce faculty burnout, creating a better learning environment for modern learners.

Re-envisioning the Curriculum: Lifelong Learning and Cultivating Curiosity as the New Educational Paradigm

“College is where students should start to specialize in a course of study, having already acquired general knowledge in K-12… General course requirements that essentially reiterate high-school learning.” — Wolf (2024)

While the call to reduce general education requirements might appeal to some, it oversimplifies the true value of general education. General education isn’t just about rehashing high school content. This point made by Wolf is one where I completely disagree. Although there may be some overlap, the depth of exploration and critical thinking required in college-level general education is far greater. More importantly, general education is about developing durable skills—problem-solving, collaboration, and adaptability—that are essential for lifelong learning.

The modern learner is likely to change jobs—and even careers—multiple times. Higher education should not only produce experts in a discipline but also foster intellectual curiosity and the capacity for continuous learning. General education builds the flexibility and problem-solving skills necessary to navigate a rapidly changing workforce. The current job market demands more than just expertise in a single field; it requires individuals who can adapt to various roles and challenges. This is why it’s concerning that so many students enter college without the necessary workplace skills such as communication, organization, and professionalism. This gap in preparation, largely a result of an education system too focused on standardized testing and theory, only adds to the need for universities to address these deficits in their curriculum (Greene, 2024).

Job tenures have shortened, with fewer people staying in the same role for decades. In fact, individuals are now more likely to switch jobs frequently, further emphasizing the need for higher education to cultivate agility and transferable skills (Fox, 2022). A well-rounded education that focuses on both specialization and broad, interdisciplinary knowledge is critical to preparing modern learners for these shifts.

Moreover, while some modern learners may see general education as redundant, it offers opportunities to deepen critical thinking and engage with new ideas beyond their chosen field. General education provides room for modern learners to explore subjects that may lead to interdisciplinary connections or even career shifts. This broader intellectual foundation is crucial in a world that demands versatility. However, it’s important to recognize that many students arrive at college underprepared for this level of academic engagement. The deficiencies in K-12 education, exacerbated by an overreliance on standardized testing, leave many students lacking the critical thinking and autonomy needed for higher education success. Addressing these gaps requires universities to be intentional in how they design and deliver general education (Greene, 2024).

However, as general education models evolve—focusing more on interdisciplinary learning, experiential learning, and using learning communities—transferability becomes a challenge. Many modern learners transfer between institutions or take breaks from their education, and when general education requirements aren’t aligned, it complicates their journey. This is why creating opportunities for credit for prior learning and competency-based education is essential. Flexible pathways that allow modern learners to earn micro-credentials, certificates, or badges as they progress toward a degree can help them stay engaged and prevent them from stopping out altogether.

The current system still heavily favors those who enter college straight from high school. While improvements have been made for non-traditional learners, the 40 million-plus individuals in the U.S. who have some college education but no degree remain at a significant disadvantage. If universities want to serve the modern learner, they must adapt by creating more flexible, learner-centered systems.

In considering the influence of education reformers like John Dewey, it’s worth reflecting on how progressive education movements have shaped general education. Dewey’s focus on experiential learning and the holistic development of modern learners has had a lasting impact on how we approach curriculum design (Lynd, 1953). This remains relevant today as we seek to create learning experiences that go beyond rote memorization and foster critical thinking and curiosity in the modern learner.

The Heart and Head of Education: A Holistic Approach

“When a society associates education almost solely with fact-based knowledge, methods, standards, grades, diplomas, and degrees, it runs the risk of producing what C.S. Lewis called ‘men without chests.’ Without a belief in, and the teaching of, universal moral laws, we fail to educate the heart and are left with ‘educated’ (not enlightened) people who behave instinctually in their own self-interest.” — Wolf (2024)

While it’s true that higher education shouldn’t focus only on data and facts, it’s a stretch to say that intellectual development and emotional growth can’t or don’t coexist. The idea that universities are producing well-informed but emotionally detached individuals doesn’t reflect the evolving reality of today’s campuses. In fact, many institutions are making concerted efforts to blend both intellectual and emotional education, aiming to develop well-rounded modern learners who not only think critically but also lead with empathy.

For example, universities are increasingly integrating emotional intelligence, leadership, and ethical reasoning into their curriculums. These initiatives address the reality that modern learners need more than just academic knowledge to succeed in a world where empathy and emotional intelligence are essential skills. Leadership development programs, conflict resolution courses, and mentorship initiatives are becoming more common, offering structured opportunities for students to develop these “soft skills.”

Experiential learning and co-curricular programs play a big role in ensuring that modern learners grow both intellectually and emotionally. Programs like internships, community service, and study abroad offer learners the chance to apply their academic knowledge to real-world scenarios, encouraging them to think critically about their values and ethical choices. These experiences cultivate a deeper sense of social responsibility and empathy, qualities that are increasingly valued in both personal and professional contexts (Berrett, 2012).

In addition to these initiatives, trauma-informed leadership and trauma-informed pedagogies are becoming vital in supporting modern learners. These practices ensure that education addresses not only intellectual development but also the emotional and psychological well-being of students. Trauma-informed leadership acknowledges the prevalence of trauma and stress in academic environments and fosters a culture where students feel safe, supported, and empowered to succeed. By emphasizing empathy, emotional safety, and resilience, these leadership practices directly contribute to the emotional development of modern learners, complementing their academic growth (Pillar et al., 2023).

Trauma can have lasting impacts on the modern learner’s ability to engage with their learning environments. Trauma-informed practices are essential for creating supportive educational experiences that recognize and mitigate these impacts. When leaders and educators are equipped with these practices, they help cultivate resilient, emotionally intelligent individuals who are better prepared to thrive both in and out of the classroom (Pillar, 2024).

Research backs up this shift. Studies show that students who participate in programs aimed at developing emotional intelligence—such as peer mentoring or service-learning projects—not only feel more satisfied with their college experience but also perform better academically. Emotional intelligence has been shown to improve resilience, relationships, and academic success. For example, emotional intelligence is strongly linked to self-efficacy, motivation, and resilience, which mediate the positive effects on both psychological well-being and academic performance (Shengyao et al., 2024). This suggests that by supporting both the intellectual and emotional sides of education, universities are actually preparing students for a more successful life after graduation.

Instead of seeing intellectual and emotional education as opposing forces, the goal should be to create a balanced approach that fosters both. By combining rigorous academic learning with emotional and ethical growth, we can ensure that modern learners graduate not only well-educated but also equipped with the empathy and ethical grounding to lead meaningful lives. This holistic model of education is critical for preparing students to thrive in today’s complex and interconnected world.

Improving Accessibility and Affordability: More than Just Financial Aid

“Given the testing results and dismal college-completion rate cited above, the only things that truly get ‘well-rounded’ are the coffers into which student tuition money flows, amounting to thousands of dollars’ worth of wasted time and effort.” — Wolf (2024)

Affordability remains one of the most significant barriers to higher education, especially for low-income modern learners. Pell Grant recipients, a proxy for low-income modern learners, often face graduation rates below 40% at many institutions, underscoring the inadequacy of support systems designed to help these modern learners persist and graduate (Kotlikoff, 2022). As Gary Stocker, host of the College Viability podcast and creator of the College Viability app pointedly described, institutions with graduation rates below 50% often function more like “tuition collection agencies” than true educational institutions, emphasizing the systemic failure to support modern learner success (Costa, 2022).

True accessibility, however, involves more than just lowering tuition costs—it means creating more flexible pathways that accommodate the needs of modern learners. Online education, which has often been viewed as inferior to in-person learning, can offer the flexibility that many modern learners—especially those balancing work, family obligations, or financial constraints—need. But simply offering online courses is not enough. Universities must ensure their online programs are rigorous, engaging, and designed to prepare modern learners for success in both academic and professional environments. This is crucial because when done poorly, online education can reinforce existing disparities rather than mitigate them (Wolf, 2024).

Additionally, universities must better prepare modern learners for the realities of online learning, offering training in time management, self-discipline, and digital literacy. For low-income and underrepresented modern learners, who may already face numerous barriers, online education can serve as a lifeline—providing access to education that may not otherwise be feasible. However, this option is only viable if institutions invest in ensuring the quality and accessibility of these programs. The Colleges Where Low-Income Students Get the Highest ROI report also stresses that while some private nonprofit institutions, such as Georgetown and Stanford, offer a high return on investment (ROI) for low-income modern learners, these institutions enroll relatively few Pell Grant recipients, limiting access for the broader low-income population (Carnevale, Cheah, & Van Der Werf, 2022). It is surprising the number of institutions whose student body are comprised of 20, 30 or even 40% Pell-Grant eligible students and their graduation rates are below 40%.  This disparity highlights that the institutions most capable of providing significant economic mobility are often the least accessible to the populations that could benefit most.

Furthermore, the decline in educational outcomes in K-12 systems, as evidenced by the historic lows in national math and reading scores, raises significant concerns about how prepared modern learners are for college (Sparks, 2022). These failures in K-12 education call for stronger interventions in higher education, particularly regarding accessibility and modern learner support for those already at a disadvantage when entering college. Higher education institutions must play an active role in bridging these gaps, offering stronger pathways for college readiness through dual enrollment, bridge programs, and intentional collaborations with K-12 systems.

Strengthening Student Support Systems: Preventing Costly Failures

“The United States has a daunting 39-percent college dropout rate. Under-preparedness is surely to blame in large part.” — Wolf (2024)

To address the high dropout rates in higher education, strengthening support systems for modern learners must be a top priority. While modern learners may not always be academically unprepared, they often lack the financial or personal resources to persist. For example, a recent survey found that 58% of stopped-out modern learners cited financial struggles as their primary reason for not returning to school, even though 90% felt confident in their academic skills, such as math and critical thinking (Spitalniak, 2024). This statistic demonstrates that financial challenges, rather than just academic unpreparedness, are a significant barrier to modern learner persistence and success.

Beyond addressing financial challenges, universities need to recognize that a key factor in improving retention is fostering a strong sense of belonging for modern learners. Research shows that modern learners who feel a genuine sense of belonging on campus are more likely to persist and complete their degrees. As Doyle (2023) highlights, providing non-academic support—such as a modern learner’s sense of belonging, feeling that at least one faculty or staff member cares about them, and a representation of their culture or identity on campus—significantly enhances retention. When these factors are taken into account, predictive models for modern learner retention improve, highlighting the importance of the social and emotional dimensions of modern learner success. Therefore, retention strategies must go beyond academic interventions to include efforts to build connections and a supportive campus culture for modern learners.

Universities must also offer wraparound services that address not only academic needs but also financial, personal, and mental health challenges. Comprehensive modern learner support systems—including academic coaching, career advising, mental health services, and peer mentoring—are critical in helping modern learners navigate the complexities of higher education. These services ensure that modern learners can manage the multitude of challenges they face, increasing their chances of staying enrolled and graduating.

Creating more flexible pathways for modern learners who may not succeed immediately is a powerful strategy to address high dropout and stop-out rates. By making it easier for modern learners to re-engage with their education, institutions can help foster a lifelong appreciation for learning. Providing opportunities for modern learners to earn micro-credentials, stackable credits, or pursue competency-based education that contributes directly to their degree offers them tangible milestones. These smaller achievements can keep modern learners motivated, even if they face challenges along the way.

For low-income modern learners, who are disproportionately affected by financial pressures and more likely to stop out, these flexible pathways are especially crucial. Rather than viewing their education as an all-or-nothing proposition, modern learners can build their progress incrementally. This approach helps maintain momentum, empowering them to continue working toward their degree while managing personal, financial, or academic hurdles.

Additionally, by offering re-entry programs without penalizing modern learners for past academic difficulties, institutions can eliminate the stigma often associated with returning to college after stopping out or even not going straight into college out of high school. This welcoming and normalized approach creates a more inclusive educational environment, encouraging modern learners to see their educational journey as flexible and adaptive, rather than rigid and unforgiving. In doing so, universities can promote a culture of lifelong learning, where modern learners are supported in returning to their studies, regardless of how long they’ve been away (or how long they delayed starting).

By fostering an environment where modern learners are met where they are—both academically and personally —universities can better serve modern learners, particularly those from marginalized or underrepresented backgrounds. Faculty must also adapt to this changing landscape, using teaching methods and course designs that acknowledge the diversity of experiences and academic readiness that modern learners bring to the classroom. In doing so, institutions will not only improve graduation rates but also ensure that modern learners leave with the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in an increasingly competitive and unpredictable world.

Final Thoughts: A Call for a Balanced Reform

The challenges facing higher education today are significant and demand thoughtful, well-rounded solutions. While many of Wolf’s critiques hold weight, the issue(s) at hand and solutions require a more nuanced, multifaceted, and comprehensive understanding and approach. This certainly doesn’t mean that potential solutions have to be complex and in fact, I would argue they need to be as practical and straightforward as possible to navigate the change management needed for all involved. Universities must do a better job of preparing faculty to teach, re-envision their curricula to emphasize lifelong learning and curiosity, improve accessibility, and strengthen support systems for modern learners. These reforms are not quick fixes, but they are necessary if we are to truly serve the needs of modern learners and ensure their success in an ever-changing world.

Faculty development cannot remain solely focused on disciplinary expertise. It must also foster effective teaching skills and equip educators to meet the diverse needs of modern learners. Curricula need to evolve beyond a narrow focus on major-specific courses to emphasize the development of durable, transferable skills that promote intellectual curiosity and adaptability—traits essential for lifelong learning. Faculty at all levels of experience and expertise should make a serious commitment to developing their teaching skills throughout their careers, not just during the tenure-track period. As the needs, abilities, skills, and challenges of the modern learner evolve, so too must faculty adapt their teaching practices. Universities must put greater emphasis and resources into developing faculty teaching skills, while faculty themselves must take this responsibility seriously to ensure they are meeting the needs of the modern learner and creating more effective learning environments.

In addition to improving teaching and curriculum, universities must prioritize accessibility by creating more flexible pathways that meet modern learners where they are. Offering micro-credentials, stackable credits, and competency-based education can provide modern learners with the tools to progress at their own pace while recognizing and rewarding their achievements along the way. These strategies will be particularly impactful for low-income and non-traditional modern learners, for whom financial barriers and personal obligations often create challenges to degree completion.

Equally important is the need to strengthen modern learner support systems. A sense of belonging, as Jeff Doyle points out, is crucial for retention and modern learner success. Universities must address both academic and non-academic challenges by providing wraparound services that encompass mental health, career advising, financial counseling, and peer mentoring. Only by addressing the full spectrum of modern learner needs can we hope to reduce dropout rates and ensure that more modern learners succeed.

Ultimately, higher education must adapt to the realities of the modern world, balancing the need for academic rigor with the flexibility and support necessary to guide modern learners toward success. By implementing these reforms, universities can foster an environment where modern learners are not only prepared for their immediate futures but are equipped with the curiosity, resilience, and lifelong learning skills needed to thrive in an ever-changing global landscape.

References

Berrett, D. (2012, October 24). Today’s faculty: Stressed and focused on teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/todays-faculty-stressed-focused-on-teaching-and-undeterred-by-long-odds/

Carnevale, A. P., Cheah, B., & Van Der Werf, M. (2022). The Colleges Where Low-Income Students Get the Highest ROI. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/lowincome/ 

Costa, N. (2022). The deadweight loss of college general education requirements. Michigan Journal of Economics. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/04/19/the-deadweight-loss-of-college-general-education-requirements/ 

Doyle, J. (2023, November 28). The billion-dollar result from seeing student success in a new way. Deep Thoughts on Higher Ed. https://deepthoughtshed.com/2023/11/28/the-billion-dollar-result-from-seeing-student-success-in-a-new-way/

Fox, J. (2022, October 17). Haven’t worked at the same place for 10 years? Join the club. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-10-17/haven-t-worked-at-the-same-place-for-10-years-join-the-club?srnd=phx-economics-v2 

Greene, P. (2024). Neither College Nor Career Ready. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2024/10/02/neither-college-nor-career-ready/

Kotlikoff, L. J. (2022). ‘Don’t borrow for college,’ warns Harvard economist. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/dont-borrow-for-college-warns-harvard-trained-economist-why-he-says-its-a-waste-of-money.html

Ladany, N. (2024, September 24). Behind the curtain of higher education: Faculty aren’t trained. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasladany/2024/09/24/behind-the-curtain-of-higher-education-faculty-arent-trained/

Lynd, A. (1953). Who wants progressive education? The influence of John Dewey on the public schools. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1953/04/who-wants-progressive-education-the-influence-of-john-dewey-on-the-public-schools/640458/

Magnet, P. (2022). Western education has collapsed, and no one wants to admit it. Medium. https://medium.com/illumination/western-education-has-collapsed-and-no-one-wants-to-admit-it-f192e740a8bb

Manno, B. V. (2024). Are high school graduates ready for college? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brunomanno/2024/05/28/are-high-school-graduates-ready-for-college/

Pillar, G. D. (2024). Building Resilient Leadership in Higher Education: Merging Trauma-Informed Practices with Key Presidential Competencies. https://gregpillar.com/building-resilient-leadership-in-higher-education-merging-trauma-informed-practices-with-key-presidential-competencies/

Pillar, G. D., Karnok, K. J., & Thien, S. J. (2008). Perceptions, utilization, and training of graduate student teaching assistants in introductory soil science courses: Survey results. NACTA Journal, 52(3), 24-32.

Pillar, G., Rutstein-Riley, A., Meriwether, J., Lawler-Sagarin, K., Ayabe, J., Nimmo, S., Fallon, A. M., Hoover, C., & Boules, R. (2023). Trauma-informed leadership: From awareness to action. AALI Senior Leadership Academy.

Sayers, D. L. (2024). The lost tools of learning. Association of Classical Christian Schools. https://classicalchristian.org/the-lost-tools-of-learning-dorothy-sayers/

Shengyao, Y., Xuefen, L., Jenatabadi, H. S., Samsudin, N., & Ishak, Z. (2024). Emotional intelligence impact on academic achievement and psychological well-being among university students: The mediating role of positive psychological characteristics. BMC Psychology, 12(389). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01886-4

Sparks, S. D. (2022). Two decades of progress, nearly gone: National math, reading scores hit historic lows. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/two-decades-of-progress-nearly-gone-national-math-reading-scores-hit-historic-lows/2022/10

Spitalniak, L. (2024, October 16). Stopped-out students are confident in their academic skills—but financial concerns remain. Higher Ed Dive. https://www.highereddive.com/news/stopped-out-students-confident-academic-skills-financial-concerns-survey/653066/

Wolf, G. (2024). Universities are doing education badly. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2024/10/universities-are-doing-education-badly/

Ideas for Future Discussions and Writings

As I continue to explore the evolving landscape of higher education, several key areas deserve deeper attention. Below are a few ideas for future discussions and potential articles that build on the themes touched upon in this piece. If any of these resonate with you, or if you’d be interested in discussing or collaborating on an article, I’d love to hear from you.

  1. The Future of Faculty Development: Training Educators for a New Era This piece could delve into what a modernized faculty development program looks like in practice. How can universities better prepare educators to teach diverse, multi-generational, and often underprepared learners? What role should technology play in teacher training? The discussion could explore mandatory pedagogical development, the role of Centers for Teaching and Learning, and the importance of trauma-informed teaching practices.
  2. Beyond Major-Specific Learning: Building a Curriculum for Lifelong Adaptability Expanding on the idea of lifelong learning, this article could explore how universities can create curricula that balance deep disciplinary knowledge with broad, adaptable skills like problem-solving, communication, and digital literacy. It could examine real-world examples of institutions that have successfully integrated interdisciplinary studies and experiential learning into their programs and look at the long-term benefits for graduates.
  3. Addressing the Financial Barriers in Higher Education: Flexible Pathways and Micro-Credentials This discussion could take a deeper look into how financial barriers disproportionately affect low-income students and non-traditional learners. It would expand on the idea of creating flexible educational pathways, exploring case studies of institutions that have successfully implemented micro-credentials, competency-based education, and stackable credits to keep students engaged and help them return to education after stopping out.
  4. The Role of Belonging in Student Success: Moving Beyond Academic Metrics Building on Jeff Doyle’s insights into the importance of non-academic factors like belonging, this article could dive deeper into how universities can cultivate a sense of belonging to improve retention and graduation rates. It could explore the specific initiatives schools have implemented to enhance student engagement outside the classroom and how these contribute to measurable success outcomes.
  5. Improving Retention and Graduation Rates for Low-Income and Underrepresented Students This piece could focus on the systemic challenges that low-income and underrepresented students face in completing their degrees. It would explore the key interventions needed to address the financial, social, and academic barriers preventing these students from succeeding. Strategies like enhanced financial aid advising, mentorship programs, expanded support services, and initiatives that foster a sense of belonging could be examined in depth. The article could also highlight successful models from institutions that have significantly improved retention and graduation rates among these student populations.
  6. Reimagining the General Education Model: Preparing Modern Learners for a Dynamic Workforce This idea would explore the tension between traditional general education models and the needs of modern learners. Should general education be replaced with more career-focused, skills-based learning? How can universities maintain the value of a broad education while ensuring it’s relevant and practical for today’s rapidly changing job market? The article could provide examples of innovative general education programs that prepare students for real-world challenges.
  7. Bridging the Gap Between K-12 and Higher Education: Building Partnerships for Better College Preparedness An in-depth look at the critical role of K-12 partnerships in improving college readiness. This article could explore how dual enrollment, bridge programs, and collaborative efforts between universities and high schools can better prepare students for the academic rigor of higher education, especially for underserved and underrepresented populations. It could highlight successful programs that have made measurable impacts on college persistence and completion rates.

These topics not only build upon the current discussion but also open the door for fresh perspectives on how we can shape higher education to better meet the needs of all learners. I look forward to exploring these ideas further and encourage any collaborations that could bring these concepts to life.

Building Resilient Leadership in Higher Education: Merging Trauma-Informed Practices with Key Presidential Competencies

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Higher education leadership has grown increasingly complex, with university and college presidents facing a range of multifaceted challenges. These include political pressures, declining enrollments, questions around the return on investment (ROI) of a college education, and growing scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. In addition, the already demanding role of college presidents is made more difficult by a notable trend: the average tenure of a college president has steadily decreased. According to recent research, the average tenure of a college president was 5.9 years in 2022, down from 6.5 years in 2016 and 8.5 years in 2008 (Sandler, 2024). Furthermore, more than 55% of current presidents plan to step down within the next five years, underscoring the pressure-filled nature of the job (Sandler, 2024).

This growing complexity was captured in a national study on presidential leadership, led by Jorge Burmicky and Kevin McClure, in partnership with Academic Search, the American Academic Leadership Institute (AALI), the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), and the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC). The study surveyed over 700 sitting college and university presidents and conducted focus groups with 14 current presidents to identify the key competencies necessary for success in today’s higher education landscape (Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu, 2024). Seven core competencies emerged from the research: trust-building, resilience, communication, crafting and leading a competent team, emotional intelligence, courage, and data acumen. The study highlighted that trust-building was deemed “very relevant” by 96% of survey respondents, while resilience and communication were rated as crucial by 92% and 90%, respectively. These competencies empower leaders to guide their institutions through challenges and change, making them well-suited to navigate both the immediate demands and long-term strategic goals of modern higher education. Trauma-informed leadership offers a complementary framework that intersects with these core competencies, enhancing their impact and ensuring leaders can address both the structural and emotional needs of their institutions.

The increasing complexity of the presidency has made it essential for senior leaders to model these competencies effectively, as their behaviors directly shape the attitudes and actions of their teams and influence the broader institutional culture. Good and bad habits/behaviors alike are projected throughout a division and campus, heavily impacting the campus climate. Leadership decisions, particularly those that are politically sensitive or unpopular, can often lead to early departures, as reflected in the shortening tenures of presidents. Yet, leaders who prioritize building trust and resilience and who communicate with empathy are better equipped to navigate the turbulent landscape of higher education today.

Overview of Core Leadership Competencies in Higher Education

The seven key competencies for university presidents are essential not only for presidents but also for leaders across all institutional levels. These competencies form the foundation of leadership, regardless of the specific position held. By embodying these behaviors, leaders set a powerful example that permeates throughout the institution, influencing the actions and attitudes of other leaders, staff, and faculty. This, in turn, impacts the student experience and their success, either directly or indirectly.

As McClure noted during a recent webinar sharing their findings, “What does it look like to be an effective college president? What are the skills and abilities that we ought to be looking for or trying to develop in emerging leaders?” (Academic Search, 2024). This insight highlights the need for a holistic and inclusive leadership development approach that integrates empathy, resilience, and mindfulness of the emotional and psychological needs of team members.

Given the wide range of challenges higher education institutions face, from political pressures to enrollment declines, integrating these competencies across leadership roles can enhance the institution’s ability to navigate change effectively while preparing leaders for the future. However, as leadership evolves to meet these challenges, another critical approach is emerging: trauma-informed leadership. This approach connects seamlessly with the seven core competencies, as trauma-informed practices amplify their effectiveness, particularly during times of institutional transition.

Connecting Trauma-Informed Leadership to Core Competencies

Trauma-informed leadership focuses on recognizing the emotional and psychological impacts of trauma and stress on individuals within an organization. The stress and trauma may be from work-related or personal experiences. By fostering emotional safety and emphasizing empathy, trauma-informed leadership enhances each of the core leadership competencies, particularly in times of change or stress. As the demands on higher education leaders grow more complex, understanding how trauma-informed practices can amplify key competencies will be essential for building resilient, compassionate, and effective leadership.

Moreover, leaders who embody trauma-informed practices not only enhance their own effectiveness but also influence the broader organizational culture. Their behaviors can encourage or discourage similar practices among others, thereby shaping the institution’s collective approach to challenges.

Defining Trauma-Informed Leadership

Trauma-informed leadership acknowledges the prevalence of trauma and stress within academic institutions and seeks to create environments where individuals—students, faculty, and staff—feel safe, supported, and empowered to succeed. As noted by Jason Lynch (2022), trauma-informed leaders actively foster emotional safety and recognize how unaddressed trauma can hinder engagement, performance, and resilience. This leadership style encourages an empathetic approach to management, particularly when addressing organizational changes or challenges.

Trauma-informed leadership goes beyond merely recognizing trauma; it involves proactive measures to support healing and growth. This may include providing resources for mental health, fostering a culture of open communication, and ensuring that institutional policies reflect a commitment to emotional well-being. In this way, trauma-informed leadership not only addresses the immediate effects of trauma but also builds long-term institutional resilience by promoting a culture of care.

The Intersection of Trauma-Informed Leadership with Key Competencies

Trauma-informed leadership recognizes the presence and impact of trauma in individuals’ lives and integrates this understanding into organizational practices, policies, and culture. By emphasizing empathy, safety, and support, this leadership style enhances each of the seven key competencies identified by Burmicky and McClure, amplifying their effectiveness and fostering an environment where all members can thrive.

  • Trust-Building:Trauma-informed leaders prioritize creating a safe and transparent environment. They understand that past traumas can affect how individuals perceive authority and trust. By promoting emotional and psychological safety through consistent communication, reliability, and respect for confidentiality, leaders foster a sense of security. This approach encourages open dialogue and reduces fear of judgment or retribution, thereby strengthening trust within the organization.
  • Resilience: Recognizing the impact of stress and trauma on well-being, trauma-informed leaders actively promote resilience by supporting self-care and offering resources for mental and physical health. They encourage autonomy and empower employees by involving them in decision-making processes. By acknowledging and addressing signs of burnout or stress, leaders help their teams adapt to challenges more effectively, balancing institutional needs with the well-being of team members.
  • Communication: Trauma-informed leaders communicate with empathy and cultural sensitivity, tailoring their messages to consider the emotional and psychological states of their audience. They ensure that communication is inclusive and respects diverse backgrounds and experiences. By fostering psychological safety, leaders encourage open and honest conversations, which enhances understanding and collaboration across the institution.
  • Crafting and Leading a Competent Team:  Emphasizing empowerment and choice, trauma-informed leaders build teams that are both competent and collaborative. They promote peer support and mentorship, fostering an environment where team members feel valued and supported. By implementing inclusive practices and acknowledging diverse experiences, leaders cultivate creativity and innovation within their teams. This approach leads to more resilient teams capable of addressing complex challenges.
  • Emotional Intelligence: Trauma-informed leadership inherently involves a high level of emotional intelligence. Leaders are attuned to the emotional and psychological needs of others, recognizing signs of trauma or stress. This awareness allows them to respond appropriately, offering support and resources when needed. By modeling empathy and understanding, leaders create a culture that values emotional well-being, strengthening interpersonal relationships and team cohesion.
  • Courage: Addressing systemic inequities and fostering an inclusive environment requires courageous leadership. Trauma-informed leaders are willing to confront injustice and make difficult decisions that prioritize the well-being and safety of all individuals. They understand the potential personal and professional risks involved, such as facing backlash or jeopardizing their positions. Nevertheless, they act with integrity and empathy, promoting ethical standards and supporting those who have experienced trauma or discrimination.
  • Data Acumen:  While data-driven decision-making is essential, trauma-informed leaders interpret data through the lens of human experience. They recognize that performance metrics may be influenced by factors such as stress, trauma, or mental health challenges. By contextualizing data with an understanding of these factors, leaders make more compassionate and informed decisions. This approach ensures that policies and strategies address not just numerical outcomes but also the underlying human elements that affect those outcomes.

By integrating trauma-informed practices into each of these competencies, leaders enhance their ability to support their teams effectively. This holistic approach leads to a more inclusive, empathetic, and resilient organizational culture, where individuals are empowered, and the institution is better equipped to navigate challenges and change.

Trust-Building in Challenging Situations

Trust is foundational to effective leadership at all levels. The study revealed that 96% of respondents emphasized trust-building as essential for leadership (Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu, 2024). Trust is built through transparency, predictability, and consistent communication. Leaders must cultivate environments where individuals feel safe to express concerns, share ideas, and take risks without fear of negative repercussions.

McClure explained that trust is established by “avoiding those moments of surprise… and being transparent and bringing information forward in meaningful ways” (Academic Search, 2024). This openness fosters confidence and collaboration, essential in challenging situations.

However, maintaining transparency is not always feasible, especially when legal, ethical, or confidential matters are involved. These constraints can undermine trust, requiring leaders to be intentional and strategic in how they communicate such limitations. Even when full disclosure isn’t possible, honesty about why transparency cannot be achieved helps mitigate the risk of damaging trust.

Leaders play a critical role in modeling trust-building behaviors. Their approach to transparency and communication sets the tone for the entire institution. If they handle constraints with honesty and integrity, it encourages a culture where trust is maintained even under challenging circumstances. Conversely, if they handle these situations poorly, it can lead to a culture of mistrust.

Resilience: Leading Through Challenges and Change

Resilience is critical for leadership, especially as higher education faces continual disruption and challenges. As I discussed in my article “Tradition to Transformation: The Need and Urgency in Navigating Change in Higher Education Institutions,” change is inevitable but often met with resistance (Pillar, 2024b). Resilient leaders adapt quickly, manage resistance, and maintain a forward-focused trajectory even through adversity.

To foster resilience, leaders must sometimes “ease on the gas” and balance urgency with strategic patience. Leading through challenges and change doesn’t mean always pushing forward at full speed. Instead, resilience often involves taking time to ensure the well-being and care of your team, recognizing that an overemphasis on urgency can lead to burnout.

When leaders demonstrate this balance, they set a precedent that supports a healthier work environment. This behavior influences others to adopt similar practices, promoting a culture that values both performance and well-being.

However, it’s important to recognize that making necessary but unpopular decisions can carry personal risks for leaders, including the possibility of early departure from their roles. This reality can make it more difficult for leaders to act courageously, but it also underscores the importance of resilience—not just in enduring challenges but in being willing to face potential personal costs for the greater good of the institution.

Effective Communication: Tailoring Messages with Empathy

Effective communication is critical for leadership, especially during times of challenge or change. The ability to deliver clear, actionable messages while considering the emotional and psychological state of the audience ensures that information resonates and builds trust. As McClure noted, “Leaders must tailor their messages for different audiences and use data to tell compelling stories” (Academic Search, 2024).

However, leaders must also be careful that their communication, while empathetic, is not perceived as condescending. As Sage Godrei points out, empathy can sometimes unintentionally come across as patronizing if not expressed thoughtfully. For example, offering unsolicited advice or presuming to understand someone’s feelings without fully engaging with their perspective can create a sense of superiority, making the recipient feel unheard or invalidated (Godrei, 2023). This underscores the importance of active listening and asking questions to clarify the emotional state of team members rather than assuming how they feel.

Trauma-informed leaders understand that communication must be both clear and empathetic, avoiding any tones that might be perceived as dismissive or patronizing. When dealing with stress or challenges, team members may require more personalized communication that takes into account their emotional state. Additionally, respecting the views and insights of others, even if outside your immediate office or division, is vital for meeting key outcomes. Dismissing someone’s perspective simply because they do not report directly to you can deteriorate collaboration and damage workplace and campus climate.

Godrei emphasizes that empathy should focus on understanding, not judgment. Leaders should avoid positioning themselves as the sole authority on how others should feel or respond. Instead, they should foster an environment where feedback and emotional expressions are welcomed and validated (Godrei, 2023). This approach not only fosters a more supportive and understanding organizational climate but also builds stronger relationships among colleagues, ultimately leading to more effective teamwork and a more cohesive institution.

Being mindful of one’s own behaviors and communication practices is essential in avoiding condescension. By leading with genuine curiosity, asking questions, and showing respect for the experiences of others, leaders can avoid potential pitfalls and create a space where communication flows freely and respectfully.

Diverse Leadership Styles Based on Identity

A significant finding in the study was how leadership styles differ based on identity. Women and people of color often emphasize emotional intelligence, equity, and collaborative leadership, bringing new dimensions to decision-making and problem-solving (Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu, 2024). These diverse perspectives are invaluable in today’s complex educational environment.

Trauma-informed leadership recognizes the value of diverse leadership styles, using them to build more inclusive, emotionally intelligent environments. Institutions benefit when their leaders leverage different perspectives to foster collaboration and make innovative decisions.

Campus leaders who embrace and model appreciation for diverse leadership styles encourage a culture that values inclusivity and equity. This modeling can help spread positive behaviors throughout the institution, impacting campus culture and climate positively.

Crafting and Leading a Competent, Collaborative Team

Leadership success is inherently linked to the ability to build and sustain competent, collaborative teams. For college presidents and senior leaders, assembling empowered teams that can execute institutional strategy is critical. In “Leading from the Heart of Higher Education,” I emphasized how collaboration and breaking down silos drive institutional progress (Pillar, 2024a). Middle leaders, such as associate provosts, deans, and directors, play a crucial role in translating high-level strategic vision into actionable plans (Pillar, 2024a). These leaders serve as the bridge between senior leadership and the day-to-day operations that ensure institutional success.

Building and sustaining teams requires both top-down and bottom-up efforts. Trust and open communication set the tone for collaboration, empowering team members to take ownership of institutional goals. Positive leadership behaviors, particularly those that foster transparency and collaboration, can cascade through departments, influencing the entire institution. Conversely, negative behaviors can disrupt institutional culture, leading to disengagement and inefficiency.

Building and Empowering Collaborative Cabinets

The study by Burmicky, McClure, & Ryu (2024) highlighted the importance of assembling diverse and collaborative cabinets at the presidential level. College presidents must draw from a variety of perspectives and experiences to ensure that leadership teams are well-rounded and capable of addressing challenges from multiple angles. This diversity within the cabinet creates an adaptable and innovative leadership environment, where different viewpoints contribute to stronger decision-making processes. However, this collaborative approach should extend beyond the senior cabinet. It’s equally important that collaboration permeates throughout the institution, fostering a culture where leaders and teams at all levels work together toward common goals.

By empowering collaborative cabinets and encouraging diverse input from across the organization, leaders can more effectively manage the complexities of higher education. This inclusive approach ensures that multiple perspectives are considered, leading to more robust solutions and a more cohesive strategy for institutional success.

Empowering Teams at All Leadership Levels

Empowering diverse teams across all leadership levels—including vice presidents, deans, directors, and mid-level managers—creates a ripple effect of accountability, innovation, and inclusivity. When senior leaders embrace collaboration, they set the tone for others across the institution. Their behaviors, whether positive or negative, can significantly impact the campus culture. Good habits like inclusivity and empowerment foster a more engaged and effective workforce, while negative behaviors can lead to a detrimental atmosphere.

Trauma-Informed Team Building

Trauma-informed leadership enhances team-building by acknowledging the emotional and psychological experiences of team members. Leaders who recognize these needs foster environments where team members feel valued, safe, and heard. This approach not only strengthens teams but also encourages innovation and creativity. In “Tradition to Transformation,” I explored how resistance to change often stems from fear and emotional reactions (Pillar, 2024b). Leaders who adopt trauma-informed practices help alleviate these barriers, promoting open communication and a culture of trust that fosters collaboration.

Clear communication and emotional intelligence, as explored in “Data-Informed Leadership in Higher Education,” are essential for ensuring that decisions—especially those driven by data—are implemented smoothly across departments (Pillar, 2024a). When leaders provide clarity and foster a supportive environment, they enable cross-functional collaboration and reduce friction that often arises during institutional change.

In times of disruption, whether due to financial pressures or declining enrollments, maintaining team cohesion becomes even more important. Trauma-informed leadership helps sustain teams by providing emotional support and fostering resilience. Leaders who understand the emotional landscape of their teams can better guide them through periods of uncertainty, encouraging adaptability and long-term collaboration. As I noted in “Tradition to Transformation,” balancing the urgency of institutional change with strategic patience is vital (Pillar, 2024b). This balance helps maintain team morale while ensuring that change initiatives are effective and sustainable.

In politically sensitive situations, leadership decisions can be particularly challenging. These moments often require courage, as decisions may be unpopular or involve significant risk. Leaders who are willing to make difficult but necessary decisions provide a powerful example for others, reinforcing a culture of integrity and collaboration. This demonstration of courage inspires teams to stay committed to institutional goals, even in the face of adversity (Pillar, 2024b).

Ultimately, the ability to craft and lead competent, collaborative teams hinges on the environment that leadership creates. By fostering open communication, embracing trauma-informed practices, and navigating change with resilience, leaders can build teams that are not only effective but also engaged and innovative. A collaborative, empowered leadership culture ensures that institutions are better equipped to handle complex challenges and drive long-term success.

Leading with Courage: Confronting Equity and Change

Courageous leadership is essential for navigating institutional change and confronting systemic inequities. Recent political attacks on DEI efforts illustrate the urgent need for leaders to demonstrate bravery by standing up for their institutions’ values. These challenges, particularly those involving diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), highlight the importance of maintaining a principled stance even when faced with external pressures. In “How College Leaders Can Stand Up for DEI Workers and Programs” (McClure & Gannon, 2024), the authors emphasize the challenges DEI professionals encounter, particularly in states where legislation has directly targeted and sought to dismantle DEI initiatives.

Courageous leadership means more than supporting DEI programs privately; it requires public advocacy and action that align with the institution’s mission and values. Leaders must resist the temptation to sideline these initiatives when they become politically charged, as doing so can undermine institutional integrity and alienate marginalized groups. By standing up for DEI programs, leaders set a powerful example for their colleagues, students, and the broader community, signaling that inclusivity and fairness are non-negotiable values.

However, it is also important to acknowledge the reality that standing up for DEI and other equity-driven initiatives can come with significant personal and professional risks. In politically charged environments, leaders who take strong, principled stands may face backlash that could lead to their early departure from leadership positions. This reality makes it more challenging for leaders to make necessary but unpopular decisions, as the fear of losing their position or facing public scrutiny can be a deterrent. Yet, courageous decisions often distinguish transformative leaders from those who merely maintain the status quo (Pillar, 2024b). The willingness to confront these risks is a hallmark of true leadership—leaders who stand firm in their values, despite the potential consequences, ensure that their institutions remain committed to inclusivity, justice, and integrity.

This courage also extends beyond DEI. Institutions face numerous politically sensitive issues, from funding debates to academic freedom challenges, and leaders must be prepared to make decisions that may not always be well-received. Ultimately, courageous leaders create a legacy of resilience and integrity, ensuring that their institutions can navigate turbulent times with their core values intact.

Data Acumen: Leveraging Human Context in Leadership

The ability to gather and use relevant data to inform decisions is critical across all leadership levels. In a data-driven world, leaders must not only rely on numbers but also interpret them with insight and empathy. As McClure noted, “You don’t need to be a numbers person to be a data person, but you must understand how to leverage your team’s skills to support data-driven decision-making” (Academic Search, 2024). Data can provide a roadmap for institutional success, but only when leaders understand how to balance quantitative insights with the complexities of human experiences. In “Data-Informed Leadership in Higher Education,” I emphasized the importance of robust data governance and decision-making processes that integrate both empirical evidence and the lived experiences of students, faculty, and staff (Pillar, 2024c).

Humanizing Data with Trauma-Informed Leadership

Trauma-informed leadership offers a powerful framework for interpreting and using data effectively. Leaders who understand how emotional and psychological stress impacts performance and retention can use this knowledge to interpret data with greater nuance. As Lynch (2022) pointed out, stress, trauma, and mental health challenges significantly affect outcomes in higher education. Retention rates, student performance metrics, and even faculty engagement numbers can be influenced by factors that raw data alone may not capture. By contextualizing data within the human experience, trauma-informed leaders ensure that their decision-making processes reflect a holistic understanding of the institution’s ecosystem.

For example, enrollment and retention data can provide insight into academic trends, but without considering the personal, emotional, or economic stressors impacting students, leaders may miss key opportunities for intervention and support. This is where campus surveys as well as the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) and National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) can provide very important context for noted trends and observations in retention, persistence, and graduation rates. However, significant delays or inaction to this data will only provide further negative impacts on clearly manageable challenges.

Leaders who embrace this approach model a compassionate, informed style of decision-making that encourages their teams to do the same. By prioritizing the human context behind the data, they foster a culture of empathy and accountability that drives more effective and sustainable outcomes. This approach not only leads to better decisions but also builds trust within the institution, as students, faculty, and staff feel seen and supported in their experiences.

Incorporating trauma-informed practices into data-driven leadership ensures that numbers are not just analyzed in isolation but are used as a tool for enhancing the overall well-being and success of the institution. Leaders who contextualize data with empathy lead with compassion, making decisions that are not only informed by statistics but also aligned with the lived realities of their institutional community.

Practical Steps for Implementing Trauma-Informed Leadership and Cultivating Key Leadership Competencies

Implementing trauma-informed leadership and cultivating key leadership competencies across all levels requires intentional, structured approaches. Leaders must recognize that creating an environment where individuals can thrive involves more than addressing academic needs—it also demands attention to emotional well-being, psychological safety, and inclusivity. Below are practical steps that can help institutions integrate trauma-informed practices into leadership and foster the necessary competencies for sustained success.

1. Foster Emotional Safety:

Creating a culture of emotional safety is essential for fostering trust and collaboration. This involves regularly assessing the emotional well-being of staff and students through check-ins, surveys, and feedback loops. Leaders should ensure that individuals feel comfortable sharing concerns without fear of retribution. Beyond simply listening, leaders must act on the feedback they receive, demonstrating a commitment to addressing the concerns of their community.

Example: A university president could introduce regular “well-being town halls” where students and staff discuss mental health resources and stress management. This allows leaders to assess the emotional climate and adapt policies to create a more supportive environment.

2. Offer Training and Resources:

Providing ongoing trauma-informed leadership training is critical to help faculty, staff, and administrators recognize signs of stress, trauma, and burnout in others. This training equips leaders with strategies for addressing these issues compassionately and effectively. Training should also be extended to all levels of leadership, not just senior administrators, ensuring that trauma-informed practices permeate the entire organization.

Example: Organize workshops on recognizing burnout in both faculty and students, led by mental health professionals. These workshops can be supplemented with online resources, such as self-assessment tools or guides on fostering resilience in students and teams. Additionally, offering training on how to manage crisis situations with empathy ensures that leaders are prepared to handle sensitive circumstances appropriately.

3. Promote Self-Care and Reflection:

Normalizing self-care and reflection within teams is vital to maintaining resilience in the face of challenges. Leaders should encourage team members to take mental health days, schedule regular breaks, and engage in reflective practices that allow them to process their emotions. By modeling these behaviors themselves, leaders signal that self-care is not just permissible but expected.

Example: A dean could implement “wellness breaks” within department meetings, where team members pause to engage in brief mindfulness exercises or discuss stress-management techniques. Additionally, offering faculty and staff access to workshops on mindfulness, yoga, or meditation can provide practical tools for self-care. Leaders can also foster reflection by incorporating debrief sessions after major projects or stressful periods, allowing teams to evaluate what went well and where improvements can be made.

4. Create Cross-Departmental Collaboration:

Trauma-informed leadership thrives when there is collaboration across various departments, particularly those that offer emotional, psychological, or academic support. Counseling services, academic departments, and diversity offices should work together to address the holistic needs of students and staff. Cross-departmental collaboration ensures that support services are well-integrated, enabling a seamless experience for individuals seeking help.

Example: An institution could create a task force composed of representatives from counseling services, the office of diversity and inclusion, and academic advisors. This group would meet regularly to discuss trends in student well-being and strategize on how to provide integrated support. Collaboration between student services and academic advisors can also ensure that students dealing with trauma or stress have flexible options when it comes to course loads and deadlines, thus promoting a healthier academic experience.

5. Model the Competencies:

Leaders play a pivotal role in modeling trauma-informed practices and key leadership competencies, including trust-building, resilience, effective communication, and emotional intelligence. When leaders actively demonstrate these behaviors, they set an example for mid-level leaders and staff to follow. This ripple effect can dramatically shape campus culture, either for better or worse, depending on the behaviors being modeled.

Example: A provost might host an open forum for faculty and staff where difficult topics, such as mental health challenges or institutional stressors, are openly discussed. By leading these conversations with empathy and transparency, the provost demonstrates trust-building and effective communication. When leaders acknowledge their own struggles or mistakes and share how they’ve overcome challenges, they model resilience and encourage similar behaviors throughout the institution.

6. Monitor and Adjust Strategies:

Monitoring the effectiveness of trauma-informed strategies is critical to ensuring they remain relevant and impactful. Using tools like workplace climate surveys, retention data, and performance metrics can provide insight into whether the implemented practices are yielding positive outcomes. Leaders must be willing to make adjustments based on this data, refining their strategies to meet the evolving needs of their institution.

Example: An institution could conduct an annual climate survey focused on emotional safety, inclusivity, and leadership effectiveness. The results of this survey would guide adjustments in leadership training, resource allocation, or policy changes. Additionally, tracking student retention rates in relation to mental health support initiatives can provide data on the impact of trauma-informed practices.

Additional Considerations:

  • Leaders should ensure that trauma-informed practices and leadership competencies are integrated into recruitment and onboarding processes. New hires should be introduced to these practices early on, setting expectations for a culture of support and collaboration.
  • Institutions can create mentorship programs where experienced trauma-informed leaders coach newer leaders in adopting and practicing these competencies. This builds leadership capacity across all levels of the institution.
  • Recognizing and celebrating team members who embody trauma-informed practices reinforces the importance of these behaviors. Public recognition or awards for individuals who exemplify leadership competencies can motivate others to follow suit.

By taking these concrete steps, institutions can foster an environment where trauma-informed leadership and key leadership competencies are not only embraced but become foundational to the institution’s culture. Leaders who prioritize emotional safety, model compassion, and encourage collaboration are well-positioned to cultivate resilient, engaged teams capable of navigating the complexities of higher education.

Conclusion

The competencies identified in the study—trust-building, resilience, communication, team-building, emotional intelligence, courage, and data acumen—are essential for leaders across all levels in higher education. Integrating trauma-informed leadership into these competencies enhances their effectiveness and relevance in today’s educational environment.

Leaders at all levels play a pivotal role in embodying these competencies. Their behaviors can positively or negatively impact campus culture and climate, influencing how others lead and interact within the institution. While taking courageous stands and making difficult decisions may carry personal risks, including the possibility of early departure, such actions are often necessary for the long-term well-being and integrity of the institution.

By developing and modeling these skills, we can create more resilient, compassionate, and effective institutions. The ripple effect of leadership’s actions underscores the importance of intentional, trauma-informed practices that not only address immediate challenges but also build a stronger, more cohesive organizational culture.

References