The Modern University: Strategic Inefficiency and the Politics of Delay (#654)
- Rick LeCouteur
- Jun 15
- 3 min read
When Process Replaces Answers
Delay.
Deflect.
Disappear.
Universities pride themselves on efficiency.
Strategic plans promise agility.
Administrators speak of innovation, responsiveness, and continuous improvement.
New committees are formed. New reporting structures are introduced. New dashboards measure performance.
And yet, when difficult questions are asked, something curious often happens.
The machinery slows.
Emails go unanswered. Questions are referred elsewhere. Committees acknowledge receipt but provide no substantive response. Requests disappear into procedural pathways. Weeks become months. Meetings are scheduled, postponed, and rescheduled. More information is requested. Additional reviews are required.
Nothing appears to be happening.
Or perhaps something is happening exactly as intended.
The writer and scholar Sara Ahmed describes this phenomenon as strategic inefficiency.
Her observation is both simple and profound:
Inefficiency can be remarkably efficient when its purpose is to protect institutions from accountability.
The appearance is disorder.
The outcome is consistency.
The uncomfortable question remains unanswered.
The person asking eventually becomes tired.
The institution moves on.
The Art of Running Out the Clock
Most people imagine power as something direct and visible.
A request is denied.
A proposal is rejected.
A complaint is dismissed.
But modern institutions have learned a subtler approach.
Why say “no" when delay can accomplish the same outcome?
Why risk controversy with a clear decision when endless process can produce silence instead?
In many organizations, difficult questions are not defeated by argument.
They are defeated by time.
The process itself becomes the answer.
A stakeholder asks for clarification regarding a decision.
A committee acknowledges receipt.
The matter is under review.
The matter remains under review.
The matter continues to be under review.
Eventually the question becomes old news.
Strategic inefficiency is not necessarily a conspiracy. It often requires no secret meetings and no explicit instructions. It emerges naturally in large bureaucracies where no individual feels responsible for providing a substantive answer.
Everyone follows procedure.
No one addresses the issue.
The Difference Between Procedure and Engagement
One of the defining characteristics of strategic inefficiency is the substitution of procedure for engagement.
The institution can always demonstrate that it followed the rules.
The committee met.
The memorandum was received.
The agenda was prepared.
The policy was followed.
The response was routed through the appropriate channels.
But stakeholders are often seeking something different.
They are not merely asking whether the rules were followed.
They are asking whether the underlying concerns were heard.
Procedural compliance can coexist with complete avoidance of the substantive issue.
Indeed, that may be its greatest strength.
A university can honestly claim that every process was followed while never answering the question that prompted the process in the first place.
The Modern University's Favorite Phrase
Perhaps the most powerful phrase in contemporary administration is:
Your concerns have been noted.
It sounds respectful.
It sounds professional.
It sounds responsive.
Yet it commits the institution to absolutely nothing.
Concerns may be noted indefinitely.
Questions may be acknowledged indefinitely.
Requests may be received indefinitely.
The appearance of engagement is preserved while substantive engagement is deferred.
The stakeholder leaves feeling heard.
The institution remains unchanged.
Why Persistence Matters
Strategic inefficiency depends upon a simple assumption:
Eventually the person asking the question will give up.
They will become distracted.
They will retire.
They will move on.
They will conclude that obtaining an answer is not worth the effort.
This assumption is often correct.
Most people have careers, families, and responsibilities. Few have unlimited time and energy to pursue a single issue.
But institutions sometimes make a mistake.
They occasionally encounter individuals who view silence not as an answer but as an invitation to continue asking.
History is full of examples where persistence ultimately proved more powerful than bureaucracy.
The passage of time favors institutions only when citizens, faculty, staff, students, alumni, and stakeholders allow it to.
The Public University and Public Trust
Public universities occupy a special place in society.
They are not private corporations.
They do not belong to donors.
They do not belong to administrators.
They do not belong to governing boards alone.
They are entrusted with a public mission.
That mission requires more than procedural compliance.
It requires transparency.
It requires accountability.
Most importantly, it requires a willingness to engage honestly with difficult questions.
When institutions respond to scrutiny with delay rather than dialogue, they may succeed in the short term.
But over time something valuable is lost.
Trust.
And once trust is diminished, no amount of procedural efficiency can restore it.
Final Thought
The genius of strategic inefficiency is that it rarely looks like resistance.
There are no barricades.
No declarations.
No obvious acts of censorship.
Only meetings. Committees. Reviews. Processes.
And time.
Lots of time.
The question for every stakeholder is therefore not whether the institution has responded.
The question is whether the institution has answered.
Those are not the same thing.
Recommended Reading
Strategic Inefficiency. https://feministkilljoys.com/2018/12/20/strategic-inefficiency/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Comments