# The Future of Work in Higher Education: Managerial Expansion and AI

## Expansion of Managerial Roles in Universities
**Bureaucratic Drift and Parkinson’s Law:** Organizational theorists have long observed that bureaucracies tend to expand independently of actual needs. Political scientists describe *bureaucratic drift* as the tendency of administrators to gradually shift an organization’s priorities and grow their own influence beyond the original mandate. Similarly, **Parkinson’s Law** satirically explains how bureaucracy swells: *“Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion,”* and thus *“an official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals”* ([Parkinson’s Law « Isegoria](https://www.isegoria.net/2014/01/parkinsons-law/#:~:text=Work%20expands%20so%20as%20to,to%20each%20other%20at%20all)). In other words, managers create more work (and more positions) for each other, even if the core workload doesn’t demand it ([Parkinson’s Law « Isegoria](https://www.isegoria.net/2014/01/parkinsons-law/#:~:text=,)). These dynamics suggest that once administrative roles appear, they naturally proliferate. Sociologist Max Weber noted that while bureaucracy brings efficiency and clarity, it can become an “iron cage” that traps individuals in rule-bound structures ([Max Weber: rationalisation and the iron cage of bureaucracy](https://revisesociology.com/2025/01/26/max-weber-rationalisation-and-the-iron-cage-of-bureaucracy/#:~:text=bureaucracy%20revisesociology,organizational%20goals%20over%20personal%20autonomy)). Weber warned that bureaucratic organizations, once established, prioritize their own continuity and growth, often at the expense of personal autonomy and creativity ([Max Weber: rationalisation and the iron cage of bureaucracy](https://revisesociology.com/2025/01/26/max-weber-rationalisation-and-the-iron-cage-of-bureaucracy/#:~:text=bureaucracy%20revisesociology,organizational%20goals%20over%20personal%20autonomy)). In the university context, this can manifest as ever-expanding layers of deans, directors, and staff even if student enrollment or academic output remains constant.

**Managerialism and New Public Management:** Since the 1980s, many universities (especially public institutions) have embraced **managerialism** and **New Public Management (NPM)** principles. These approaches import private-sector management techniques and values—efficiency, accountability, strategic planning—into higher education. Critics argue that this shift has *“aggrandized”* management itself, creating *“rapid middle level bureaucratization”* even as it claims to improve efficiency ([NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT Major Components and Salient Features – Jahangir's World Times](https://www.jworldtimes.com/old-site/css-exclusive/css-special/new-public-management-major-components-and-salient-features/#:~:text=b,in%20effect%20hampered%20public%20service)). NPM-inspired reforms often require new offices for quality assurance, compliance, marketing, and student services, which can enlarge the administrative apparatus. A key critique is that NPM’s focus on metrics and performance has extended the reach of managers into every aspect of university life. As one analysis put it, the outcome has been the rise of an *“elite group of new managerialists”* whose careers benefit from expanding administrative structures ([NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT Major Components and Salient Features – Jahangir's World Times](https://www.jworldtimes.com/old-site/css-exclusive/css-special/new-public-management-major-components-and-salient-features/#:~:text=cutting%20also%20sounds%20hollow%20as,in%20effect%20hampered%20public%20service)). In essence, managerialism can become an **ideology** within academia: administrators see managerial oversight as the solution to every problem, justifying continual growth of administrative roles. Research by Rosemary Deem and Kevin Brehony found that university managers often adopt the values of “new managerialism” in ways that cement *“relations of power and dominance”* within institutions ([ERIC - EJ719262 - Management as Ideology: The Case of "New Managerialism" in Higher Education, Oxford Review of Education, 2005-Jun](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ719262#:~:text=of%20,academics%20and%20help%20cement%20relations)). This suggests that a distinct **managerial class** has formed in higher education – a group with its own interests in maintaining and expanding its influence. While some administration is obviously necessary for complex universities, these theories help explain why the number of administrators tends to drift upward over time, sometimes faster than the academic programs they are meant to support.

**Drivers of Administrative Growth:** Empirical observers point to both external and internal causes for the expansion of university administration. External mandates like government regulations, accreditation requirements, and compliance needs certainly play a role. Universities must hire staff to handle reporting, financial aid regulations, campus safety rules, and more. For example, in the U.S., the Department of Education added dozens of new rules between 1997 and 2012, increasing the *“number of federal requirements placed on colleges and universities”* by 56% ([A "proliferation of administrators": faculty reflect on two decades of rapid expansion - Yale Daily News](https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-part-of-its-leadership-to-lead-yales-administration-increases-by-nearly-50-percent/#:~:text=Growing%20government%20requirements%20imposed%20on,%E2%80%9D)). Each new rule can necessitate additional oversight – hence more compliance officers, lawyers, and coordinators. However, many scholars argue that regulations only partly explain the trend. Often cited is the tendency of administrative entities to expand regardless of necessity – echoing Parkinson’s Law. In a Yale faculty survey, some professors noted that while bureaucracy grew under the pretext of external demands, *“the main driver has been the desire of administrators to accumulate power and influence within their institutions”* ([A "proliferation of administrators": faculty reflect on two decades of rapid expansion - Yale Daily News](https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-part-of-its-leadership-to-lead-yales-administration-increases-by-nearly-50-percent/#:~:text=However%2C%20Paul%20Campos%2C%20a%20professor,and%20influence%20within%20their%20institutions)). In other words, internal dynamics – such as competition among administrators for bigger portfolios or the ethos of managerialism – fuel much of the growth. This perspective suggests a self-reinforcing cycle: as more managers are hired, they find ways to justify their existence by introducing new initiatives, committees, and assessments, which in turn require more administrative support. Over time, tasks that faculty once handled collegially (curriculum decisions, personnel committees) might shift to professional staff, further expanding administrative scope. Theories like **bureaucratic imperialism** (a form of bureaucratic drift) note that administrators may subtly redefine university goals to emphasize things they control (strategic plans, branding, student “experience”), leading to mission creep that warrants even more staff. In summary, a mix of **institutional inertia**, external pressures, and managerial self-interest can explain why administrative roles have continuously multiplied in higher education.

## University Staffing Trends: Administrators vs Faculty
Multiple studies document the sharp rise in administrative staffing relative to faculty and students. In the United States, this pattern has been observed over several decades. One analysis found that **between 1975 and 2005** the number of *academic administrators* grew by about **85%**, and professional staff (advisors, technologists, etc.) by an astonishing **240%**, while full-time faculty numbers grew only about **51%** in the same period (['The Fall of the Faculty'](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/14/fall-faculty#:~:text=juxtaposes%20these%20with%20historical%20analysis,%E2%80%9D)). In other words, administrative and support personnel ballooned at **much faster rates** than teaching faculty (['The Fall of the Faculty'](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/14/fall-faculty#:~:text=juxtaposes%20these%20with%20historical%20analysis,%E2%80%9D)). Benjamin Ginsberg famously dubbed this trend the rise of the *“all-administrative university,”* warning that an “army of deanlets and deanlings” was shifting power away from professors and driving up costs (['The Fall of the Faculty'](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/14/fall-faculty#:~:text=Ginsberg%20bemoans%20the%20expansion%20over,sat%20squarely%20in%20their%20domain)) (['The Fall of the Faculty'](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/14/fall-faculty#:~:text=juxtaposes%20these%20with%20historical%20analysis,%E2%80%9D)). Data from specific institutions mirror this national picture. At Yale University, for instance, the **managerial and professional staff** count increased by about **45%** from 2003 to 2019, far outpacing undergraduate enrollment growth ([A "proliferation of administrators": faculty reflect on two decades of rapid expansion - Yale Daily News](https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-part-of-its-leadership-to-lead-yales-administration-increases-by-nearly-50-percent/#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%20two%20decades%2C,according%20to%20eight%20faculty%20members)). (Notably, Yale’s faculty also grew significantly in that period, but faculty growth often corresponds to new programs or research, whereas administrative growth is frequently in areas like student services, development, and compliance.) A **2018 Chronicle of Higher Education** survey even found that Yale had the highest manager-to-student ratio in the Ivy League, and one of the highest in the U.S. ([A "proliferation of administrators": faculty reflect on two decades of rapid expansion - Yale Daily News](https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-part-of-its-leadership-to-lead-yales-administration-increases-by-nearly-50-percent/#:~:text=were%20living%20and%20studying%20at,year%20private%20colleges)). This illustrates how the **administrative footprint** has expanded even at elite institutions known for academic excellence.

This is not solely an American phenomenon. International data show similar patterns. In Australia, for example, government figures reveal that **since 1996** the number of **non-academic staff** at universities grew by **72%**, whereas the number of teaching and research staff grew by only **47%** ([](https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IPA-Research-Note-June-2024-University-Bureaucrats.pdf#:~:text=Since%201996%2C%20the%20number%20of,role%2C%20and%20two%20were%20employed)). By 2023, about *six in ten* university employees in Australia were in non-academic roles ([](https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IPA-Research-Note-June-2024-University-Bureaucrats.pdf#:~:text=means%20that%20there%20are%20now,combined%20teaching%20and%20research%20role)), meaning administrators and support staff now significantly outnumber faculty. European higher education systems have likewise seen a rise in “administration professionals” and managers, often linked to reforms emphasizing accountability and competition. A study of European universities noted that those undergoing organizational expansion tend to have a higher proportion of administrative staff ([Administrators in higher education: organizational expansion in a ...](https://www.jstor.org/stable/45116693#:~:text=Administrators%20in%20higher%20education%3A%20organizational,European%20Tertary%20Education%20Register)). The **trend of administrative bloat** is so pronounced that it has become a subject of debate in budgeting and governance circles. Administrators often justify the hiring boom as necessary to meet student needs, manage complex operations, and respond to external demands. Indeed, universities today provide far more services (from mental health counseling to elaborate IT systems) than in past decades, which does require staffing. However, critics highlight the **opportunity costs**: Every dollar spent on additional layers of management is a dollar not spent on teaching or research. Faculty senates and education analysts have raised concerns that when the administrative cadre grows faster than faculty, it can *“shift resources… away from teaching and research”* to support an expanding bureaucracy (['The Fall of the Faculty'](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/14/fall-faculty#:~:text=disciplines%3B%20the%20transformation%20of%20research,of%20tenure%20and%20academic%20freedom)). Some also fear a dilution of academic voice in decision-making, as committees tilt toward administrative-heavy representation. In summary, empirical staffing data across multiple countries confirm a long-term **rise of the managerial class** in universities. This sets the stage for examining how technology – especially AI – might change or accelerate this trajectory.

## Historical Analogies of Technological Disruption in Administration
Looking to history, technological advances have repeatedly disrupted administrative and clerical work – sometimes dramatically. One striking example comes from the mid-20th century: the **computerization of data processing**. In 1961, *Time* magazine reported that the U.S. Census Bureau, having adopted new electronic computers, could perform its calculations with just **50 people**, a task that had required **4,100 clerical workers** a decade earlier ([The Automation Jobless](https://www.flomartin.com/single-post/2017/06/28/The-Automation-Jobless#:~:text=Many%20of%20the%20losses%20in,company%20jobs%20increased%20only%2010)). This near 100-fold productivity boost vividly illustrated how automation can *eliminate entire tiers* of administrative labor. Similarly, banks in the 1960s introduced machines to process checks, allowing enormous growth in transaction volume without proportional increases in staff ([The Automation Jobless](https://www.flomartin.com/single-post/2017/06/28/The-Automation-Jobless#:~:text=Many%20of%20the%20losses%20in,company%20jobs%20increased%20only%2010)). Over the late 20th century, the introduction of personal computers, spreadsheets, and office software reduced the need for secretaries, typists, and filing clerks in many organizations. Routine tasks like document preparation, bookkeeping, and record-keeping could be done faster with fewer people. For instance, corporate “typing pools” and switchboard operators largely vanished by the 1990s, replaced by word processors and automated phone systems. These historical cases serve as analogies for today’s digital automation: they show that **administrative work is not immune to technological upheaval**. Whenever a particular function can be standardized and encoded, machines often step in to handle it.

However, history also provides a **paradoxical lesson**. While specific clerical jobs were eliminated, *bureaucracy as a whole did not shrink* in proportion. In many cases, technology changed the nature of administrative work rather than removing the need for administrators altogether. Early optimism that computers would yield “paperless offices” and slimmed-down bureaucracies did not fully materialize. In fact, some have observed that new technologies often generate new kinds of administrative tasks – for example, maintaining the technology itself, managing data flows, and enforcing new rules (think of the explosion of IT departments and data compliance officers). This reflects what one scholarly analysis calls the **“AI bureaucracy paradox”**: *“The more humans use AI to reduce the bureaucracy of public organizations, the more bureaucratized they become.”* ([AI Paradoxes in Organizations: Collection, Typology, and Clarification](https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/66bcbbd9-4118-4bb7-a6f4-3da2ad726b1b/download#:~:text=Clarification%20scholarspace,AI%20Creativity%20paradox)). In other words, each wave of automation can introduce its own bureaucratic overhead. We saw hints of this in the past – e.g. computers required organizations to adopt databases, standards, and security protocols, which in turn created new administrative roles (database administrators, compliance managers). A recent review of bureaucratic trends argues that advanced computing technologies like AI tend to **reinforce** bureaucratic tendencies rather than dismantling them ([Digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and bureaucratic ...](https://e-tarjome.com/storage/panel/fileuploads/2022-01-17/1642402621_E15962.pdf#:~:text=In%20this%20article%2C%20we%20argue,public%20sector%2C%20not%20eliminating%20them)). Historically, even as clerical roles were automated away, management ranks often continued to grow. Some attribute this to *Parkinson’s Law* at work: efficiency gains from technology might simply encourage organizations to take on even more projects and processes, again “filling the time” and staffing accordingly. Thus, the historical record offers a caution: technological disruption can **reconfigure administrative work** – it may drastically cut certain jobs, but it can also spur new forms of administration. These analogies provide valuable context for considering AI in today’s universities: will AI merely streamline existing tasks, or fundamentally reduce the need for human administrators – or will it spawn new complexities?

## Philosophical Perspectives on Work, Labor, and Administration
Thinkers in the humanities and social sciences have long reflected on the nature of work and the role of bureaucracy. Their insights help frame the debate about what is at stake in higher education’s evolving work landscape. **Hannah Arendt**, for example, offered a profound critique of bureaucracy. In *On Violence*, she described bureaucracy as *“the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule… we have a tyranny without a tyrant.”* ([On Violence Quotes by Hannah Arendt](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/437062-on-violence#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIn%20a%20fully%20developed%20bureaucracy,Arendt%2C%20%20%20On%20Violence)). Arendt’s point is that bureaucratic systems, by their impersonal rules and hierarchy, can strip individuals (whether faculty or students) of agency and accountability. Within a university, if decisions are increasingly made by faceless committees or policies rather than open deliberation, one could argue it approaches Arendt’s “rule by nobody.” This perspective urges us to ask: as managerial roles expand, does the academic community risk losing the ability to meaningfully debate and influence decisions? Arendt, like Weber, was concerned that in large bureaucracies people become cogs with limited capacity to enact change – a concern often echoed by faculty who feel marginal in corporatized university governance.

**Max Weber** provides another classic lens. Weber analyzed how modern society’s focus on rationalization led to highly efficient but impersonal bureaucratic institutions. He famously warned of the *“iron cage”* of rationality – a situation where human values and freedom are locked within systems obsessed with calculation, rules, and efficiency ([Max Weber: rationalisation and the iron cage of bureaucracy](https://revisesociology.com/2025/01/26/max-weber-rationalisation-and-the-iron-cage-of-bureaucracy/#:~:text=bureaucracy%20revisesociology,organizational%20goals%20over%20personal%20autonomy)). In a university context, Weber’s critique suggests that when education is managed primarily through formalized metrics (KPIs, rankings, credit hours, funding formulas), it can create an environment where the intrinsic purposes of education – critical inquiry, personal growth, truth-seeking – are overshadowed by administrative logic. Weber also noted that bureaucracy has great structural advantages (consistency, precision, speed) over older forms of organization, which is why it tends to dominate – but once in place, it’s among the hardest structures to dismantle. The “iron cage” metaphor reminds academics to be vigilant that the **means** of administration do not eclipse the **ends** of education. It provides a theoretical backdrop for critiquing “managerialism” as potentially dehumanizing – faculty may become “specialists without spirit” operating in a system that values paperwork and procedures over intellectual creativity.

Anthropologist **David Graeber** offered a more radical critique with his concept of “**bullshit jobs**.” Graeber argued that modern economies (both public and private) have generated countless positions that even the holders secretly believe are pointless or make no meaningful contribution ([Why Do So Many Modern Jobs Seem Pointless?](https://reason.com/2019/01/29/why-do-so-many-modern-jobs-see/#:~:text=Graeber%20argues%20that%20much%2C%20perhaps,bullshit%20job%20for%20a%20lower)) ([Why Do So Many Modern Jobs Seem Pointless?](https://reason.com/2019/01/29/why-do-so-many-modern-jobs-see/#:~:text=Many%20bullshit%20jobs%20exist%20,slightly%20over%2050)). Many of these, he suggests, are administrative or managerial roles created largely to satisfy organizational self-perpetuation. In his research, Graeber found that *“people will often quit a bullshit job for a lower-paying and more labor-intensive one if [it] offers greater scope for meaningful personal agency,”* underscoring how demoralizing purely bureaucratic work can be ([Why Do So Many Modern Jobs Seem Pointless?](https://reason.com/2019/01/29/why-do-so-many-modern-jobs-see/#:~:text=unpleasant%20and%20poorly%20paid%20but,scope%20for%20meaningful%20personal%20agency)). He identified whole categories of such jobs – e.g. **“box-tickers”** and **“taskmasters”** – which resonate with certain university roles that exist mainly to generate reports or oversee others without clear benefit to the core mission. Notably, Graeber observed that the growth of the service sector in recent decades was not mainly in frontline service workers but in *“administrators, consultants, clerical and accounting staff, IT professionals, and the like”*, which is precisely where *“bullshit jobs proliferate.”* ([Why Do So Many Modern Jobs Seem Pointless?](https://reason.com/2019/01/29/why-do-so-many-modern-jobs-see/#:~:text=While%20it%27s%20a%20commonplace%20that,burdens%20they%20place%20on%20faculty)). Academia has seen this trend as well: *“within the academy, [there is] a relentless increase in both the numbers of administrative staff and the weight of bureaucratic burdens they place on faculty,”* one commentator noted in agreement with Graeber ([Why Do So Many Modern Jobs Seem Pointless?](https://reason.com/2019/01/29/why-do-so-many-modern-jobs-see/#:~:text=growth%20in%20the%20service%20sector,burdens%20they%20place%20on%20faculty)). Graeber’s work provocatively asks whether much of the administrative expansion in universities serves any real educational purpose or if it exists largely to appease a managerial culture. His perspective champions the **meaning of work** – implying that scholars and teachers derive meaning from engaging in teaching and research, whereas multiplying administrative chores can erode the sense of purpose and even become a form of *“make-work.”* In fact, Graeber posited that society has intentionally created make-work jobs to keep people employed, even though automation could have freed us for more creative pursuits – a thesis that directly ties into the AI discussion.

These philosophical and theoretical viewpoints (Arendt’s **loss of freedom**, Weber’s **rational iron cage**, Graeber’s **meaninglessness of excessive admin**) provide a critical framework. They remind us that the debate about work in higher education is not only about budgets and headcounts, but about the **quality** and **purpose** of work. If universities become dominated by administrative labor, what happens to the traditional ideals of the academy? Conversely, if new technology could liberate us from drudgery, how do we ensure it actually enhances human freedom (as Arendt and Weber would hope) rather than entrenching a new form of control or meaningless labor (as Graeber warns)?

## AI’s Potential: Automating Administration or Entrenching Managers?
A central question for the future is whether artificial intelligence will **transform the balance** between managerial roles and academic roles in higher education. On one hand, there is optimism that AI can **automate routine administrative tasks**, potentially reducing the need for large administrative staffs or at least freeing them for more high-value work. Many universities are already experimenting with AI tools for tasks like admissions sorting, student advising chatbots, scheduling, and paperwork processing. The promise is that AI could handle the heavy lifting of bureaucracy – mining data, filling forms, answering common queries – at lightning speed and lower cost. For example, AI-driven systems might streamline student services: automating course registration adjustments, monitoring degree requirements, or flagging at-risk students for advisors. If realized, this would *“reduce administrative burdens, freeing staff to focus on meaningful student engagement.”* ([Unpacking Higher Education’s Hesitancy to Adopt AI | Higher Ed Dive](https://www.highereddive.com/press-release/20241220-unpacking-higher-educations-hesitancy-to-adopt-ai-1/#:~:text=AI%20has%20the%20potential%20to,to%20equity%20and%20academic%20excellence)) The underlying idea is that faculty and human staff time could be reallocated from clerical chores to more interpersonal and creative aspects of education. A consultant in higher ed noted that AI, implemented responsibly, helps institutions *balance innovation with their commitment to equity and excellence* ([Unpacking Higher Education’s Hesitancy to Adopt AI | Higher Ed Dive](https://www.highereddive.com/press-release/20241220-unpacking-higher-educations-hesitancy-to-adopt-ai-1/#:~:text=AI%20has%20the%20potential%20to,to%20equity%20and%20academic%20excellence)) – hinting that automation of drudgery could let humans spend more time on mentoring, teaching, and research. In this scenario, we might envision a leaner administration: perhaps fewer mid-level managers needed for data processing or report compiling, since an AI can generate analytics and reports on demand. Some even speculate about **flatter organizational structures** if AI systems enable direct coordination and self-service, eliminating some layers of middle management that currently mediate information. Historically, when certain jobs become automated, resources can be redirected – so it’s conceivable that AI could allow universities to redirect funds from back-office staff to front-line educators or researchers.

On the other hand, there are strong arguments that AI might **further entrench or even expand the managerial class**. One concern is the bureaucratic paradox mentioned earlier: deploying AI requires significant oversight, setup, and maintenance – essentially creating *new* administrative needs. AI systems don’t run themselves; they must be trained, monitored for bias, updated, explained to stakeholders, and aligned with regulations (like privacy laws). This could lead to hiring of new specialists (data analysts, AI ethicists, IT managers) and perhaps an **“algorithm oversight”** layer of management. As an example, if a university implements an AI to assist in admissions, it might form a committee or office to audit the AI’s decisions, handle appeals, and continuously feed it data – functions that didn’t exist before. Researchers have noted that rather than cutting back bureaucracy, advanced tech like AI can reinforce it: public-sector implementations of AI often come with **more rules, protocols, and scrutiny**, increasing the bureaucratic load ([Digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and bureaucratic ...](https://e-tarjome.com/storage/panel/fileuploads/2022-01-17/1642402621_E15962.pdf#:~:text=In%20this%20article%2C%20we%20argue,public%20sector%2C%20not%20eliminating%20them)). There is also a power dimension. Incumbent managers may use AI as a tool to strengthen their decision-making authority (controlling the algorithms that shape policy), which could **solidify their importance**. Far from rendering managers obsolete, AI might become an instrument that savvy administrators wield to justify their role (e.g., “we need skilled managers to interpret what the AI recommends”). Additionally, AI might enable new forms of micro-management – detailed tracking of faculty outputs or student behavior – thus expanding administrative oversight into realms that were previously left to professional judgment. This scenario aligns with what sociologist Shoshana Zuboff called *“automation plus surveillance”*: technology automates tasks but also gives management unprecedented monitoring capabilities, potentially amplifying hierarchical control. In sum, skeptics argue AI could **consolidate managerial power** and even create new administrative complexities, rather than liberating us from them. Indeed, a recent study bluntly stated: *“advanced computing technologies, like artificial intelligence, are reinforcing bureaucratic tendencies in the public sector, not eliminating them.”* ([Digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and bureaucratic ...](https://e-tarjome.com/storage/panel/fileuploads/2022-01-17/1642402621_E15962.pdf#:~:text=In%20this%20article%2C%20we%20argue,public%20sector%2C%20not%20eliminating%20them))

It’s important to note that AI’s impact will likely be **uneven**. Some administrative roles may become redundant – for instance, basic data entry or first-line customer service (queries that a chatbot can handle). We may see a decline in those positions over time. But other roles could proliferate, such as those focused on **strategy, policy, and technical management** of AI tools. Universities might also repurpose administrative staff into more specialized support for faculty and students, using AI to assist them. The net effect on the *“managerial class”* will depend on institutional choices: do leaders use AI to genuinely streamline and downsize bureaucracy, or do they layer new tech on top of old processes? There are competing visions. Optimists foresee a return to **academic-centric work** – professors and students interacting with less paperwork in the way, supported by efficient AI systems. Pessimists caution that without conscious effort, AI could become just another bureaucratic apparatus, possibly even less transparent (an algorithmic black box) and thus harder to challenge – the ultimate “rule by Nobody” in Arendt’s terms, if we’re not careful.

## Conclusion
In framing a debate on the future of work in higher education, it’s crucial to draw on these interdisciplinary perspectives. **Organizational theories** explain why administrative roles tend to expand, highlighting internal incentives and cultural shifts like managerialism and NPM that have changed how universities are run. **Empirical studies** ground the discussion with hard numbers, showing the rise in administrators relative to faculty and prompting questions about sustainability and mission. **Historical analogies** of past technological change temper our expectations for AI – reminding us that technology can both destroy and create administrative work. **Philosophical critiques** from figures like Arendt, Weber, and Graeber bring to light the qualitative impact of these trends on academic life: issues of purpose, freedom, and the very soul of education. And finally, the **AI debate** presents two compelling narratives – one of liberation from drudgery, and one of potential technocratic escalation. A well-rounded understanding recognizes that these forces are not mutually exclusive: AI might eliminate certain tasks even as it entrenches certain powers, for example. The challenge for universities will be to navigate these currents deliberately. Will higher education harness AI to rejuvenate the primacy of teaching and scholarship, trimming unnecessary bureaucracy? Or will it drift further into a managed, automated labyrinth where human judgment cedes ground to procedure and algorithm? By examining theories, data, history, and philosophy side by side, we equip ourselves to debate these questions with nuance. The **future of academic work** is not predetermined – it will be shaped by which ideas and values guide decision-makers. This research synthesis provides the foundation to ask the right questions and engage in that debate, ensuring that the future of work in our universities aligns with the higher ideals of higher education.

**Sources:**

1. Parkinson’s Law and bureaucratic expansion ([Parkinson’s Law « Isegoria](https://www.isegoria.net/2014/01/parkinsons-law/#:~:text=Work%20expands%20so%20as%20to,to%20each%20other%20at%20all)) ([Parkinson’s Law « Isegoria](https://www.isegoria.net/2014/01/parkinsons-law/#:~:text=,))
2. Critiques of New Public Management and managerialism in public sector ([NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT Major Components and Salient Features – Jahangir's World Times](https://www.jworldtimes.com/old-site/css-exclusive/css-special/new-public-management-major-components-and-salient-features/#:~:text=b,in%20effect%20hampered%20public%20service)) ([NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT Major Components and Salient Features – Jahangir's World Times](https://www.jworldtimes.com/old-site/css-exclusive/css-special/new-public-management-major-components-and-salient-features/#:~:text=cutting%20also%20sounds%20hollow%20as,in%20effect%20hampered%20public%20service))
3. Managerialism as an ideology in higher education (Deem & Brehony) ([ERIC - EJ719262 - Management as Ideology: The Case of "New Managerialism" in Higher Education, Oxford Review of Education, 2005-Jun](https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ719262#:~:text=of%20,academics%20and%20help%20cement%20relations))
4. Yale faculty on administrative proliferation and its causes ([A "proliferation of administrators": faculty reflect on two decades of rapid expansion - Yale Daily News](https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-part-of-its-leadership-to-lead-yales-administration-increases-by-nearly-50-percent/#:~:text=Growing%20government%20requirements%20imposed%20on,%E2%80%9D)) ([A "proliferation of administrators": faculty reflect on two decades of rapid expansion - Yale Daily News](https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-part-of-its-leadership-to-lead-yales-administration-increases-by-nearly-50-percent/#:~:text=However%2C%20Paul%20Campos%2C%20a%20professor,and%20influence%20within%20their%20institutions))
5. Growth of administrators vs faculty (1975–2005 data) (['The Fall of the Faculty'](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/14/fall-faculty#:~:text=juxtaposes%20these%20with%20historical%20analysis,%E2%80%9D))
6. Yale University’s managerial staff growth vs students ([A "proliferation of administrators": faculty reflect on two decades of rapid expansion - Yale Daily News](https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-part-of-its-leadership-to-lead-yales-administration-increases-by-nearly-50-percent/#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%20two%20decades%2C,according%20to%20eight%20faculty%20members)) ([A "proliferation of administrators": faculty reflect on two decades of rapid expansion - Yale Daily News](https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2021/11/10/reluctance-on-the-part-of-its-leadership-to-lead-yales-administration-increases-by-nearly-50-percent/#:~:text=were%20living%20and%20studying%20at,year%20private%20colleges))
7. Australian university staff growth (1996–2023) ([](https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IPA-Research-Note-June-2024-University-Bureaucrats.pdf#:~:text=Since%201996%2C%20the%20number%20of,role%2C%20and%20two%20were%20employed)) ([](https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/IPA-Research-Note-June-2024-University-Bureaucrats.pdf#:~:text=means%20that%20there%20are%20now,combined%20teaching%20and%20research%20role))
8. Ginsberg’s “administrative blight” critique (['The Fall of the Faculty'](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/14/fall-faculty#:~:text=Ginsberg%20bemoans%20the%20expansion%20over,sat%20squarely%20in%20their%20domain)) (['The Fall of the Faculty'](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/07/14/fall-faculty#:~:text=disciplines%3B%20the%20transformation%20of%20research,of%20tenure%20and%20academic%20freedom))
9. Time magazine (1961) on automation cutting clerical jobs ([The Automation Jobless](https://www.flomartin.com/single-post/2017/06/28/The-Automation-Jobless#:~:text=Many%20of%20the%20losses%20in,company%20jobs%20increased%20only%2010))
10. Observation on automation eliminating office jobs (1960s) ([The Automation Jobless](https://www.flomartin.com/single-post/2017/06/28/The-Automation-Jobless#:~:text=Many%20of%20the%20losses%20in,company%20jobs%20increased%20only%2010))
11. Paradox of automation increasing bureaucracy ([AI Paradoxes in Organizations: Collection, Typology, and Clarification](https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstreams/66bcbbd9-4118-4bb7-a6f4-3da2ad726b1b/download#:~:text=Clarification%20scholarspace,AI%20Creativity%20paradox)) ([Digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and bureaucratic ...](https://e-tarjome.com/storage/panel/fileuploads/2022-01-17/1642402621_E15962.pdf#:~:text=In%20this%20article%2C%20we%20argue,public%20sector%2C%20not%20eliminating%20them))
12. Hannah Arendt on bureaucracy (“rule by Nobody”) ([On Violence Quotes by Hannah Arendt](https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/437062-on-violence#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIn%20a%20fully%20developed%20bureaucracy,Arendt%2C%20%20%20On%20Violence))
13. Weber’s iron cage of rationalized bureaucracy ([Max Weber: rationalisation and the iron cage of bureaucracy](https://revisesociology.com/2025/01/26/max-weber-rationalisation-and-the-iron-cage-of-bureaucracy/#:~:text=bureaucracy%20revisesociology,organizational%20goals%20over%20personal%20autonomy))
14. David Graeber on “bullshit jobs” and admin growth ([Why Do So Many Modern Jobs Seem Pointless?](https://reason.com/2019/01/29/why-do-so-many-modern-jobs-see/#:~:text=Many%20bullshit%20jobs%20exist%20,slightly%20over%2050)) ([Why Do So Many Modern Jobs Seem Pointless?](https://reason.com/2019/01/29/why-do-so-many-modern-jobs-see/#:~:text=While%20it%27s%20a%20commonplace%20that,burdens%20they%20place%20on%20faculty))
15. Graeber on academia’s administrative burden ([Why Do So Many Modern Jobs Seem Pointless?](https://reason.com/2019/01/29/why-do-so-many-modern-jobs-see/#:~:text=growth%20in%20the%20service%20sector,burdens%20they%20place%20on%20faculty))
16. AI reducing administrative burdens (Higher Ed Dive) ([Unpacking Higher Education’s Hesitancy to Adopt AI | Higher Ed Dive](https://www.highereddive.com/press-release/20241220-unpacking-higher-educations-hesitancy-to-adopt-ai-1/#:~:text=AI%20has%20the%20potential%20to,to%20equity%20and%20academic%20excellence))
17. Analysis cautioning AI’s bureaucratic reinforcement