McKinsey Delivers Report on Administration

By Daniel F. Linsalata | Sunday, June 11, 2006

McKinsey & Co. management consultants contracted by the College in the fall have completed their audit of the structure and functions of Dartmouth’s administration. McKinsey conducted inquiries and studies on campus through most of November, December, and January (see TDR 11/22/2005), focusing on administrative communication, resourcing allocation, and adherence to the mission and purpose of Dartmouth College through all departments and offices within the administration. Although the consultants heard faculty input during their time at Hanover, it was purely for the sake of acquiring a picture of the administration’s interactions with academic departments, rather than an investigation of the effectiveness of College academics.

McKinsey’s work in Hanover entailed discussions with approximately fifty faculty, students, and staff, in addition to another team working in New York analyzing and comparing reams of current and historic data on administrative functions (and expenditures) at Dartmouth and other institutions, both academic and corporate. The executive summary of the report, released last week, details the major findings of the audit, as well as a handful of key recommendations. By all accounts, even the executive summary was more critical of administrative practices than most observers expected, lending a great deal of faith to the hope that the audit was more than a token introspection. However, it is impossible for outside observers to judge because the College refuses to publicize the full results of the audit. Although the document is immensely long, and probably of little more than cursory interest to most parties, the College has little to lose by revealing the results to the greater Dartmouth community.

A common cry of critics of the administration (not the least of which is found within these pages) is an astounding lack of transparency in the governing of the College, and the audit itself calls loudly for more transparency. So why would the administration not quell the critics by exposing itself completely, laying both the good and bad out in front of all concerned? When pressed for details on the matter, one party intimate with the audit and evaluation process cited confidentiality agreements signed by all involved, and could not elaborate beyond the findings outlined in the executive summary. Another would only comment that the full report was “very harsh” about many aspects of the administration. As such, one can only assume that the executive summary released last week is a much watered-down version of the full report. Nonetheless, it unquestionably merits a closer look.

The main problems identified by McKinsey related to cross-departmental interaction and communication, administrative redundancy, and a lack of accountability. In short, a bloated horizontal bureaucracy in which administrators, faculty, and students have trouble ascertaining to whom they are responsible, where to turn for answers, and even what their exact role is. Most notably, many “officers and employees do not always understand who sets institutional priorities and makes decisions.” A manifestation of this is a drawn-out hiring process wrapped in red tape that fails to meet established goals, almost universally across the institution. The overlap and vagueness of the roles of the offices of Institutional Diversity and Equity, and Human Resources, was cited as primary source of frustration. Other departments, to skirt around these inconveniences, have established “shadow” organizations for functions such as fundraising, communications, and technology. And, confirming the long-held suspicions of nearly everyone at the College, “The annual budgeting process for administrative services is not explicitly tied to institutional priorities and there is no formal planning process that creates the necessary linkage.”

McKinsey’s suggestions primarily address the need for transparency, communication, and well-defined institutional priorities, particularly in the budgeting process. The Human Resources department faired particularly poorly, as the report essentially called for a complete overhaul of the department’s role in hiring, training, compensating, and policy-making. Many of these issues stemmed from an underemployment of technology, a shocking oversight at a college that prides itself on standing at the technological forefront of academia.

Other areas for improvements were concentrated largely within departmental services offices, including procurement services, computing services, and control of institutional research. McKinsey specifically recommended that the latter become a direct subsidiary of the Provost’s Office, as opposed to the three separate offices across which it is currently spread. The consultants also noticed an alarming lack of an objective system of performance evaluation for individuals and departments, and called upon departments and offices to outline specific, measurable goals and develop mechanisms to evaluate the success in meeting those goals.

Finally, in acknowledgement of what many critics believe to be the institution’s greatest problem, McKinsey imposed upon the College to reorganize several departments—unnamed in the executive summary, but delineated in the full report—in order to “streamline functions, optimize resources, and create well-focused, reasonably-sized divisions.” In short, slash the budget and figure out the department’s true purpose so as to eliminate bloated staffs. Though one can easily reason which administrative departments may face such cuts (looking at you, Linda Kennedy and the Student Activities Office), I will not speculate further upon which they may be.

The most shocking omission from McKinsey’s report, which many expected to be a principal conclusion, is a call for an open and public annual operating budget. However, the indemnification of the budget process as unguided and lacking cohesion with any sort of institutional goals certainly shines light upon why the budget has not been made public previously. In all, the audit revealed few general themes which were not already widely-known or assumed, but finally pinpointed specific ways in which these issues could be addressed. More importantly, the audit imposes a measure of public accountability upon the College to act on the recommended changes. Supporters and critics alike are eagerly awaiting the results.

McKinsey Delivers Report on Administration

Article Tools

Related Articles