The organisation behind the organisational chart
Imagine a long-serving administrator announcing that they are leaving. Their position can be advertised, their responsibilities reassigned and their outstanding work included in a handover. On paper, the university has managed a staffing issue.
Then the questions begin. Who understands why a particular process works differently for one programme? Who knows the history behind an agreement with an external partner? Who can resolve a problem that crosses several departments, each of which believes somebody else is responsible?
The departing colleague may have answers to all these questions, despite none appearing in their job description. Their contribution has developed through years of experience, relationships and involvement in decisions that others have forgotten.
A university’s organisational chart shows formal responsibilities and reporting lines. It tells us hardly anything about who to turn to when something needs to happen.
Importance is not determined by seniority
When considering dependence on individuals, it is natural to begin with the Vice-Chancellor, the senior management team or a particularly successful research leader. These are visible positions, and their departure warrants careful preparation.
But less visible dependencies deserve attention too. A technician might understand equipment that several research groups depend upon. A programme administrator might recognise a potential problem with student progression before it becomes apparent elsewhere. A long-serving academic might maintain a partnership whose history and practical arrangements are understood by very few colleagues.
These are illustrative examples, but they suggest a useful question for leaders: whose unexpected absence would cause difficulties that the organisational chart would not help you anticipate?
The answer might include people with limited authority over budgets or strategy. Their influence comes from knowing how different parts of the university fit together, where difficulties are likely to arise and whom to involve when they do.
When helpfulness conceals a weakness
There is nothing inherently wrong with having exceptionally knowledgeable and capable colleagues. Universities should value people whose judgement, commitment and relationships make the institution more effective.
However, their ability to resolve problems can conceal weaknesses in the organisation. A confusing process remains confusing because somebody always helps colleagues navigate it. An unclear division of responsibility remains unresolved because one person routinely brings the relevant departments together.
Over time, the university may become accustomed to this arrangement. What began as an individual being helpful becomes an expectation that they will continue to fill the gaps.
This also has consequences for the person concerned. Being the colleague everybody relies upon can make it difficult to take uninterrupted leave, concentrate on other responsibilities or move into a new role. Recognition is welcome, but it does not remove the burden of being continually available.
Leaders should examine both sides of that dependence. They need to understand what the individual contributes and why the institution has become so reliant on that contribution.
Documentation has limits
An obvious response is to document more. Clear procedures, accessible records and accurate handover notes are valuable, particularly where essential information exists only in personal files or somebody’s memory.
But a written procedure cannot capture every aspect of experienced judgement. It might explain the steps required to establish a partnership without explaining why an earlier proposal failed, which commitments remain sensitive or when a conversation would be more useful than another formal letter.
Institutional memory includes the reasoning behind decisions. Without that context, a successor may repeat an unsuccessful approach or change an arrangement without understanding the problem it was designed to address.
Equally, institutional memory needs to remain open to challenge. “We tried that before” is useful only if colleagues can explain what was tried, under what circumstances and why it did not work. Experience should inform new decisions while leaving room for circumstances to have changed.
The aim should be to make relevant knowledge accessible and discussable. Producing a large collection of documents that nobody uses would achieve very little.
Relationships need continuity too
Some dependencies involve relationships rather than processes. A university might have a productive connection with an employer, research collaborator, donor or overseas partner, largely sustained by one individual.
The agreement may belong to the institution, but trust has developed between particular people. A new colleague cannot assume that access to the correspondence will immediately provide the same understanding or confidence.
This suggests that continuity needs to begin before a departure. Involving colleagues in substantive discussions gives them an opportunity to understand the relationship and allows the external partner to develop confidence in a wider team.
That involvement must be meaningful. Copying somebody into emails provides visibility, but it does not necessarily give them the experience or authority to sustain the relationship later.
The same principle applies internally. Where one colleague routinely connects departments, others need opportunities to develop those working relationships themselves.
Succession starts before a vacancy
Succession planning is often associated with identifying who might eventually occupy a senior position. Yet continuity also depends on preparing people to undertake essential work throughout the organisation.
That could involve colleagues working together on an annual process, deputies taking responsibility for particular decisions or staff spending time in another part of the university. The purpose is to develop practical understanding while the experienced colleague is available to explain, challenge and advise.
A handover begun after a resignation has clear limits. If an important activity happens once a year, a few weeks of notice may provide no opportunity for the successor to experience it at all.
There is also a resource question. Sharing knowledge takes time, and a colleague already working at full capacity cannot be expected to train somebody else without an adjustment to their workload. Leaders who want continuity need to make provision for it.
For smaller institutions, maintaining extensive cover for every responsibility may be unrealistic. A proportionate approach would identify the most consequential dependencies first and decide what level of disruption the university can reasonably accept.
Make knowledge sharing worthwhile
Staff also need confidence that helping others develop will be valued. If recognition rests mainly on being the person who solves every difficult problem, there may be little incentive to reduce that dependence.
Performance discussions could give greater attention to how colleagues strengthen the capability around them. Mentoring, developing a deputy, recording the reasoning behind decisions and enabling others to manage relationships all contribute to the university’s future effectiveness.
Leaders should recognise these contributions explicitly. They should also avoid interpreting a successful handover as evidence that the original role was less demanding than it appeared. Work may now look straightforward precisely because somebody invested considerable effort in making it understandable.
The way an institution treats its experienced staff will influence how willingly knowledge is shared. People are more likely to contribute to continuity when they feel respected and can see a worthwhile future for themselves.
A practical question for university leaders
A useful starting point would be to select a few essential activities and consider what would happen if the person most associated with each became unavailable for three months. This is a hypothetical exercise that can reveal where further preparation is needed.
Could somebody else undertake the work? Would they have the necessary access and authority? Would they understand the history behind important decisions, and would relevant colleagues or external partners know who to contact?
The exercise should include discussion with those doing the work. Senior leaders may otherwise underestimate responsibilities that have accumulated informally or assume that cover exists because a deputy has been named.
Departures will always involve some loss of experience, and it would be unreasonable to expect every transition to be seamless. However, universities can prepare so that a valued colleague’s departure creates a manageable transition rather than an institutional crisis.
Before asking who could replace somebody, perhaps leaders should ask a more revealing question: what have we allowed only that person to know?
I publish two free newsletters each week
Governance & Research in HE
A weekly brief for higher education leaders and researchers examining governance, leadership and research in practice.
https://buff.ly/GhsZqVl
Publishing with Integrity
Examining scholarly publishing through an ethical lens, challenging assumptions and supporting academic career development.
https://buff.ly/WiG1yFb
If you subscribe, you will be alerted whenever I publish a new edition.
About the author
Professor Graham Kendall has held senior leadership positions in higher education, including Vice-Chancellor, Provost/CEO, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Vice-Provost roles. He is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham and has published more than 300 peer-reviewed papers. His interests include university leadership and governance, research strategy, artificial intelligence and research integrity.