Universities have two power centers that don't always agree.
Faculty and administrators approach technology decisions with different priorities, different concerns, and different decision-making authorities. A solution that excites administrators may face faculty resistance. A faculty-beloved tool may get blocked by administrative concerns. Navigating this split requires understanding what each group cares about and building support on both sides.
Vendors who align with only one group often fail when the other group objects.
The Faculty Perspective
Faculty evaluate technology through the lens of academic work and professional autonomy.
Academic freedom primacy. Faculty value autonomy in how they teach and research. Technology that feels imposed or controlling triggers resistance. Choice and flexibility matter more than standardization.
Time protection. Faculty are perpetually time-starved. Technology that adds administrative burden competes against research, teaching, and service obligations. If it doesn't save time, it won't be adopted.
Pedagogical fit. Teaching approaches vary dramatically across disciplines and individuals. One-size-fits-all solutions that don't accommodate diverse pedagogies get rejected by faculty who see them as limiting.
Research integration. Faculty care about scholarly work. Technology that supports research, integrates with academic workflows, or generates publishable data gets attention that pure administrative tools don't.
The Administrative Perspective
Administrators evaluate technology through institutional management lenses.
Efficiency and cost. Administrators face budget pressure and operational responsibility. Technology that reduces cost, improves efficiency, or enables doing more with less aligns with administrative goals.
Standardization benefits. Institutional consistency simplifies support, training, and integration. Administrators often prefer standardized solutions that faculty experience as limiting.
Compliance and risk. Administrators bear responsibility for regulatory compliance and institutional risk. Technology that creates compliance burden or risk exposure faces administrative scrutiny.
Data and reporting. Institutional reporting, accreditation, and accountability require data. Solutions that provide institutional-level insights attract administrative interest.
Where Conflicts Arise
Faculty-administration tensions appear predictably around certain technology decisions.
Mandated adoption. Administrators mandating technology use triggers faculty resistance. Even good solutions become political problems when adoption isn't voluntary.
Data visibility. Administrators want data about educational effectiveness. Faculty may see the same data collection as surveillance. Privacy and monitoring concerns create tension.
Standardization vs. flexibility. Administrative preference for institutional standards conflicts with faculty preference for individual choice. Solutions caught in this tension face opposition from one side or the other.
Resource allocation. Budget spent on administrative technology isn't available for academic priorities. Perceptions of misaligned spending create faculty resistance to administrative initiatives.
Building Dual Support
Successful adoption usually requires support from both faculty and administration.
Faculty champions. Faculty who advocate for a solution provide credibility that administrative endorsement doesn't. Cultivating faculty champions builds the academic support needed for adoption.
Administrative sponsorship. Budget, implementation support, and institutional commitment come from administration. Without administrative backing, faculty enthusiasm doesn't translate to adoption.
Addressing both value propositions. Your solution needs to help faculty with what they care about and administrators with what they care about. Single-audience positioning leaves one group unsatisfied.
Governance navigation. Understanding how technology decisions actually get made, including which committees are involved and who has what authority, guides engagement strategy.
Positioning Strategies
Different positioning approaches address different audience combinations.
Faculty-first positioning. Some solutions succeed by building faculty demand that pulls administrative support. Grassroots faculty adoption creates momentum that administration eventually supports.
Administration-first positioning. Other solutions start with administrative sponsorship that creates institutional commitment. Implementation then focuses on faculty adoption.
Aligned positioning. The strongest position addresses both audiences simultaneously. Show faculty how it helps their work. Show administrators how it helps institutional goals. Create coalition rather than choosing sides.
Avoiding opposition. Sometimes the goal is simply not creating opposition. A solution that administrators like but faculty tolerate may succeed. Strong opposition from either group kills deals.
Long-Term Relationship Building
Sustainable success requires ongoing attention to both constituencies.
Continued faculty engagement. Post-adoption, maintain faculty relationships. Their experience shapes renewal decisions and expansion opportunities.
Administrative relationship maintenance. Budget and contract decisions remain administrative. Keep administrative stakeholders informed and satisfied.
Balance over time. Priorities shift between faculty and administrative concerns depending on institutional context. Stay attuned to where attention needs to focus.
Governance evolution. University governance structures change. New leadership brings new priorities. Relationships across both constituencies provide resilience through changes.
The faculty-administration split is structural in higher education. Vendors who understand and respect both perspectives build relationships that succeed where single-audience approaches fail. Neither group alone can drive adoption, and either group can block it. Navigating the split requires genuine appreciation for what each constituency cares about.