4 ms·

Tooth-to-tail ratio is a useful concept if you want to think about overheads. In modern military operations, there are usually ~10 people in various support fu

Tooth-to-tail ratio is a useful concept if you want to think about overheads. In modern military operations, there are usually ~10 people in various support functions (tail) for for everyone who fights (tooth). The Gulf War was exceptional, because there were only ~5 people in the tail for every primary combatant. Civilian organizations are usually much leaner, because they exist in a functional society. There may only be 1-2 support personnel for everyone doing the actual work, and many of those are outsourced. But the same basic concerns remain. When individual performance is critical, a high level of support is required. You can get more people doing the actual work by redirecting resources from the tail to the tooth. But then the people in the tooth are individually less effective. It's highly situational which level of overhead leads to the most efficient use of resources.

csa 2y ago
This is a great point… in theory. In the case for higher ed and hospitals, I don’t think people are complaining about staff (the vast majority of the “tail” in the military). Rather, they are complaining about the administrators, which would be the military equivalent of officers. The ratio of administrators to professors in higher ed and administrators to doctors in hospitals has gone through the roof — a simple search will show the numbers. Sometimes what these people are doing is legally necessary (e.g., compliance), but our sue-first culture has made compliance much more burdensome. Reducing the scope of necessary compliance will allow a lot of reduction of these types of folks, but it won’t be undone quickly. Title IX is a great example of a good idea that has ended up costing a ton in compliance costs. Other times what they are doing is pure empire-building, simply because there is very little keeping them from passing on increased expenses to the customer. If either of these industries were able to be reformed in totality, I’m guessing 50-90% of the administrators would be able to be cut. Realistically, this will only happen with a collapse of said industry (which I think is coming).
- jltsiren 2y ago
  That's a common trope. People often complain about administrative bloat. Then there is a budget deficit and some administrators are cut (as it often happens in public institutions around the world). And then people start complaining how they don't have time for their actual jobs, because they have to do the work the administrators were doing. Most of the time, compliance requirements only increase with every policy chance. Today in the US, there are new regulations on what you are allowed to do with federal grants. And those regulations are mostly on top of the existing ones. Administrators need to spend more time to ensure compliance, and the actual overheads go up. The administrative part of grant overheads is already capped at 26%. Even if universities managed to fire every single administrator, common grant overheads would still be 30% or higher. According to the current rules, which are insufficient to cover the actual overheads. At least if you ask the people who are supposed to understand the rules.

csa 2y ago

This is a great point… in theory. In the case for higher ed and hospitals, I don’t think people are complaining about staff (the vast majority of the “tail” in the military). Rather, they are complaining about the administrators, which would be the military equivalent of officers. The ratio of administrators to professors in higher ed and administrators to doctors in hospitals has gone through the roof — a simple search will show the numbers. Sometimes what these people are doing is legally necessary (e.g., compliance), but our sue-first culture has made compliance much more burdensome. Reducing the scope of necessary compliance will allow a lot of reduction of these types of folks, but it won’t be undone quickly. Title IX is a great example of a good idea that has ended up costing a ton in compliance costs. Other times what they are doing is pure empire-building, simply because there is very little keeping them from passing on increased expenses to the customer. If either of these industries were able to be reformed in totality, I’m guessing 50-90% of the administrators would be able to be cut. Realistically, this will only happen with a collapse of said industry (which I think is coming).

jltsiren 2y ago
That's a common trope. People often complain about administrative bloat. Then there is a budget deficit and some administrators are cut (as it often happens in public institutions around the world). And then people start complaining how they don't have time for their actual jobs, because they have to do the work the administrators were doing. Most of the time, compliance requirements only increase with every policy chance. Today in the US, there are new regulations on what you are allowed to do with federal grants. And those regulations are mostly on top of the existing ones. Administrators need to spend more time to ensure compliance, and the actual overheads go up. The administrative part of grant overheads is already capped at 26%. Even if universities managed to fire every single administrator, common grant overheads would still be 30% or higher. According to the current rules, which are insufficient to cover the actual overheads. At least if you ask the people who are supposed to understand the rules.