What the Research Shows and What High-Functioning Institutions Do Differently
Introduction: Why Staffing and Governance Matter Now
Universities serving 10,000 to 15,000 students sit at a decisive inflection point in higher education. They are large enough to require sophisticated governance, disciplined staffing models, and mature leadership systems, yet still small enough that inefficiency, duplication, or unclear authority quickly surfaces in performance, cost structures, and organizational culture.
Research and workforce data from national authorities including the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, the National Center for Education Statistics, the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, The Conference Board, PwC Governance Insights, and BoardSource consistently identifies three persistent challenges at this scale.
First, administrative and leadership growth often outpaces student outcomes, driving rising costs without proportional gains in performance. Second, lines of communication and accountability between boards, presidents, and senior leaders become increasingly unclear. Third, staffing and organizational models tend to evolve incrementally rather than through intentional, strategy-driven design.
Left unaddressed, these pressures quietly compound until institutions find themselves overextended, misaligned, and struggling to scale with coherence.
This article synthesizes the research and translates it into clear staffing benchmarks, leadership structures, and governance practices specifically calibrated for universities in the 10,000–15,000 student range.
These insights are informed not only by national research, but by our direct work with boards and executive teams leading system-level transformation, including Top 100 institutions and universities that moved from the brink of closure into the top tier of performance in their states.
From Structural Pressure to a Common Misconception
When universities begin to feel the strain of scale, the instinctive response is often to add leadership, more associate vice presidents, more directors, more layers intended to “manage complexity.” Over time, this creates a widely accepted narrative: that institutions in the 10,000–15,000 student range are inherently top-heavy and therefore require expansive leadership structures to function effectively.
This assumption is not only misleading, it is one of the most persistent contributors to organizational drag.
High-functioning institutions in this enrollment band are not defined by how many leaders they employ, but by how clearly authority, accountability, and decision rights are designed. When leadership structures expand faster than role clarity, institutions experience slower decision-making, blurred ownership, and rising costs, without corresponding gains in performance or student outcomes.
The question, then, is not whether leadership should be included in staffing analysis, but where to begin the analysis in the first place.
The most reliable starting point is Full-Time Equivalent (FTE). FTE provides a comprehensive, research-aligned lens for understanding staffing capacity because it captures the entire workforce; faculty, staff, and leadership alike. Before debating titles, reorganizations, or new positions, institutions must first understand how many people they employ relative to student enrollment and how that compares to functional benchmarks.
In the sections that follow, we begin with FTE ratios per 1,000 students, then examine what those numbers reveal about leadership density, structural alignment, and governance effectiveness at universities serving 10,000–15,000 students.
From Assumptions to Evidence: Where Staffing Analysis Must Begin
If institutions want to move beyond assumptions about being “top-heavy” and toward structural clarity, the conversation must shift from titles and perceptions to measurable capacity. Before redesigning leadership structures or debating organizational charts, universities need a grounded understanding of how many people they employ relative to the students they serve—and what the data says about effective ranges.
That starting point is Full-Time Equivalent (FTE).
FTE offers a comprehensive, research-aligned view of staffing because it captures the entire workforce, not just instructional or frontline roles. Used correctly, it becomes one of the most powerful tools boards and executive teams have for diagnosing alignment, capacity, and governance effectiveness.
FTE as the Baseline: What Counts and Why It Matters
Does FTE Include Leadership?
Yes. And overlooking this detail distorts strategy.
According to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) includes all employees, regardless of title or seniority. This encompasses the full leadership and administrative ecosystem that shapes institutional performance and decision-making.
Specifically, FTE includes:
Presidents and cabinet-level leaders
Faculty (instructional and research)
Directors and managers
Professional and classified staff
When leadership is excluded from staffing analysis, institutions operate from an incomplete—and often misleading—understanding of capacity. This governance blind spot frequently results in misaligned structures, unnecessary role duplication, and staffing decisions that increase cost without improving outcomes.
FTE per 1,000 Students: What the Data Reveals
Staffing ratios surface structural issues long before financial strain or cultural breakdown becomes visible.
Drawing from IPEDS workforce data and national staffing medians published by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR), consistent performance patterns emerge across public universities, particularly those serving 10,000–15,000 students.
These ratios provide a clear lens for assessing whether institutions are:
Appropriately staffed for scale
Structurally aligned to strategy
At risk of leadership layering and diffuse accountability
The table below outlines the research-supported ranges and what they typically signal in practice.
Table 1.0: FTE Staffing Benchmarks for Universities Serving 10,000–15,000 Students
| Institutional Profile | FTE per 1,000 Students | What This Typically Signals |
|---|---|---|
| Efficient / Well-Aligned Institutions | 90–110 | Disciplined role clarity, streamlined leadership, and decision-making close to the work. Resources align to strategy rather than layered bureaucracy. |
| Typical Public Universities | 110–140 | Moderate organizational complexity. Growth is generally managed, but role overlap, slower approvals, or diffuse accountability may emerge if governance discipline weakens. |
| High-Risk / Likely Overextended | 140+ | Staffing outpaces strategic need. Leadership layers accumulate, authority blurs, and institutional support costs rise faster than outcomes or student success. |
Research from PwC and The Conference Board consistently shows that institutions in this highest range are more likely to experience:
Excessive leadership layering
Unclear decision rights
Slower, consensus-heavy decision-making
Rising institutional support costs without proportional gains in student success
The takeaway is simple but sobering: more people does not mean more capacity; unless structure, governance, and accountability evolve with scale.
Ideal Cabinet Structure, Staffing Ratios, and Organizational Health
What High-Functioning Universities Do Differently
As universities in the 10,000–15,000 student range mature, performance is less about adding capacity and more about designing coherence. The institutions that scale well do not rely on expansive cabinets or diffuse leadership models. They rely on clarity, discipline, and alignment.
The Ideal Executive Cabinet (10,000–15,000 Students)
Across peer institutions examined by Spencer Stuart, BoardSource, and public university system reviews, high-functioning executive cabinets in this enrollment band tend to be deliberate in size and role definition.
A well-aligned cabinet typically includes:
President / Chancellor
Provost / Chief Academic Officer
Chief Financial Officer / VP Finance & Administration
VP / Chief Student Affairs Officer
VP Advancement / Development
Chief Information Officer / VP Information Technology
Chief Human Resources Officer / VP Human Resources
General Counsel
Chief of Staff (increasingly recommended for coordination and execution)
Recommended cabinet size: 8–12 executives
Cabinets that grow significantly beyond this range often reflect fragmentation of authority, not increased capacity. In practice, larger cabinets tend to slow decision-making, dilute accountability, and shift leadership attention away from strategy and outcomes.
Staffing Distribution: What “Healthy” Actually Looks Like
Beyond cabinet design, high-performing universities demonstrate intentional balance in how staffing resources are distributed across the institution. Research and benchmarking consistently show stronger performance when staffing aligns approximately as follows:
Instructional (Faculty): 40–50%
Student Services: 15–20%
Institutional Support (Finance, HR, IT, Legal, IR): 20–25%
Operations & Facilities: 10–15%
A critical red flag emerges when institutional support and leadership functions exceed roughly 30–35% of total staffing. Analyses from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR) and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System show that institutions crossing this threshold often experience:
Governance strain
Rising overhead costs
Slower execution
Limited return on added administrative investment
At scale, balance, not expansion, is the differentiator.
Organizational Health Indicators at This Size
Healthy institutions in the 10,000–15,000 student range share a remarkably consistent set of structural characteristics. These indicators show up long before performance issues surface. Common markers include:
6–10 direct reports per senior leader, supporting effective spans of control
No more than 4–5 organizational layers from president to frontline execution
Clear system versus campus decision rights, reducing duplication and conflict
Committees that govern rather than operate, preserving leadership focus
When these conditions are present, institutions move faster, communicate more clearly, and hold leaders accountable without excessive bureaucracy.
Universities Operating with Aligned Models (10,000–15,000 Range)
Despite differences in geography and mission, universities that operate within these benchmarks tend to converge around similar cabinet size, FTE ranges, and communication discipline. Examples include:
University of West Florida (~14,800 students)
Lean cabinet structure, centralized administrative services, and a strong president–provost–CFO leadership triad.University of Central Arkansas (~11,000 students)
Clearly defined cabinet roles, disciplined director layers, and published organizational charts aligned to strategy.University of North Alabama (~9,500–10,000 students)
Executive council model with strong alignment between academic leadership and financial oversight.Comparable public HBCUs in this range
Institutions with centralized support services, clear academic authority, and disciplined governance consistently demonstrate greater stability and stronger student persistence outcomes.
The pattern is consistent. Alignment beats expansion.
From Benchmarking to Action: How The Pavon Firm Supports This Work
The most important question institutions face is rarely, “Are we overstaffed?” The real question is, “Are we structured in alignment for performance?”
Our work translates research and benchmarking into actionable organizational clarity, without disruption for disruption’s sake.
1. Organizational Staffing Audit
Full FTE analysis (campus and system, where applicable)
Distribution by function, role, and leadership layer
Peer benchmarking grounded in comparable institutions
2. Inefficiency & Role Overlap Analysis
Identification of duplicated or misaligned functions
Assessment of spans of control and leadership layering
Review of committee proliferation and decision drag
3. Governance & Communication Alignment
Board–president–leadership communication protocols
Committee role clarity and effectiveness
Executive performance expectations tied to structure
4. Strategic Staffing & Organizational Design
Right-sizing cabinet and director layers
Shared services opportunities
Clear decision rights using RACI frameworks
5. Accountability & Performance Infrastructure
Leadership evaluation frameworks
Strategy-aligned metrics
Board-ready dashboards for oversight and decision-making
The result is a clear organizational blueprint, not reactive cuts or cosmetic reorganizations, but disciplined alignment that allows institutions to scale with confidence, clarity, and coherence.
Conclusion
For boards and senior leaders navigating scale, the question is no longer whether structure matters, but whether your current design is enabling performance or quietly constraining it. If this analysis raised questions worth exploring, we invite you to schedule a discovery conversation or join The Pavon Firm’s monthly newsletter for high-achieving, system-level leaders transforming themselves and their institutions through complex change. Click here to request a call with our team of experts.