The ROI Question Higher Ed Keeps Getting Wrong

By Claire L. Brady, EdD

Please stop asking AI to justify every minute it saves.

Real talk- there is a conversations about AI in higher ed has been bothering me lately. The argument goes something like this: "If AI automates routine work, leaders need to identify the harder, more valuable work employees should do instead."

At first glance, that sounds reasonable. But it rests on an assumption that I don't think reflects reality in higher ed. It assumes our people are spending their days doing trivial work while a long list of meaningful work sits untouched, waiting for them.

That isn't what I see.

What I see are advisors buried under administrative tasks while trying to build meaningful relationships with students.

I see financial aid staff processing hundreds of files while navigating increasingly complex regulations.

I see faculty juggling grading, curriculum redesign, student support, committee work, assessment, accreditation, research, and service.

I see student affairs professionals responding to crises, completing compliance reports, documenting interactions, attending meetings, and answering emails long after business hours.

The problem isn't that our people have been avoiding meaningful work. The problem is that we've layered so much administrative work onto meaningful work that we've left almost no room to do either as well as we'd like. That's why I sometimes worry when conversations about AI immediately jump to a complicated ROI calculation.

• "What bigger project will staff complete?"

• "What additional responsibilities can they take on?"

• "What new initiative can we launch?"

Maybe that's the wrong question.

What if the return on investment is simply this:

• Our people finally have enough time to do the work they were hired to do.

• To listen instead of rushing.

• To coach instead of processing.

• To mentor instead of documenting.

• To think instead of reacting.

• To improve instead of simply keeping up.

• To leave work on time without feeling guilty.

Some leaders dismiss this as "soft ROI." I would argue it's actually mission ROI.

Higher education doesn't exist to maximize the number of tasks completed each day. It exists to educate students, support learners, develop communities, solve problems, and change lives. The relationships that make those things possible have steadily been squeezed by administrative complexity. Every new process, form, meeting, compliance requirement, reporting expectation, and documentation standard has taken another small bite out of the time available for the work that matters most.

AI gives us an opportunity to reverse some of that trend. Not so we can immediately fill every recovered minute with something else. But so we can restore space for judgment, creativity, empathy, coaching, innovation, strategic thinking, and human connection. Ironically, those are exactly the capabilities everyone agrees will become more valuable in an AI-enabled world.

The obsession with proving increasingly complex ROI risks missing something obvious.

If AI allows an advisor to spend twenty more minutes with a struggling student...

If it gives a dean time to mentor a department chair...

If it allows an admissions counselor to have one more meaningful conversation with a prospective student...

If it lets a faculty member redesign a course instead of formatting spreadsheets...

If it allows someone to leave work at 5:30 instead of 7:00...

That is ROI.

Not because those moments generate another measurable output. But because they advance the very mission our institutions were created to serve. Perhaps the question isn't, "What harder work should people do now that AI saved them time?" Perhaps the better question is “What important work have we unintentionally crowded out—and what becomes possible when we finally make room for it again?”

Higher education has become remarkably good at measuring the return on labor, but much less intentional about protecting the conditions that allow our best work to happen. AI shouldn't simply help us produce more. It should help us become more human.

Higher ed has spent decades asking our people to do more with less. More students. More regulations. More reporting. More technology. More expectations. AI presents an opportunity to change that trajectory—but only if we resist the temptation to define success solely by efficiency. Efficiency matters. Stewarding institutional resources is part of responsible leadership. But efficiency is not our mission. Our mission is educating students. Building belonging. Advancing opportunity. Supporting learning. Strengthening communities. Those outcomes depend on people having the time, capacity, and energy to do deeply human work.

If AI helps us reclaim that time, we shouldn't immediately ask, "What else can our employees do?" We should first ask, "What important work have they finally been given the opportunity to do well?" That's the difference between Efficiency ROI and Mission ROI.

As you think about your own institution, consider this:

If AI gave every employee on your campus one extra hour each day, would your first instinct be to assign more work—or to help them better fulfill your mission? Your answer may reveal far more about your leadership philosophy than your AI strategy.

This image was created using ChatGPT