Middle Children and Matrix Organizations
Preparing MarComm organizations for the coming efficiency edicts.
I recently finished an organizational assessment for a prestigious, private liberal arts college on the West coast. Like many schools, there is overlap in roles, coordination and collaboration (or lack thereof), and unfilled seats and hiring freezes across the college’s marketing and communications function, including in enrollment and advancement. There are the expected enrollment challenges and an upcoming fundraising campaign that are integral to the context of this project. We were reviewing questions related to the recommendations, particularly those concerning interdepartmental collaboration. I said, “y’all are the middle child here. My wife and sister are both middle children, and they’re the only ones who get things done when multiple families are involved.”
As colleges and universities face shrinking enrollment pools in certain markets and demographics, and budget cuts exacerbated by government policy and economic headwinds, they are looking to their organizational structure as one avenue to tighten budgets — and marketing and communications is under the microscope. It’s not surprising. Although MarComm has made significant progress over the last decade, higher education has never fully funded its marketing and branding efforts. And when faced with budget challenges in the past, MarComm budgets are among the first to be frozen or reduced.
Soon (it’s already happening), MarComm offices will be asked to lead efforts to create budget efficiencies within the MarComm function of the institution or system. The MarComm function here includes marketing and communication roles across colleges, schools, and units. This is a near-impossible scenario for central MarComm — they are accountable for all marketing performance in the eyes of faculty, staff, and leadership, yet have no authority over what individual units do. To put that another way, there is far more scrutiny for central roles than there is, say, at a college. The dean is not getting much, if any, pushback on their marketing and communications needs. This is another analogy to the middle child. They get blamed for everything and rewarded for nothing.
So, what do we do? We know efforts to centralize all marketing and communications efforts are few and far between, and we’re Herculean tasks. IT helps me to start at the foundational level. How is the MarComm function organized within a university? There are three traditional organizational models — Functional, Divisional, and Matrix. Typically, MarComm is a hybrid of Functional and Divisional. Functional at the central level and divisional within colleges, schools, and units. Here is a quick breakdown of the three models.
Functional — These are organized by area of expertise. At a university, senior leadership is often organized Functionally. The CMO, CFO, Provost, VP Student Affairs, VP Development, etc. all lead teams based on these specific areas of expertise.
Divisional — By definition, divisional structures or organized by product, service, geography, or customer segment. The colleges, schools, and units are typically organized this way. They have mini business units like marketing, student support, operations, etc. embedded within them to best market and deliver their own unique academic product.
Matrix — In a traditional matrix model, staff report to more than one leader or unit, which, in theory, can enable greater collaboration and alignment across departments. For example, a videographer might report jointly to central communications and to enrollment or advancement, aligning creative strategy with recruitment goals while maintaining consistency with institutional brand standards.
I believe there’s potential in matrix models, though I’m not sold on dual reporting lines unless one of two things happen. First, and this is necessary regardless, shared resources need operational support to ensure work is aligned to both institutional and unit-level goals. Think project managers ensuring the work is resourced and strategists applying institutional brand work to meet unit goals.
Second, the institution would need to make a major shift and remove some business goals (like recruitment) away from colleges and schools. That would allow deans to focus on the academic product and fundraising. It would also, depending on how overtly you want to communicate this, give central MarComm autonomy over the brand and marketing of the institution. It’s never going to be that clean cut, but let me dream. If higher education wants its brand to sing and deliver results, it can’t be the group project it's always been.
Regardless of model, organizational change isn’t just a staffing issue. We need to examine overlap and inefficiency. Two good examples are high-investment tactics like paid media, where cannibalization increases marketing spend and content production that addresses short-term needs instead of creating broader benefits. In time, collaboration and process improvement can improve efficacy and reduce costs in these examples. But how much time will institutions allow? The infrastructure needed doesn’t exist at most schools. And if leaders prioritize short-term savings over long-term health, the outcomes could be detrimental.
Organizational work is never just a chart. It’s aligning strategy, clarifying ownership, and building trust through collaboration. And it takes time. Without significant investment in sustainable infrastructure, even the most capable middle child won’t be able to pull it all together (and you know you’ll be the one asked to do it).
