You May Have to Cut. Just Don’t Eat the Seed Corn.

You have a gap to close. The budget for next year does not balance, and you are the one who has to help make it balance.

So let’s begin with the truth sitting in the room before anyone opens the spreadsheet: You may have to cut. Some cuts are necessary. Some are overdue. Some programs, roles, centers, and initiatives made sense for an earlier version of the institution and no longer make sense for the institution you are trying to become. No serious strategy protects everything forever.

The danger is cutting without knowing where recovery will come from.

A budget can be balanced in a way that makes the institution clearer, stronger, and more focused. It can also be balanced in a way that removes the very capacity needed to grow enrollment, retain students, build new revenue, strengthen partnerships, and give students a reason to choose you. Both plans can look responsible on paper. Both can come with dashboards, ratios, budget models, and board-ready explanations. Only one gives you a path back.

That is why the first question cannot be only, “What does this cost?” The better question is, “What does this still make possible?”

If the answer is “not much,” the cut may be right. But if the answer is enrollment, retention, student trust, employer relevance, academic quality, market visibility, or future revenue, then you are no longer talking only about expense reduction. You may be cutting the institution’s recovery engine.

And when an institution cuts the recovery engine in the name of closing a deficit, the savings can be real while the climb out gets steeper.

The obvious cut can be the most seductive one

In a budget gap, the obvious cut has a special kind of charm. It enters the room with clean numbers, a tidy rationale, and the energy of someone who alphabetizes the shared drive.

Low enrollment. High cost. Limited completion. Modest revenue. A program with too few majors. A center whose value is hard to measure. A staff role that does not sit directly inside instruction. A pilot that has not had enough time to prove itself. A partnership function everyone appreciates and no one knows how to price.

The numbers might make the case. The savings could be visible. The explanation rolls off your tongue easily. You can carry the decision into cabinet, faculty senate, a finance committee, or a board retreat, and no one has to work hard to understand it.

That is what makes the cut attractive.

It is also what should make you slow down.

The easiest cut to defend is not always the best cut to make. Sometimes it is easy to defend because the work no longer creates enough value. Sometimes it is easy to defend because the value is doing more work than the numbers show.

That is the difference your institution cannot afford to miss.

Recovery comes from somewhere specific

When an institution faces a major deficit, people often talk as if the whole institution has to recover at once. That sounds noble. It is also too vague to guide a cut list.

Recovery usually comes from a smaller set of places.

It comes from the programs students still choose and the ones they would choose if the pathway were clearer. It comes from the advising, coaching, and student support that keep students enrolled when life gets complicated. It comes from transfer pathways that make it easier for community college students, adult learners, and working students to move without losing time, credit, confidence, or patience.

It comes from employer partnerships that make the value of the credential more concrete. It comes from market intelligence that tells you what demand is real. It comes from the people who know how students actually move through the institution, where they get stuck, and which “small” process creates a surprisingly large mess.

It comes from the teams that can build new programs, repair broken funnels, simplify admissions, price offerings correctly, improve conversion, and turn interest into enrollment.

That is your recovery engine.

It is not every program people love. It is not every office with a good mission statement. It is not every legacy commitment with a loyal constituency and a heroic origin story. The recovery engine is the set of programs, people, processes, and capabilities most connected to your ability to regain momentum.

If you are closing a deficit, you need to know where that engine is before you start pulling pieces out of it.

Start by naming where recovery is supposed to come from

The first step is to name the institution’s recovery bets.

This sounds simple, which is how you know it will be harder than it looks. Many institutions have a budget gap, a strategic plan, a cabinet retreat deck, a set of enrollment goals, several urgent initiatives, and no clear agreement about where recovery is actually supposed to come from.

So name it plainly. Is recovery expected to come from transfer growth? First-year enrollment? Adult learners? Graduate programs? Online programs? Retention? Employer partnerships? Better pricing? A smaller but healthier academic portfolio? Improved net revenue per student? A regional niche you can still own? A few programs with enough demand, margin, and mission fit to justify deeper investment?

You do not need twenty-seven recovery bets. In fact, twenty-seven is usually a sign that no one wants to choose. You need a few.

Once you name them, you can ask the question that matters: What has to be true for those bets to work?

If transfer growth is part of the recovery plan, then articulation, transcript evaluation, advising, pathway design, community college relationships, credit transfer policy, and transfer communications are not side functions. They are part of the engine.

If adult learners are part of the recovery plan, then scheduling, online quality, credit for prior learning, clear pricing, coaching, fast admissions processes, and student support outside traditional business hours are not nice extras. They are part of the engine.

If retention is part of the recovery plan, then advising, academic support, financial aid communication, early alerts, course availability, and the staff who know where students disappear are not soft costs. They are part of the engine.

If new revenue is part of the recovery plan, then program development, market research, employer engagement, pricing strategy, digital marketing, admissions operations, and launch capacity are not overhead in the casual sense. They are how the institution gets from budget gap to earned revenue.

This is where the cut list starts to change. You stop asking only, “Can we live without this?” You start asking, “Can the recovery plan still work without this?”

That question is less convenient to answer. It is also more honest.

Trace the work before you remove the line

The next step is to trace the work. Before you remove a program, role, center, or function, ask what depends on it.

Does it support enrollment in other programs? Does it help students persist? Does it create employer relationships? Does it protect academic quality? Does it make transfer work? Does it shorten time to decision for prospective students? Does it generate market knowledge? Does it hold together a process that looks simple from the outside and becomes chaos the moment the person who understands it leaves?

Higher education is full of work that looks small until it disappears.

The person who answers transfer questions before a student gives up. The advisor who knows the policy workaround that keeps a student enrolled. The program director who can tell you which curriculum change would make an offering viable. The admissions operations person who knows why leads vanish between inquiry and application. The marketing analyst who can tell the difference between real demand and a room full of people agreeing with each other.

The budget may see these as costs. Students experience them as whether the institution works.

That is why “absorb the work” is one of the most dangerous phrases in a budget meeting. It sounds efficient. Sometimes it is. Often it means the work has no real owner, no clear process, no time attached to it, and no one accountable for the result. The salary line disappears. The work does not. It drifts into already full calendars, loses quality, slows down, or stops in ways no one notices until the enrollment report arrives with bad news.

If the work still matters, the cut requires a redesign. Who owns the work now? What stops? What slows down? What becomes automated? What becomes centralized? What becomes someone else’s explicit responsibility? What consequence are you willing to accept?

A cut without those answers is not a strategy. It is a hope that the institution can do less and somehow produce more.

Separate weak performance from hidden contribution

The recovery engine does not give every struggling program a lifetime pass.

Some programs should close. Some roles should change. Some centers should sunset. Some initiatives are expensive, underused, poorly aligned, or kept alive by memory rather than demand. Your institution may have things that are beloved, defensible in mission language, and still no longer viable.

But weak performance and hidden contribution are not the same thing.

A program may have few majors and still support high-demand programs through required courses, minors, certificates, general education, graduate pathways, or regional credibility. A center may not generate direct revenue and still create partnerships, grants, employer access, student placements, or public trust. A staff role may look far from the classroom and still be the reason students can navigate the institution without needing a sherpa and a minor in bureaucracy.

You do not save those things because they have a good story. You examine them because the spreadsheet may not show the whole story.

The test is practical. What does this program, role, or function make possible? Who uses it? What breaks or slows if it disappears? What revenue, retention, student experience, partnership, or academic quality depends on it? Is the contribution real, measurable enough, and connected to the recovery plan?

If the answer is no, the cut may be right. If the answer is yes, then you need to decide whether to protect it, redesign it, merge it, narrow it, or fund it differently. What you should not do is cut it casually because the number looks clean.

A clean number can still leave a mess.

Ask what the cut does to time

Deficit work often focuses on the amount saved. That matters, of course. A million dollars is a million dollars.

But the amount saved is only one part of the decision. You also have to ask what the cut does to time.

A cut can save money this year and add two years to the recovery timeline. If you eliminate the people who can build new programs, repair the funnel, support students most likely to stop out, or manage employer partnerships, you may still close the immediate gap. You may also make it harder to grow your way out.

This is where the board-ready answer can become dangerous. “We saved $2 million” is easy to understand. “We saved $2 million, but we also slowed our transfer strategy, weakened advising, delayed two new programs, and reduced our ability to convert adult learners” is the sentence someone has to be willing to say before the vote, not three years later in a task force report.

Cuts have a time cost. Some are worth it. Some are not. The institution needs to know which is which.

Circuit City already ran the experiment

To see how this ends, leave higher education for a moment. Another industry already ran the experiment for us, and the lesson comes with fluorescent lighting, carpeted sales floors, and a lot of people trying to choose the right television.

In March 2007, Circuit City did one of the most defensible things a struggling retailer can do. It cut payroll.

The company identified roughly 3,400 store employees whose wages had risen above the local market rate and let them go in a single morning. These were not simply the weakest employees. Many were the opposite. They were the people whose years on the floor had earned them raises. They knew the products. They knew the customers. They could explain why one television was better than another, walk a nervous buyer through a home theater system, and close the sale without making the customer feel foolish.

They were invited to reapply later at lower pay.

On paper, the cut made sense. The salary line shrank. The savings were real. If you put that decision in front of a board with a clean enough memo, it probably passes without much debate. It looks disciplined. It looks market-aware. It looks responsible.

Then the customers walked in and found nobody who could help them.

Sales fell. The thing that made Circuit City worth driving to was gone. Without the knowledgeable person on the floor, the store became a warehouse with price tags. Within two years, the company filed for bankruptcy. By 2009, the stores were empty.

Circuit City did not cut its way into trouble by being sloppy. It cut its way into trouble by removing the people who made recovery possible.

Higher education has its own person on the floor

Your institution has its own version of those Circuit City employees.

It may be the transfer advisor who understands why admitted students never enroll. It may be the program chair who knows which curriculum changes would make an offering more relevant. It may be the marketing analyst who can tell you where demand is forming. It may be the admissions operations person who knows where prospects get lost. It may be the student success staff member who can name the three policies that make adult learners stop out. It may be the partnership lead who knows which employers are ready to move and which ones are only being polite.

It may also be a program.

The program may not look strong if you only count majors. But it may serve students across the curriculum, anchor a pathway, support a regional need, create graduate enrollment, strengthen employer relationships, or give the institution a reason to matter in a space where it still has credibility.

That does not mean you automatically save it. It means you understand it before you cut it.

The question is not, “Can we defend eliminating this?” The better question is, “What becomes harder if this disappears?”

If the answer is “nothing important,” cut it. If the answer is recruiting, retention, transfer, program growth, partnership development, or student trust, then you need a better plan than subtraction.

Put the cut list through a recovery test

Before approving a major cut, put it through a recovery test.

Start by naming the institution’s few recovery bets. Then identify what each bet depends on. Then mark which programs, roles, systems, relationships, and processes directly support those bets. Then decide what can be cut, what can be redesigned, and what has to be protected because too much of the recovery plan depends on it.

The recovery test is not sentimental. It does not ask whether people like the thing. It asks whether the thing is connected to the future you are trying to build.

If you cut this, does the recovery plan still work? Can students still find you? Can they still understand the pathway? Can they still get admitted without confusion? Can they still get advised? Can they still get the courses they need? Can the institution still build what it says it will build? Can someone still manage the partnership, read the market, launch the program, follow up with the lead, support the student, and close the loop?

If the answer is yes, the cut may be right.

If the answer is no, you are cutting into the engine.

And if the answer is “we are not sure,” that is not a reason to rush. That is a reason to trace the work before you make the decision permanent.

A smaller institution still needs an engine

When the deficit is real, reduction can start to feel like progress. Fewer programs. Fewer people. Fewer centers. Fewer commitments. A cleaner budget. A simpler story.

Sometimes smaller is necessary. Sometimes smaller is healthier. But smaller does not automatically mean stronger.

A smaller institution can still be unfocused. It can still have weak demand, confusing pathways, thin advising, poor conversion, unclear pricing, and no real plan for earned revenue. A smaller institution can still be expensive in all the wrong places and underbuilt in the places that matter.

If you are going to become smaller, become sharper. If you are going to cut, cut in a way that clarifies who you serve, why students choose you, what you can deliver well, and how you will regain momentum.

The question is not only, “How do we spend less?” The question is, “How do we become more capable of doing what matters?”

That is the difference between a budget exercise and strategy.

The harder leadership choice

The disciplined leader is not the one who cuts the line item everyone already agrees to cut. The disciplined leader is the one willing to defend the harder choice: protecting what is essential to the institution’s recovery, even when the savings would be easier to explain.

That may mean telling a cabinet, president, provost, finance committee, or board that the cheapest option is not the right one. It may mean protecting a program, role, center, or function because it does more work than the numbers show. It may mean finding savings in places that are less obvious, less comfortable, and less likely to produce quick agreement in the room.

That is harder leadership. It is also the work of making sure the institution does not balance next year’s budget by weakening the very things students, families, employers, and communities still choose it for.

Sometimes the cut that looks brave is simply convenient. Sometimes the responsible-looking move is the one with the best documentation. Sometimes the budget line that looks easiest to remove is attached to something you will spend the next three years trying to rebuild.

That is the risk leaders are paid to see. You do not have perfect information. You cannot save every program, every position, or every beloved initiative. No one can. But someone in the room has to notice when the decision protects the person making it more than it protects the institution.

That is the gap you have to hold.

So here is the question I would leave on your desk, right next to the decision everyone already agrees with:

If this cut is so obviously right that nobody will question it, what part of your recovery engine might it quietly remove?

Circuit City had every answer it needed inside its own walls. The people who knew which television was better were standing right there, on the floor, the morning they were walked out.

Your version of those people may be somewhere in the budget you are about to approve. The number will not tell you where.

That is your job.

Look up, and look out.

Learn Strategy That Actually Works

This is the kind of thinking I share in Look Up & Look Out, where I teach strategy frameworks for higher education leaders. Subscribe here.