Much has been written about the Great Resignation; it is a phenomenon of profound significance. As leaders we need to look at ourselves, our own practices and peer/employee relationships, to clearly see the path forward.

Month after month, the number of “quits” across industries and fields, including higher ed, continue to set new records. Clearly, change is upon us. Employees are dissatisfied in multiple ways and are expressing their preferences to start over someplace other than where and how they are working. Whether they are seeking a different location; supervisor; potential for growth/advancement; or environment, many in our workforce are unhappy and unfulfilled.

Melissa Angell writes in Inc, “The so-called quits rate, which examines the amount of voluntary departures as a percentage of total employment, increased in both smaller businesses employing one to nine workers as well as larger shops with 1,000 to 4,999 workers. The data paints a grim portrait for those with high hopes that the Great Resignation would subside along with the pandemic.” 

At issue in most cases is more than employees simply seeking a modest pay raise. Certainly, employees welcome more income, but the dissatisfaction seems to go deeper than that. Given the time and distance that the pandemic has provided us for reflection on our lives, meaning and mortality, it appears that many workers realize that they want more than money out of their careers. We have known that for a long time in higher education. On average, our salaries at universities are somewhat lower than most of business and industry. Yet, many workers happily forgo the extra money for the knowledge that they are making a difference in the lives of students, in the well-being of society and the advancement of knowledge.

Kathryn Hymes writes in Wired:

“We are in a moment of pervasive change across American life, and in turn there are many new things we must now put into words. One of these has been a radical shift in Americans’ relationship with work. Spanning industries and income levels, people are, as Klotz predicted, leaving their jobs in unprecedented numbers. They are changing employers, “downshifting” on the career ladder, or taking time away from the workforce altogether. With new clarity and savings from the Covid era, some workers have stepped back from precarious frontline jobs made brutally hard in the pandemic. Others report forgoing opportunities for money or status in exchange for greater flexibility and self-determination.” 

Those who are leaders and directors of units in higher education, as many of the readers of Inside Higher Ed are, should take this opportunity to consider how they can better serve their staff members. The benefits of a happy and fulfilling workplace are not just in retention in this “quits” era, but in productivity as well. Happiness, in one study, resulted in a 12% spike in productivity, while unhappiness was associated with a 10% drop. From nearly half a century of supervising, leading and team-building in higher education, here are a few of my personal observations that you and your colleagues may find worth considering.

Do not hire the resume; rather, hire the person.

I have always valued personal qualities over transitory qualifications. Employees can much more easily acquire knowledge than personal values and intrinsic motivations. Warren Buffet ranks integrity highest among the qualities he seeks in hiring. Seeking ethos, team-centeredness, inquisitiveness, shared values and a healthy work ethic, I have been blessed to work with some of the most productive, innovative, and enthusiastic colleagues in our field.

Listen more; profess less.

As a professor by trade, this can be difficult, but if you model what you would profess, you take less time saying things and more time modeling them. Instead of telling staff members again and again how to do something, or why to do something, let your actions speak louder than words. Show them by your own actions how to engage others; how to share knowledge; and how to respect and honor diversity.

Remember that diversity is the wellhead of innovation and growth.

In all of its forms, diversity enriches the team. The additional perspectives bring new ideas and understanding of new marketplaces for research and service.

Encourage and advance those you supervise.

I put a high priority on co-authoring with less-experienced colleagues to enable them to get credit and advance on the research and publication path. I have always shared annual salary surveys and job openings with staff members to remind them of their value and opportunities. This sharing can empower them to pursue their best interests and dreams. You will help advance their careers, and, in turn, they will help you advance your own career.

Professional development every month of every year is essential.

Invest in your team at every opportunity. Conferences, certificates, time to pursue tangential interests and more – all are ways to support the advancement of the team. Following the model of some leading technology firms, I experimented with giving staff at least half a day a week to pursue development of their own choice. The potential of this practice is boundless.

Remember you are part of a team.

As the saying goes, there is no “I” in the word team. Listen to all ideas and perspectives. Then, listen again and ask questions for deeper understanding. No one has a monopoly on good ideas. Being a supervisor does not make you “more equal” than those you supervise. We all are on the same team with shared objectives and should support one another in every way we can. When a team member is having a difficult day for whatever reason, make a point of complimenting them, give them a break, and reinforce their value.

The small things repeated daily build an environment that no one wants to leave. Giving every suggestion a chance to be heard and valued powers the collective knowledge, insight and creativity to make the workplace and the product – whether that be learning, service or research – better.

What are you doing to stem the “quits” at your institution? Can you do more to make your team happier and more engaged? Can you do more to help your colleagues who lead their own teams create a better environment that supports better outcomes?

This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed’s Transforming Teaching & Learning blog.

Higher ed has not been immune to the “Great Resignation.”  Many universities have long lists of open positions. We are on the cusp of filling some of those openings and more with cost-efficient, reliable, and effective Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Higher education already employs artificial intelligence in a number of effective ways. Course and facilities scheduling; student recruitment campaign development; endowment investments and support; and many other operational activities are guided by AI at large institutions. The programs that run AI, algorithms, can use big data to project or predict outcomes based on machine learning in which the computer “learns” to adapt to a myriad of changing elements, conditions and trends.

Adaptive learning is one of the early applications of AI to the actual teaching and learning process. In this case AI is employed to orchestrate the interaction between the learner and instructional material. This enables the program to most efficiently guide the learner to meet desired outcomes based upon the unique needs and preferences of the learner. Using a series of assessments, the algorithm presents a customized selection of instructional materials adapted to what the learner has demonstrated mastery over, and what the learner has yet to learn. This method efficiently eliminates needless repetition of material already learned while advancing through the content at the pace of the learner ensuring that learning outcomes are accomplished.

There is great room for further growth of AI in higher ed as Susan Fourtané writes in Fierce Education:

The potential and impact of AI on teaching have prompted some colleges and universities to take a closer look at it, accelerating its adoption across campuses. For perspective, the global AI market is projected to reach almost $170 billion by 2025. By 2028, the AI market size is expected to gain momentum by reaching over $360 billion, registering a growth rate of 33.6 percent between 2021 and 2028, according to a research firm Fortune Business Insights’ report. The market is mostly segmented into Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing (NLP), image processing, and speech recognition. 

One of the pioneers in applying AI to supporting learning at the university level, Professor Ashok Goel of Georgia Tech, famously developed “Jill Watson,” an AI program to serve as a virtual graduate assistant. Since “her” first semester in 2016, Professor Goel has repeatedly and incrementally improved the program, expanding the potential to create additional AI assistants. The program is becoming increasingly affordable and replicable:

The first iteration of Jill Watson took between 1,000 and 1,500 person hours to complete. While that’s understandable for a groundbreaking research project, it’s not a feasible time investment for a middle school teacher. So Goel and his team set about reducing the time it took to create a customized version of Jill Watson. “Now we can build a Jill Watson in less than ten hours,” Goel says. That reduction in build time is thanks to Agent Smith, a new creation by Goel and his team. All the Agent Smith system needs to create a personalized Jill Watson is a course syllabus and a one-on-one Q&A session with the person teaching it…. “In a sense, it’s using AI to create AI,” Goel says, “which is what you want in the long term, because if humans keep on creating AI, it’s going to take a long time.” 

Increasingly, many students are accustomed to interacting with AI driven chatbots. Serving in a wide range of capacities at colleges, the chatbots commonly converse in text or computer-generated speech using natural language processing. These algorithms may even create a virtual relationship with the students. Such is the case with a chatbot named “Oli” tested by Common App. For 12 months this chatbot communicated with half a million students of the high school class of 2021 twice a week to guide them through the college application process. In addition to the pro-forma steps in the application process, Oli would offer friendly reminders to students to look after themselves in these Covid times, including suggestions to remind them to keep in touch with friends, listening to favorite music or taking deep breaths. When the process was complete, Oli texted:

“Hey pal,” Oli said one week before officially signing off, “I wanted to let you know that I have to say goodbye soon. Remember, even without me, you’re never alone. Don’t hesitate to reach out to your advisor or close ones if you need help or someone to talk to. College isn’t easy, but it’s exciting and you’re so ready!” The relationship might have ended there. But some of Oli’s human correspondents had more to say. Hundreds of them texted back, effusive in their praise for the support the chatbot had offered as they pursued college. Research about social robots shows that children view them as “sort of alive” and make “an attempt to build a mutual relationship,” writes MIT professor Sherry Turkle. It’s a type of connection, a “degree of friendship,” that excites some researchers and worries others.  

Just last month, Google announced a new AI tutor platform to give students personalized feedback, assignments and guidance. Brandon Paykamian writes in GovTech:

[Google Head of Education] Steven Butschi described the product as an expansion of Student Success Services, Google’s software suite released last year that includes virtual assistants, analytics, enrollment algorithms and other applications for higher ed. He said the new AI tutor platform collects “competency skills graphs” made by educators, then uses AI to generate learning activities, such as short-answer or multiple-choice questions, which students can access on an app. The platform also includes applications that can chat with students, provide coaching for reading comprehension and writing, and advise them on academic course plans based on their prior knowledge, career goals and interests. 

With all of these AI applications in development and early release phases, questions have arisen as to how we can best ensure that biases are avoided in AI algorithms used in education. At the same time concerns have been raised that we make sure that learners recognize these are computer programs rather than direct communication with live instructors; that privacy of learners is maintained; and related concerns about the use of AI. The federal Office of Technology and Science Policy is gathering information with the intention of creating an AI Bill of Rights. Generally, the AI bill of rights is meant to “clarify the rights and freedoms” of persons using, or who are subject to, data-driven biometric technologies. 

How is your institution preparing to integrate reliable, cost-effective and efficient AI tools for instruction, assessment, advising and deeper engagement with learners? Are the stakeholders – including faculty, staff, students and the broader community – included in the process to facilitate the broadest input and ensure the advantages and intended outcomes from the use of AI?

This article was originally published in Inside Higher Ed’s Transforming Teaching & Learning blog.