This guest post comes from colleagues in one of the four departments voted to be merged in last semester’s budget cuts.
One of the cost-saving measures to come out of the recent budget reduction process was the merger of two pairs of departments within UNL’s CASNR: Plant Pathology with Entomology, and Agricultural Leadership, Education and Communication with Agricultural Economics. These mergers aren’t entirely unprecedented; similar programs have merged at other institutions. So for some, these announcements were not that surprising.
It has been surprising, however, to observe the costs of merging just a few months into the process, that will likely take several years in total, if not longer. We acknowledge that it is possible that merger will, over the very long-term come with short- and long-term benefits.
Each merger was estimated to save $1 million, for a total of $2 million. The roundness of that number–which led some of us to recall Dr. Evil’s famous ransom line from Austin Powers–makes that estimate seem dubiously imprecise.
Whether these mergers will actually yield $1 million each is still unclear. Administrators explained that savings would come from eliminating one administrative role from each of the two units, along with other efficiencies and natural attrition from positions left unfilled when faculty or staff retire or depart. Members of these units have been told there would be no position eliminations.
What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that mergers come with real costs. Some are financial and measurable. Some are not. All feel significant.
Measurable Costs of a Merger
Because these mergers were framed as a budget solution, it’s worth starting with the financial side.
A merger requires significant labor: developing bylaws, creating operational guidelines, articulating a shared mission and vision, and deciding on a name. This work is done by faculty and staff, often through transition teams assembled for this purpose, and possibly with a paid external facilitator.
In short, it requires a lot of time.
We attempted some back-of-the-envelope calculations to estimate the cost of that labor. And yes, we fully acknowledge the limitations of back-of-the-envelope calculations. We value rigor, careful measurement, and sound statistical practices. We would encourage a more systematic review of the costs by anyone with the time and access to the necessary data. This is merely presented as a starting point.
To better understand the labor costs of these mergers, we developed rough estimates of how the process is affecting faculty and staff workloads. Using an average hourly rate of approximately $60, recognizing that actual salaries vary widely and that this estimate does not include benefits, we calculated the cumulative time investment across a range of activities. These include not only formal meetings, but also the extensive behind-the-scenes work: reviewing and providing feedback, participating in surveys and informal discussions, and serving on transition teams and subcommittees. We also accounted for multi-hour retreats, which require not only substantial time to attend, but also to plan, coordinate, and facilitate, and then summarize and reflect upon. Contributions to these efforts aren’t evenly distributed, as some faculty and staff have taken on considerable additional labor, while others cannot or have chosen not to be involved.
Even with these limitations, our conservative estimate suggests that, just one semester in, the financial cost of this work already exceeds $350,000.
| A note that these are rough estimates! | Hours | Hourly Wage | Number of People | |
| ALEC / AgEcon – announcement meeting and senior leadership meeting | 2 | $60 | 73 | $8,760 |
| ALEC/AgEcon Transition Retreat 1 | 4 | $60 | 73 | $17,520 |
| ALEC/AgEcon Transition Retreat 2 | 4 | $60 | 73 | $17,520 |
| ALEC / AgEconTransition Team Commitment | 80 | $60 | 12 | $57600 |
| ALEC/AgEcon – Other Faculty/Staff Time – Completing Surveys, other Subcommittees | 30 | $60 | 15 | $27,000 |
| ALEC / AgEcon transition survey, discussion | 5 | $60 | 73 | $21,900 |
| ALEC/AgEcon subcommittees | 20 | $60 | 12 | $14400 |
| ALEC/AgEcon External Facilitator | $10,000 | |||
| ALEC/AgEcon Meals @ Retreats | $1,000 | |||
| PP/Ento – announcement meeting and senior leadership meeting | 2 | $60 | 74 | $8,880 |
| PP/Ento Transition Retreat 1 | 4 | $60 | 75 | $18,000 |
| PP/Ento Transition Retreat 2 | 4 | $60 | 74 | $17,760 |
| PP/Ento Transition Team Commitment | 80 | $60 | 12 | $57,600 |
| PP/Ento – Other Faculty/Staff Time – Completing Surveys, other Subcommittees | 30 | $60 | 20 | $36,000 |
| PP/Ento transition survey, discussion | 5 | $60 | 74 | $22,200 |
| PP/Ento subcommittees | 20 | $60 | 15 | $18,000 |
| PP/Ento External Facilitator | $60 | unable to estimate | ||
| PP/Ento Meals @ Retreats | $60 | $1,000 | ||
| TOTAL: | $ 355,140 | |||
This time and effort reflects work being redirected away from teaching, research, extension, and students. Even under conservative assumptions, the early phases of these mergers represent a substantial upfront investment, raising important questions about when, how, and if the projected savings will materialize.
The “Immeasurable” Costs
Some of the most significant costs are much harder to quantify, but that doesn’t make them less real. Some of them might be the ones that are the most difficult for staff and faculty to grapple with.
Student engagement.
All of the efforts described above are happening on top of existing responsibilities. Nothing has been taken off anyone’s plate. Time engaging with students is compromised. Faculty are in more meetings and are less available; and office hours and course preparation time may be reduced, grading delayed, and recruitment efforts impacted. These are quiet trade-offs that don’t show up in a budget line but undoubtedly affect student experiences and retention.
Student uncertainty.
Students are aware that something is happening, but many haven’t received clear communication. We hear things like: “I heard…” or “What does this mean?” or “How will this affect us?” In the absence of information, rumors and misinformation can fill in the gaps, which also might impact student experience and retention.
Burnout and exhaustion.
Faculty and staff are already navigating a challenging higher education landscape. Adding a merger on top of that, without reducing other expectations, has real consequences. This kind of sustained overload doesn’t just disappear once the merger is complete, but will likely linger for some time to come.
Cost of Lost Time.
Reporting has indicated that investments in the university, and the work done by faculty and staff day-to-day, yield significant positive economic gains for the state. A 2024 report estimated that for each $1 of investment in the University System, $10 is returned to Nebraska (Nebraska Examiner). In part, this comes from grant dollars. When faculty and staff are pulled away from grant-related work, it can reduce the likelihood of securing external funding that supports students, advances research, and brings resources back to the university and communities. These shifts also affect job satisfaction and productivity, with potential long-term consequences for the work that could support Nebraska communities, research and innovation, and student experiences. For the four units in CASNR, this lost time on grant work could have impacts on agricultural advancement and natural resource conservation, not to mention the impact these units have in extension efforts.
Disciplinary identity.
There are benefits to interdisciplinary collaboration that might come from these mergers. But mergers that come from the top down – rather than ones that incubate naturally – can create a very real sense of loss and disorientation. Faculty and staff may feel disconnected from their disciplinary identity or uncertain about how their work fits within the new structure. Faculty and staff will likely move on, and there will be impacts on productivity as individuals reformulate their academic identity. It may be difficult recruit new faculty, particularly in the short-term.
Uncertainty and Precarity
For some, these mergers feel less like a fresh start and more like a signal that reminds us that programs were evaluated, compared, and, in some cases, cut entirely. Being merged rather than eliminated does not necessarily register as stability; instead, it signals that each of these programs may have been on the “chopping block,” and may be again. Many across our campuses acknowledge that more budget cuts are on the horizon, which can weigh heavily on morale, shaping how faculty and staff interpret the present and anticipate the future. It can heighten uncertainty create pressure to demonstrate value, often without clear or consistent criteria for what counts as an “effective” or “successful” program. Over time, this sense of precarity can influence not only how people feel about their work, but how they make decisions about where to invest their time, energy, and professional commitments.
Staff and Part-Time/Adjunct faculty morale.
Staff and adjunct or part-time faculty often feel particularly vulnerable and carry a disproportionate share of the uncertainty, despite how essential they are to our institution. They likely feel deeply affected by shifts in structure, leadership, and expectations. While recent program eliminations have shown that tenure is no guarantee against cuts, tenure is in many scenarios at least some form of protection–but one that staff and professors of practice do not have.
Leadership transitions.
In both mergers, one department chair will step out of their role to return to faculty or retire. While we can’t speak to individual experiences, it’s hard not to recognize the potential impact on these individuals, potentially if they are near the end of their career. These are significant professional disruptions and disappointments, often happening under less-than-ideal circumstances. Still, these individuals are charged with dedicating a considerable amount of time helping their units manage this transition.
Of course, some of the costs of merging departments cannot be estimated, quantified, or even anticipated. But they are beginning to surface in hallway conversations, in quiet frustration, and in a kind of fatigue that does not easily dissipate. They appear in the gradual erosion of trust and in the time and effort required to rebuild a shared sense of purpose. These costs are real, even if we cannot measure or anticipate them now.
Despite our efforts to estimate financial impacts, we caution against focusing too narrowly on dollars alone. Doing so risks overlooking broader effects, particularly those that are not yet measurable but are already being felt.
Over time, hopefully, there are tangible benefits to these mergers that might be new collaborations, more streamlined processes, and novel approaches to teaching, research, and extension that strengthen our institution. It is important to be open-minded about what the future may hold, but also important to be clear about present realities. If we must focus on reduction and savings, we should also be honest about the costs.
