Competing for Research-Active Staff and Specialist Professional Services When University Budgets Are Tight
Talent Acumen | Higher education insight
Universities are cutting costs and still need people who bring in research income, manage complex finances, make sense of data, look after estates and raise philanthropic funds. Those people are hard to replace and have plenty of other options. The institutions that handle this well treat hiring and retention as a financial strategy rather than a cost to be minimised.
The financial backdrop
The Office for Students’ May 2026 report found that 36% of English institutions reported deficits for 2024-25, with more than four in ten expected to face shortfalls in 2025-26. Under a “no growth” scenario, nearly 60% of English universities would be in deficit within five years. The most severe scenario modelled cumulative losses of £4.2bn, pushing almost 200 providers into deficit by 2028/29.
The pressure on recruitment is already visible. The same report highlights government data showing that study visa applications fell by nearly a third between January and March 2026 compared with the previous year. That weakens a key income stream just as universities try to plan hiring.
Where the cuts are landing
Cuts are not limited to academic departments. At Durham, a £20 million savings plan was expected to cost around 200 professional services staff in its first year. At Sheffield, the union said a £23 million savings target could mean about 400 jobs lost, with as many as 1,000 professional services staff in scope. In 2026, Lincoln put 140 staff at risk, with 34 posts expected to go, and the union said it was the fourth year of job losses in a row.
The national staffing data shows a sector under strain. HESA figures show 244,755 academic staff in 2024-25, down from a peak of 246,930 the year before, the first fall in the ten-year record. Some institutions cut support services deeply, including Worcester (44% down), Robert Gordon (16%) and Sheffield Hallam (15%).
For a recruiter, this has two effects. Skilled people are being released into the market, but the best ones leave voluntarily before a restructure reaches them. Those who stay often carry heavier workloads, and the institutional memory that goes with departing staff is hard to rebuild. One analysis of the sector warned that perpetual voluntary redundancy schemes have created a vacuum of institutional memory.
Research-active staff: squeezed at home, wanted abroad
Research staff face pressure from the funding side. UKRI has said it will focus its activity into three areas, and observers say the trend towards reductions for blue-sky grants is clear. A Royal Geographical Society report found that 61% of responding institutions had reduced staff numbers in the last year, three-quarters said workloads had increased, and more than half had cut internal research funds for academics.
Meanwhile the competition for talent is international. The UK government has said it will consider expanding the £54 million Global Talent Fund, which aims to attract top international researchers. Reporting from the United States suggests scientists there submitted nearly a third more applications for jobs abroad than in the same period of 2024, and a survey cited in the same coverage found 75% were considering leaving. Universities with funding certainty can win people that a cash-constrained institution cannot.
Contract structure is also a retention issue. HESA data showed 71,715 fixed-term and 33,880 hourly-paid academic staff in 2023/24. Earlier data showed that around 41% of academic staff at the seven largest universities were on fixed-term contracts. Researchers on short contracts have strong reasons to move when something more secure appears.
Specialist professional services: the overlooked battleground
Finance, data, estates and fundraising roles compete with the whole labour market, not just other universities. The pay environment makes that harder. Employers offered a 2% rise for 2026-27, a slight improvement on last year’s 1.4%, and the employers’ body described it as the best they could offer given the severity of the financial pressures. UCU has formally rejected the offer. A 2% rise does little to close any gap with private sector pay for people with in-demand skills.
The problem is not new. An earlier joint report by university HR and estates directors found some universities had senior staff poached by local authorities and the NHS, as well as by the private sector, which offered significantly higher salaries and broader benefits. Separately, commentators have noted that recruiting senior professional services staff from outside higher education is particularly difficult.
The risk is that these roles are cut or frozen first when they are exactly the ones that protect the institution. A strong finance director models scenarios like those the regulator describes. A capable fundraising lead brings in income that does not depend on tuition fees. Data specialists support recruitment forecasting and student retention. Estates leaders keep running costs under control. Losing them costs more than their salaries.
What a sensible approach looks like
Protect income-generating and risk-critical roles. Before cutting, identify which posts bring in funding or protect the institution from financial and compliance risk.
Use targeted market supplements and retention payments. Where national pay scales lag, a time-limited supplement for scarce skills costs less than repeated recruitment.
Offer what money cannot. Flexible working, a clear career path, research time, and funding certainty all count, particularly for researchers weighing offers from other countries.
Look beyond higher education. Finance, data and fundraising professionals from the charity, public and corporate sectors can bring fresh approaches. Make sure the offer and onboarding explain how a university works.
Review fixed-term arrangements. Where roles are effectively continuous, moving people to open-ended contracts can improve retention at little extra cost.
Use interim and contract resource for peaks. A restructure, a funding bid or a transformation project may need specialist capacity for six months, not permanent headcount.
Plan succession for people who hold institutional knowledge. If a restructure leaves one person holding a critical process, a handover plan matters.
The takeaway
Budget pressure forces universities to do more with less, and that is exactly when losing the wrong people is most expensive. The institutions that come through best will be those that decide deliberately which roles to protect, price scarce skills realistically, and recruit with a clear case for why a specialist should choose them.
If your university is recruiting for a senior finance, data, estates or fundraising role, or trying to retain research-active staff in a difficult year, get in touch with the team at Talent Acumen.