In reading this post, it seemed like it was written for other administrators; I couldn't really understand what the post is getting at. My experience with administrators has been pretty simple: they're hired to try to get faculty to do more work for less compensation, and also to increase their power over faculty in other ways (as shown by Jack Belck's comment). Faculty are hostile to most administration-led change because of this.
Dean Dad's previous writings suggest this is a fair characterization for administrators. In a post responding to the New Faculty Majority, he wrote about his wish to have all hires be on a more or less contingent basis:
"Can you guarantee that enrollments will never go down? How? Because if you can’t, then asking me to commit to the current staffing level -- which is what tenure for adjuncts would amount to -- would guarantee insolvency at the first enrollment dip. If you can, I’d love to hear how...
"Can you guarantee that the distribution of students among programs will never change? If not, then building in tenure for everybody will guarantee underused staff the first time the enrollments shift."
The centralization of power toward the management class has been a long theme in the American economy, both in higher education and almost all sectors. All I know is that as the non-management class loses power, influence, and compensation as a result.
[edit: cut "as" in final sentence.]