Conversations about the need for change in higher education and how best to chart our path forward have become exhausting. Our debates about how to survive while staying true to our academic mission are intense and frequently unproductive. Those who feel buffeted by constant attempts at transformation report “change fatigue,” and those impatient with what they perceive to be an ossified status quo express annoyance and agitation.
It often feels like we’re in an ideological war zone with the “resistant to change” cavalry pitted against the “rash and impetuous” camp. Rather than thoughtfully tackling critical issues together, we argue about our approaches and assume each other’s motives to be self-serving. In doing so, we create a tense and uncomfortable environment in which making progress seems almost impossible.
Those tensions are not particular to our university — you may be observing the same phenomenon at yours. As we’ve watched volleys from each side lately, we’ve found ourselves asking: Why can’t we have more productive conversations? Why is it so hard to us to make a decision about organizational change, curricular change, or anything else?
Those are not inconsequential musings. Academe’s apparent inability to move new ideas forward and adjust to a changing landscape is increasingly prompting calls for leaders who are “bold,” “decisive,” and “forward-thinking.” Of course when people with such traits are installed, they often butt against career academicians with long institutional memories and healthy cynicism about yet another shiny new strategic plan. Refusals to engage ensue, votes of no confidence are cast. In the end, everyone is unhappy, and few institutions are any better off.
Is there something inherently different about the world of higher education that makes it difficult to move new ideas forward? The skills are there: Academic institutions are, after all, committed to innovation and new knowledge. How, then, can so many smart people — capable of taking concepts from idea to execution when it comes to their own scholarship — be incapable of following the same path when it comes to organizational decision making?
We have a theory.
Let’s consider how years of academic training influence decision making. From the perspective of faculty careers, success rests on a common set of personal attributes including tenacity and grit. Unique perspectives are built slowly over long periods of time. Argumentation is a means of scholarly discourse.
Instead of reacting negatively to top-down initiatives or arguing simply to demonstrate our superior debating skills, let’s demonstrate that we can contribute positively to the change discussion.
Taken together, those aspects of academic culture ensure that new ideas are clearly articulated and fully vetted as they are assimilated into our collective knowledge. Faculty members are trained to collect diverse and comprehensive data, look for errors, criticize, hold tight to a good idea, and withhold information until a seemingly airtight argument can be made to prove their point. Further, faculty members avoid the use of terms like “always” and “never,” acknowledging the reality that knowledge is situational and subject to change as new information and perspectives come to light.
While those attributes well serve the advancement of scholarly understanding and academic reputations, when applied to collective decision-making, they can become roadblocks to change.
So does academic thinking inhibit strategic decision making?
Not necessarily. For evidence, consider the growth of collaborative research projects that leverage multiple perspectives into successful advances. In collaborative work, researchers seek out the input of others with distinct but overlapping areas of expertise and strive to integrate unique perspectives into current understanding. In so doing, investigators bypass barriers to progress that are created by the boundaries of a single scholar’s own knowledge. We’ve watched that process work especially well in multiple disciplines at our university, and we think the concepts of collaborative research could be effective if applied to institutional decision making as well. The question is how to do that.
What if we approached decision-making conversations as collaborations rather than as arguments of distinct perspective that are structured to be won?
Imagine how different our decision-making process would be if we began our conversations from the points at which our diverse perspectives positively intersect — and then intentionally integrated additional sources of knowledge and experience. To that end, we propose a structured model of listening and analysis that we are calling “Consider Conversations.” In this approach, we would all commit to:
- Consider what is prompting this conversation. What internal or external forces suggest that the status quo is no longer viable? What will happen if we ignore this information? What are the core issues that are directly affected by this information?
- Consider the opinions of others. What unique perspective do they bring to the conversation? How does that perspective serve the mission of my organization? What can I learn from this conversation?
- Consider how our own opinions affect our openness to new ideas. What are my own biases in these conversations? Do my opinions uniquely serve the mission of my organization, or do I speak from one perspective? What makes me uncomfortable about the idea under consideration here?
- Consider how diverse ideas can be integrated to spur innovation. What are the points of intersection among our perspectives? What unique ideas do we each bring to the conversation that can strengthen our shared mission? What information can I contribute to deal with the challenge before us?
- Consider how to introduce new ideas. Can I do so in ways that expand and energize the conversation, rather than cut it off? How can I propose a concern, idea, or information in a way that seems engaging rather than challenging?
The goal here is to provide a means to ensure a full and open debate on the points where our opinions diverge, a transparent understanding of the benefits and consequences of unique perspectives, and productive discussions from which innovative ideas can emerge.
As calls for transforming higher education continue, let’s be active participants in the conversation. Instead of reacting negatively to top-down initiatives or arguing simply to demonstrate our superior debating skills, let’s demonstrate that we can contribute positively to the change discussion. Our institutions will be best positioned to adapt and thrive with the benefit of our collective voice.
Questions or concerns about this article? Email us or submit a letter to the editor. The Chronicle welcomes constructive discussion, and our moderators highlight contributions that are thoughtful and relevant. Add your comments below; we’ll review them shortly. Read our commenting policy here.
