Systems Thinking for Higher Education Leaders: Solving Wicked Problems
Higher education faces many wicked problems, which are like knotted messes of complex and interdependent threads. It is not even clear where to start working to disentangle. Yet we rarely prepare leaders for these types of situations.
Having engaged in leadership development for more than two decades, I developed six domains of knowledge for higher education leaders to assist them in organizing their thinking and skill-building around leadership. The premise is simple; higher ed leaders must know themselves and their skills, teams, students, and university. Previously, I labeled the sixth domain "know your context,” but I have increasingly thought of this domain as 'knowing systems thinking.’
Yes, context matters. And, part of systems thinking does necessitate understanding the broader context. But, leadership is more than simply knowing the context. To tackle wicked problems, leaders must understand the larger system, its relationships, and how decisions impact the system.
The Move Toward Systems Thinking
Leaders who employ systems thinking can understand the system in which they exist, the various relationships that are part of that system, how decisions ripple throughout the system, and how they can position the unit they lead within that system to advance their mission and tackle wicked problems.
To be clear, I'm not speaking of formal multi-campus systems, such as the SUNY system, where I previously served in a senior leadership role. Admittedly, working for such a system does provide a different perspective than one often sees at the institutional level. Now, as a college dean, I can see how systems thinking applies to various aspects of higher education leadership, from department chairs to system-level chief executive officers.
We are seeing systems-thinking related to multi-institutional efforts to improve student success, with initiatives focused on seamless transfer, curricular flexibility, and multi-campus financial aid consortiums. Private institutions are also adopting more system-thinking approaches, through shared services and shared courses. Surprisingly, though, concepts of course sharing and resource sharing can be even more difficult when working within an institution than when working across institutions.
Balancing Leadership Roles
As leaders, we focus primarily on the entity we lead and how to optimize it compared to other similar units. Department chairs within a university or presidents within multi-campus systems often face a very similar dilemma. They serve as the CEO of their unit (e.g., academic department or university) and as a co-leader of a larger entity (e.g., college or multi-campus system). Too often, the chief executive role overshadows the responsibility toward the larger system. But, when the system struggles, so too do the units within it.
As a result, leaders focus on activities with short-term positive impacts on their unit but may harm the overall university. Consider the following examples from an imaginary resource-strapped university:
- To increase student credit hours, departments add high-demand courses without innovating their design or delivery. Existing enrollments might shift around, but no new resources come to the university.
- The enrollment management VP increases discounting rates significantly to be more competitive and increase enrollment. Enrollment grows. Overall net tuition declines. The academic departments have fewer resources to serve more students.
- In pursuing a new "hot" program like artificial intelligence, the colleges of business, engineering, and arts & science each create their own version of a degree without collaboration or coordination. Instead of the university focusing on competing in the broader market, the three colleges compete internally for enrollment and resources. All of the programs end up struggling.
The problem with each of these scenarios is that leaders make decisions based on the best interest of their unit without understanding (or caring about) the impact on the larger organization. It ends up being a bit like moving the deck chairs around the Titanic.
Creating Structure to Spur Systems Thinking
One way to advance a systems-thinking mindset within a university is to create structures and policies to reinforce collaboration instead of competition. For example, at Miami University, we created the Miami Academic Program Incubator (MAPI). The initiative is essentially an idea lab for all new and revised academic programming at the university. The process does three main things:
- creates an in-depth data-driven analysis of the market and the potential competitive advantage of a new program;
- conducts a robust review of the financial implications of a new program looking at sustainability and growth; and
- brings together stakeholders (academic and administrative) from across the campus to provide input on everything from complementary coursework to optimizing the program’s market potential. That information is then provided to the lead dean to decide whether or not to move forward with investing in the development of a full proposal.
Instead of the historical process whereby new program development happens in isolation from other units or without a broad range of financial or market information, this system encourages collaboration early on in the process. It is set up to maximize the university's resources and expertise.
Balancing Leadership Roles
As leaders, we focus primarily on the entity we lead and how to optimize it compared to other similar units. Department chairs within a university or presidents within multi-campus systems often face a very similar dilemma. They serve as the CEO of their unit (e.g., academic department or university) and as a co-leader of a larger entity (e.g., college or multi-campus system). Too often, the chief executive role overshadows the responsibility toward the larger system. But, when the system struggles, so too do the units within it.
As a result, leaders focus on activities with short-term positive impacts on their unit but may harm the overall university. Consider the following examples from an imaginary resource-strapped university:
- To increase student credit hours, departments add high-demand courses without innovating their design or delivery. Existing enrollments might shift around, but no new resources come to the university.
- The enrollment management VP increases discounting rates significantly to be more competitive and increase enrollment. Enrollment grows. Overall net tuition declines. The academic departments have fewer resources to serve more students.
- In pursuing a new "hot" program like artificial intelligence, the colleges of business, engineering, and arts & science each create their own version of a degree without collaboration or coordination. Instead of the university focusing on competing in the broader market, the three colleges compete internally for enrollment and resources. All of the programs end up struggling.
The problem with each of these scenarios is that leaders make decisions based on the best interest of their unit without understanding (or caring about) the impact on the larger organization. It ends up being a bit like moving the deck chairs around the Titanic.
Creating Structure to Spur Systems Thinking
One way to advance a systems-thinking mindset within a university is to create structures and policies to reinforce collaboration instead of competition. For example, at Miami University, we created the Miami Academic Program Incubator (MAPI). The initiative is essentially an idea lab for all new and revised academic programming at the university. The process does three main things:
- creates an in-depth data-driven analysis of the market and the potential competitive advantage of a new program;
- conducts a robust review of the financial implications of a new program looking at sustainability and growth; and
- brings together stakeholders (academic and administrative) from across the campus to provide input on everything from complementary coursework to optimizing the program’s market potential. That information is then provided to the lead dean to decide whether or not to move forward with investing in the development of a full proposal.
Instead of the historical process whereby new program development happens in isolation from other units or without a broad range of financial or market information, this system encourages collaboration early on in the process. It is set up to maximize the university's resources and expertise.
System Thinking Components
Leaders must create policies and structures to reinforce collaboration over competition, maximize resources and expertise, and advance system-thinking culture. Fostering a systems thinking culture can begin by being clear about the ultimate goal, stepping back to see patterns and implications, and creating interdisciplinary teams.
Begin with the End in Mind
Be clear about the ultimate goal that you are trying to achieve. If that goal is being more academically competitive in the student marketplace, make that clear.
Get To The Balcony
Leadership scholar Ron Heifetz encouraged leaders to leave the dance floor and get to the balcony to see the distinct components in the system as well as the connections and patterns between them. The MAPI process forces leaders to look at broader patterns and implications, including resource usage and entry into the marketplace for students.
Reset Expectations
We often hear the saying that culture eats strategy for breakfast. One of the main reasons is that we fail to acknowledge historical assumptions and reset expectations. Suppose historical decisions were based on maximizing an individual unit's resources. In that case, the result is that planning occurs through a lens of maximizing unit revenue or preventing others from taking a larger share, ultimately hurting the overall university. In this case, leaders need to actively work to reset expectations that the goal is to maximize resource generation for the university, which will have a net positive impact on all units. A rising tide raises all boats.
Understand Implications
Every action taken ripples throughout the system. Sometimes those ripples can have positive effects. At other times, they could capsize another unit. One of the values of MAPI is that it brings many critical stakeholders to the table early so that a comprehensive assessment of internal implications and efforts can be taken early to maximize the overall benefit.
Align Resources
Nearly all universities face limited resources, creating hoarding behavior as units seek to protect themselves from the future. However, this approach leads to even less effectiveness in the system and strains an organization's ability to achieve goals. Instead, consider how to realign resources so that they support your goal attainment most effectively and efficiently. For example, when standing up a new program, are there existing courses or expertise across the campus to leverage instead of working on setting up an entirely new academic program with all new resources?
Every system produces the results it is set up to achieve. If you want to change the results, you have to change the system.
Jason E. Lane is Dean of the College of Education, Health, and Society at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. He is also the director of the Association of Governing Board’s (AGB’s) Institute for Leadership and Governance, a senior fellow with the National Association of System Heads (NASH), and a member of the governing board of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS).
This custom content is sponsored by Miami University and developed by Inside Higher Ed's sponsored content team. The editorial staff of Inside Higher Ed had no role in its creation.
Built with Shorthand