By Anthony S. Bieda, Founding Partner (www.asb34policyresources.com)

As businesses and colleges burn through the first month of 2022 without a clear picture of post-pandemic operating conditions, some organizational pundits have revived the debate over “inflection point versus business as usual.” Assumptions about the short-term have been driven by Covid infection rates and public health policy pronouncements for nearly two years. As those forces of nature (and government) wane in influence, the resulting void will be filled with forecasts that favor one broad assumption or another. When one evaluates yesterday or looks to tomorrow, it is easiest – but not necessarily more effective – to adopt dualistic or digital assumptions.

 

Setting aside misgivings about ascribing digital characteristics to complex analog conditions, what should an organizational leader do? Is there method to the madness of choosing inflection point over business-as-usual or the inverse?

 

Search the literature and consult the usual suspects. Then tally-mark the “I.P.” column and the “B-A-U” column. If your inventory supplies a strong consensus, you may have arrived at a eureka moment. More likely, column “A” will equal column “B” and you will wonder how to get back precious hours of your productive time.

 

Or you can consider what we’ve found through our research and analysis at the Transformation Collaborative ™.

 

Institutions of higher education with strong public funding and/or large endowments will naturally gravitate toward business-as-usual assumptions. Large financial reserves and deep political resources insulate many colleges and universities from the forces of change. Transformation may become de rigueur among lesser entities, but among the elites, manifest change will be glacial and incredibly subtle. It’s called branding based on tradition, longevity and stature.

 

For other brands of post-secondary education that derive less (if any) value from adherence to tradition, opportunities to keep business-as-usual assumptions may be considered extravagance. Models and theories supporting reinvention at deep levels may provide better alignment with reality-based, contemporary conditions. Whether those models derive from ‘inflection point’ assumptions or similar nomenclature are important but should be considered secondary to meaningful strategy development.

 

Nonetheless, what is current thinking among those who advise and consult with institutions of higher learning?

 

Joseph King and Brian Mitchell, writing in “Leadership Matters,” marginalize the inflection point theory for their clients. They opine that higher education in the U.S. has been through two inflection points of substance (the Civil War and the Great Depression) and that 12-year decline in enrollment demand plus demographic bust plus Covid may resemble a third inflection point, “but it’s not an absolutely extraordinary time (emphasis added).” (https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12348/leadership-matters)

 

King and Mitchell argue that a primary post-pandemic focus should be on shared governance, with particular attention to the “weakest link” of the triad, the trustees (versus faculty and administration). The trouble with trustees, of course, is that they “don’t understand their roles as fiduciaries… they undercut leadership and they create angst for the faculty because they make curricular suggestions.” Imperative and discretion for substantial institutional change, therefore, lives with chief academic officers, who “nurture the profession (faculty)” and manifest transformation through “a place where innovation, which is the sort of implementation of good ideas within the existing system, can occur.”

To their credit, King and Mitchell acknowledge that during inflection points, new leadership must emerge to ensure “the institution (administration, faculty and trustees) is coming to terms with the magnitude of the problems and the magnitude of the change required.” Would an inflection point by another name still smell as sweet?

Notwithstanding semantics, others have tried to define “inflection point” and offer inventory of the elements of the phenomenon to clarify the impetus for transformation. The degree of disruption derived from transformation should not be minimized. It is not a risk-free proposition. Thus, a tangible evaluation of the costs of status quo merits great attention.

Woodberry Associates offers a short list of “need for transformation” factors that in aggregate represent an inflection point for colleges and schools:

• Leadership, management (and trustees) start to burn out.

• Institutional leadership and management cannot handle current needs of students or expectations of the broader community.

• Primary revenue sources (i.e., enrollment) begin to decline.

• Opportunities expand (due to mandated “temporary and emergency” imposition of at-a-distance instructional modalities) but the organization is deficient in the vision, expertise or leadership resources to move forward (not to mention the will to initiate transformation).

https://www.woodberryassociates.com/blog/the-inflection-point-when-nonprofit-organizations-need-help

Writing for Group50, Jim Gitney augments inflection point factors within the context of organizational growth and ability to scale. His method is based on geometric increments of expansion and organizational capacity at each milestone: current size, current size times two; current size time four, etc. He believes that an entity reaches an inflection point when “its systems, business processes and organizational structure are struggling and are incapable of supporting future growth.” And he is specific about the relevant magnitude of growth.

https://www.group50.com/navigating-growth-through-inflection-point/

While geometric growth of enrollment may not align with the purposes of all post-secondary enterprises, smaller entities who apply Gitney’s methods would meet inflection points at important milestones: 80 students, 160 students, 320 students, 640 students, 1,280 students, 2,560 students, etc. The takeaway is that capacity to grow and capacity to change are closely linked to organizational success, and when capacity to grow has been maxed out, the organization has reached an inflection point that merits deep and broad assessment of its resources for transformation.

How do these perspectives on “inflection point versus business as usual” align with the work of the Transformation Collaborative ™? They inform the contemporary and immediate methods of our aggregate consultancy and make more urgent the opportunity to walk side-by-side with prospective clients.

At inflection points like those described, an organization needs the help of the right partner. “Right” means an entity with ability and expertise to reach, among other outcomes:

1.       A deliberate and formal focus on human capital. Objectively evaluate size, structure, composition and culture of the Presidential suite, department heads and deans, faculty. Establish relevant, contemporary and recurring people performance accountability systems.

2.       Ground-floor design and implementation of resource planning systems. Harness IT and cloud-based resources to align the resource demands of attracting students, enrolling students, instructing students and graduating students with financial accountability mileposts and benchmarks.

3.      Integrated student learning measurement and adjustment systems. Independent of instructional mode (in-person or remote), formal and contemporary Key Performance Indicators that test the effectiveness of the current education systems at every level, including instructional technology, instructional materials, curriculum rigor aligned with student abilities, academic student support, and capturing/archiving defensible evidence of student achievement.

The Transformation Collaborative ™ will continue to mine the literature and consult experts for insights about “inflection point versus business-as-usual.” But regardless of the label, if the circumstance is replete with organizational deficiencies and operational shortfalls, the remedy will involve a deep, broad program of change planned carefully and thoughtfully after an intense program of ability assessment and environmental evaluation.

 

It’s the work of the Transformation Collaborative™.