August 4, 2025
by Greg Henson, Kairos University President and CEO
As I noted last week, one of the unintended outcomes of our typical approaches to shared governance is that they often produce internal competition for power and resources. This competition, though subtle, significantly influences the way we define the problems our institutions face. Because each group within the institution is trying to advocate for its own priorities, multiple conflicting narratives begin to emerge. Rather than uniting around a common understanding, we find ourselves caught in separate interpretations of the reality we face.
For example, there may be a shared feeling that the school needs more students. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward and universally acknowledged concern. Upon closer examination, however, it often becomes evident that the reasons behind why it matters are rarely agreed upon. So, while there may seem to be a shared understanding of reality, the fact is that multiple understandings of reality exist. One group may feel that the problem to solve is marketing and communication. That is to say, “enrollment is a problem because we have poor marketing and recruitment efforts.” Another group might suggest enrollment is an issue because the programs are outdated and there is resistance to trying something new. Still another group might suggest the issue is that the school doesn’t have enough scholarship funds available for students.
While each of these perspectives may merit, they differ fundamentally from one another and create conflicting views of reality. As a result, there is no shared problem to solve. However, because the surface-level assumption that “we need more students” seems to be shared, conversations quickly devolve into arguments over potential solutions.
The internal competition fostered by our default approach to governance exacerbates this problem. Each constituency’s narrative privileges its own reality, making it difficult for the institution as a whole to clearly identify the underlying issues that require innovation. As these different realities solidify into competing narratives, institutional unity begins to fracture. Instead of collaborating around shared problems, various groups push their own solutions, each grounded in their unique interpretation of reality.
Ultimately, addressing conflicting views of reality is essential because it allows us to unite our efforts around genuine institutional priorities rather than competing narratives. Instead of scattering the resources and energy we have been entrusted, we can direct them toward solutions that reflect a unified vision and a clearly understood purpose.
Without a shared understanding of the problems we face, our innovation efforts naturally become fragmented and resource draining. Consequently, we assume that the problem lies in insufficient resources, leading to the conclusion that we simply need more money to fund more innovation.
And that is where we will pick up next week!