October 13, 2025
by Greg Henson, Kairos University President and CEO
Even when a community is trustworthy and a shared view of reality has been cultivated, meaningful innovation will stall if the structures of governance work against it. Too often, our organizational design and decision-making processes reflect assumptions that privilege control, protect existing roles, and narrowly define whose voices matter. Without changes to these systems, the work of innovation becomes constrained, fragmented, or abandoned altogether.
This is especially true when institutions treat innovation as a task reserved for senior leadership or as a matter of creating new programs. In that mindset, governance becomes a means of approving initiatives rather than a shared process of discernment. It becomes reactive rather than formative. Most importantly, it quietly reinforces the idea that “innovation” is something managed by a few people with power and everyone else in the organization must simply accept it.
The way in which power is often held or controlled within institutions is at the core of this challenge. Institutions often operate within a shared governance framework that divides authority between faculty, administration, and boards. While this approach is intended to distribute responsibility, it often leads to internal competition. As a result, groups tend to guard their areas of influence. Time, attention, and resources are treated as scarce. And decisions are filtered through the lens of protection rather than possibility. While this is sometimes intentional, in many cases the competitive structures and practices are simply inherited and unexamined. The holding of control, therefore, may not be malicious but it is nonetheless present.
In this context, certain voices are privileged. Faculty typically control curriculum. Boards oversee financial and strategic decisions. Administrators manage operations. Others, such as students, staff, and external partners, may be invited to offer feedback, but they rarely hold power to shape direction. Over time, this creates a culture in which wisdom is assumed to flow from the top down, and creativity is expected to conform to existing structures.
For innovation to take root, this pattern must be disrupted. Power must be released. That release is not about removing responsibility from boards or faculty or administrators. It is about expanding the table and recognizing that collaborative governance requires more than representation. It requires the actual distribution of influence.
Curricular conversations must include those who understand the lived experience of students and the needs of partner organizations. Strategic direction must be shaped by those who are engaged in day-to-day ministry, spiritual formation, and support. Financial oversight must be transparent and participatory, not managed solely within the boundaries of a select few. When power remains concentrated, the institution’s imagination remains limited.
Releasing power in this way is not a loss of control. It is an act of faith. It acknowledges that the Spirit can speak through anyone and that our communities are healthiest when they listen broadly. It also makes space for new insights, broader ownership, and deeper alignment with the mission we share.
In the next post, we will explore how this shift in power also requires a shift in how we think about partnerships, ecosystems, and the larger network of theological education.