Higher education has never lacked talent, intelligence or intention. What it lacks consistently and predictably is systems thinking.
Colleges and universities are trying to manage 21st-century complexity with infrastructure built for a world that no longer exists. The result is a sector that appears stable on the surface while critical functions underneath strain, crack and eventually give way.
You can see this tension everywhere: research finance, grant management, accreditation, compliance, HR, DEI and student success.
The themes are the same. Processes don’t speak to one another. Data lives in isolated corners. Roles overlap in ways that create confusion, not clarity. Leaders spend more time reacting than anticipating. And people inside the system adapt to workarounds that keep the machine moving, at the cost of transparency and trust.
This isn’t about technology adoption or budget concerns. This is about the absence of a systems mindset in spaces that can no longer function without one.
One study found that when silos go unchecked, knowledge-sharing collapses, limiting cross-functional effectiveness across universities of technology.
When the system fails, it’s never just a ‘process issue’
A problem surfaces, an audit finding, a delayed report or a grant compliance issue. The response is tactical. Fix the form. Add a step. Update the policy. Restructure the department. Buy another tool. But the root issue lingers because the system underneath was never examined.
The consequences are real. In its FY2023 report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office identified widespread deficiencies in federal grants management, highlighting weak internal controls, inconsistent documentation and poor oversight. Institutions didn’t land there due to careless staff. They ended up there because the systems meant to support compliance weren’t built to withstand today’s scrutiny.
At the same time, public trust in higher education is deteriorating. A 2024 Gallup-Lumina poll found that just 36% of Americans express confidence in higher education, down from 57% a decade ago. These aren’t PR problems. They’re structural.
The illusion of competence is expensive
Universities take pride in being resilient. But resilience built on patchwork isn’t resilience; it’s survival.
Behind strategic plans and successful accreditation visits are institutional realities that rarely make headlines:
- Indirect costs left unclaimed
- Restricted funds misapplied
- Data mismatches between departments
- Audit trails that collapse with turnover
- Forecasting models that leadership does not trust
- Employees penalized for surfacing real concerns
These failures don’t appear in branding. They appear in budget shortfalls, missed revenue, unnecessary risk and a workforce worn down by ambiguity.
Systems thinking is not abstract. It’s the difference between an institution that functions, and one that merely performs.
Automation won’t solve structural dysfunction
Institutions are rapidly adopting AI-enabled platforms in hopes of solving inefficiencies. That may feel like innovation. But automation doesn’t resolve fragmentation. It amplifies it.
These tools surface what leadership has been skirting for years:
- Inconsistent coding
- Missing documentation
- Data silos
- Incomplete workflows
- Unclear authority
- Accountability gaps
Technology can enhance insight. But it cannot compensate for structural dysfunction. Without addressing the systems beneath them, AI deployments will reveal, not resolve, core vulnerabilities.
What systems thinking looks like in practice
Systems thinking asks different questions, one’s institutions avoid because the answers require structural honesty:
- Where does information flow—and where does it stop?
- Who has decision-making authority—and who only has it on paper?
- What collapses when one person leaves?
- Which processes create clarity and which create noise?
When institutions embrace these questions with courage, the path forward becomes visible:
- Build governance structures that hold under pressure
- Align financial, academic, compliance and HR systems
- Train leaders to understand operations deeply
- Treat data accuracy as both an operational and ethical responsibility
- Protect staff who surface truth
As Phillips and Snodgrass argue, dysfunction in higher ed isn’t caused by individuals; it stems from unresolved system-level design flaws that inhibit strategic alignment.
Operational clarity is the measure of leadership
In most cases, the issue isn’t ethics; it’s inconsistent systems. When structures are outdated, fragmented or poorly aligned, even principled leaders make risky decisions.
Today, ethical leadership isn’t defined by intent. It’s defined by whether systems are designed to ensure clarity, accountability and accuracy—consistently, not selectively.
Where those conditions don’t exist, the barrier isn’t culture. It’s the structure behind it.
The transition requires courage and clarity
Higher education must evolve from intuition-driven leadership to systems-literate leadership. That shift isn’t surface-level; it’s structural. It touches governance, data systems, leadership training and cultural practice.
As Vasumathi notes, organizational culture becomes an asset when leaders integrate values with systems that produce measurable gains in performance, trust and resilience.
The future belongs to institutions that understand this: Success won’t be measured by public commitments, but by how well systems align with purpose, how decisions hold under pressure, and how data reflects reality.
Compliance isn’t about checking boxes. It’s about designing environments where truth can be surfaced, clearly, consistently and without hesitation.
References
GAO. (2023). Grants Management: Federal Internal Control Weaknesses and Risk Areas. United States Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106336
Gallup. (2024). Confidence in Higher Education Dips Again. Gallup-Lumina Foundation Survey. https://news.gallup.com
Mhlongo, P. M. (2025). Breaking silos to foster knowledge sharing in universities: A systems thinking perspective. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395096339
Phillips, T. J., & Snodgrass, L. L. (2022). Who’s Got the Power: Systems, Culture, and Influence in Higher Education Change Leadership. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 3(2), 7–27. https://johepal.com
Vasumathi, A. (2025). Impact of organizational culture on productivity and performance in higher education institutions. Heliyon. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291125007831
