Who do you think you're talking to?

One reason why you might find yourself continually disagreeing with decisions in HE.

It's the end of the academic year. You've just come out of a meeting where, once again, a decision went nowhere. It feels like the same conversation, the same friction, and the same sense that you're pushing against a wall and not being heard.

Before you conclude that the problem is a person, I'd like to introduce a different possibility. What if you're not actually disagreeing about the decision? What if you're disagreeing fundamentally about what higher education is for?

Three ways of thinking about leadership.

Research by Macfarlane, Bolden and Watermeyer (2024), drawing on over 250 sources, identified three distinct perspectives on leadership in higher education. Most people I've spoken to about this recognise them straight away. Whilst their paper was on leadership specifically, I think the three perspectives can be observed across all levels of HE. They're worth keeping in mind because most of us hold one of these perspectives (whether we're aware of it or not), and it can really help to explain how and why disagreements arise in HE.

We carry an assumption, or a bias, that everyone in HE is here for the same reason, trying to achieve the same objective in the same way. It’s just how the brain works. We typically assume our own perspective is the most commonly shared one, in most areas of our life. This assumption can leave us quite bewildered when decisions are misaligned with our own perspective. What we have often struggled to see is that there are fundamentally different perspectives taken by people working in HE. The framework offered by Macfarlane et al offers one way of thinking about other perspectives. As you read these, see if you recognise yourself and others.

The traditionalist is concerned with what has been lost. My shorthand for this is 'the good old days'. Academic self-governance and collegiality are prized. The erosion of autonomy by corporate management practices is vilified. This perspective is sceptical of frameworks imported from business, wary of metrics, and protective of the culture that makes universities different from other institutions.

The reformist perspective is concerned with what needs to change. Who is missing from leadership, whose voices aren't heard, how power is distributed. This perspective sees leadership as inseparable from questions of equity, inclusion and social justice.

The pragmatist perspective is concerned with what needs to happen. Skills, competencies, effective decision-making, getting things done within the institution as it actually exists rather than as it should be.

None of these perspectives is inherently wrong, but certainly each has pros and cons. I would argue that good leadership requires some understanding of all three.

The perspectives at play

Think about what happens when two people with different perspectives participate in the same meeting. The traditionalist argues against a new performance management framework because it undermines academic autonomy. The pragmatist thinks the traditionalist is being obstructive. The reformist wants to know whether the framework will disadvantage certain groups. The pragmatist thinks the reformist is slowing progress.

Rather than being wrong or being difficult, people are just starting from different assumptions about what the decision is actually about.

Macfarlane et al. put it well: people in these situations "may fail to notice that they are speaking at cross purposes." The disagreement feels personal when in fact, it is more structural.

So what do we do with this?

The answer isn't to make everyone think the same way. That is neither possible nor beneficial to advancement, we need a healthy amount of disagreement! The point is not to convert your pragmatist colleague into a reformist, or to persuade your traditionalist line manager to care more about metrics. The point is to understand where the friction is coming from. Once you can name it ("we're not disagreeing about this decision, we're disagreeing about what this institution is for") it allows for a different kind of conversation. It becomes possible to make progress without requiring the other person to abandon their values, and without feeling that your own values are under attack. Progress requires enough shared understanding to move forward.

What you can do.

Next time you're in a meeting and the conversation starts to go in circles, try this. Notice which perspective is speaking, both in others and yourself. Are you arguing from values, from precedent, from practicality? Are you frustrated because someone isn't sharing your assumptions, or because the decision genuinely doesn't stack up?

Name it, at least to yourself. "This feels like a traditionalist concern meeting a pragmatist approach." That reframe can shift the feeling from personal friction to a structural difference, and structural differences are easier to work with than personality clashes.

If you feel it would be useful, name it in your meeting as an open question: "I wonder if we're actually disagreeing about what we're trying to achieve here, rather than how to achieve it." That question can open a conversation that the original argument was closing down.

You can also use the framework to think about where different perspectives lend themselves most naturally. Some decisions call for a reformist lens (who gets access, who is represented, who benefits). Others call for a pragmatist one (what's the process, who owns it, what's the timeline). Recognising that means understanding why certain people will care more about certain things, and working with that rather than against it.

Where do you stand?

Most of us have a primary perspective along with traces of the others. I was recently called a radical pragmatist at a conference, and I'm not sure I can wholeheartedly agree with that assessment all of the time. So I think we probably shift perspectives according to the activity (are we more traditionalist with research, but pragmatist with admin for example?), or see ourselves as a bit of a blend. 

We tend to be more aware of our own perspective than of those around us. To help build your own awareness, consider this framework and ask yourself: which of these most closely describes how I think about my work? Which do I find most frustrating in others? Which do I tend to dismiss?

If you'd like to think through how this plays out in your specific situation, you can book a free chat in my diary, to discuss how coaching may help you get more from your career as an academic.

Reference: 

Macfarlane, B., Bolden, R., & Watermeyer, R. (2024). Three perspectives on leadership in higher education: Traditionalist, reformist, pragmatist. Higher education, 88(4), 1381-1402.

---

Hi, I am Wendy.

I work with academics to help them build sustainable careers so they can progress with autonomy, intellectual challenge and impact.

Packages start from £499.

With me you can expect to achieve:

• A comprehensive mapping of where you are now, and where you want to be.

• Clarity on what matters to you both professionally and personally.

• Practical tools to set work boundaries that actually stick in academic environments.

• Strategies to protect your wellbeing while still delivering quality work.

• Emotional support and understanding.

• Confidence to make decisions to support your future personal and professional life.

Book a chat in my diary, it is free for a 30 minute conversation to find out if working with me can help you take the next steps in your academic life. https://tidycal.com/drwendynicholls/letschat

Thank you for reading my article.