Why Ambiguity Causes College Leadership to Fail in Times of Crisis

by Michael K. Townsley | Jun 29, 2025 | Strategic Planning

Concept of Ambiguity and College Leadership

Michael Cohen and James March were the first to introduce the concept of ambiguity as a factor that confounds decision making in higher education. Decision-making is muddled because there is no single person who has final decision authority. Rather, decisions-making is diffused across numerous points due to a dual system of governance, boards of trustees who have no stake in their decisions, and presidents who avoid consequential decisions because they could imperil their careers their career.

The ambiguity of decision-making causes a high level of risk for financially fragile institutions. Quite simply, these institutions often lack the financial reserves to survive delays as strategic decisions meander through the decision system.

We need to take apart the concept of ambiguity in decision-making to get at its effect on decisions in higher education.

Exegesis: Concept of Ambiguity in Decision-Making

• Decision Definition: is a statement to act at some time in the future, subject to the authority granted by corporation by-laws, the board of trustees, and the policies and procedures of the institution.
• Traditional Structure of Decision-Making in a College
  • Positions authorized; in general, every position may make a decision subject to the by-laws, authority assigned to position, the scope of the work, and the set-of-levels in the organization or its clientele.
  • There are two decisions structures operating in most colleges –
• Collegial structure that typically includes the faculty and researchers assigned to the faculty. Decisions in collegial structure usually require consensus of its members, and in most cases, it requires either unanimous consent or a significant majority.
• Hierarchical structure where authority is distributed like a ladder with the scope of authority distributed from the lowest position with the scope of authority broadening as positions rise in the ladder.
• In both the collegial and hierarchical structure, the scope of authority is customarily defined within narrow bounds that limits the range of decisions within both structures. In the case of a hierarchy, the scope of authority will also be limited by the type and number of subordinates and the relationship to a superior position.
• Concept of Authority
• This paper will only deal with the legal-rational aspects of authority and will not consider other forms such as charismatic or traditional (inherited by right of birth)
• The paper uses Max Weber’s concept of legal-rational authority; i.e., authority is rules based through a legal set of policies and procedures.
  • Faculty Collegial Decision Authority; may have: decision authority over academic programs and operations without recourse by the president or the board of trustees; authority to recommend decisions directly to the board without input of the president; authority to recommend to president who has the authorization to pass the recommendation to the board, alter the recommendation to the board, or veto the recommendation.
• Decision-Making Methods
  • Decision Action Options should clearly state: the action requested, the position to be charged with carrying out decision, the parties affected by the decisions, the costs and benefits of the requested decision, and the time line for implementation.
  • Choice Set includes the set of options concerning a particular decision.
  • Choice Analysis Conditions:
• Deadline for Submission to Decision Authority
• Description of the Issue
• Data Describing the Issue
• Cost/Benefit Analysis
• Priority Rank of the particular issue compared to other issues that are being considered.
• Decision Statement should clearly state the content of the decision, the date for implementation, who is responsible for carrying out the decision, others who are affected by the decision, and a method for evaluating the outcomes of the decision.
• Ambiguities in Decision-Making; these are the factors which can confound decision-making:
  • Colleges and universities are hot beds for ambiguities in decision-making because they are a hybrid of an administrative hierarchy and a faculty governance system. Decisions that affect the productive center of the college involve collegial faculty governance and an administrative hierarchy. The problem for the administration is that they have a legal responsibility for long-term financial and operational stability of the institution, while the collegial faculty tend to work through governance issues in terms of their self-interests.
  • A complicating aspect of a hybrid hierarchical-collegial governance system is that before a decision can be proposed or implemented, the decision must be sanctioned by the next higher level and the next lower level below which is affected by the decision must concur.
  • The general condition of the college at the time that a decision is to be made. The general condition includes: financial, enrollment, general economic and political conditions, academic issues; accreditation, and law suits. In other words, any condition that muddies the decision-process and slows decision-making or renders a decision moot;
  • The number of competing interests in the college;
  • The leadership style of the president and the board of trustees;
  • The skills of chief administrators as they manage their areas.

Leaders and the Confounding Effect of Ambiguity in Decision-Making

• General Definition of a Leader is someone who is has the capacity to: recognize the problem, see a solution, knows how to convince others within the organization of the existence of a problem and accept the solution to the problem, and is able to work with the needs of others so that they can direct their efforts to support a solution and gain the benefits of a solution.
• Task-Oriented Leaders; least capable of producing an acceptable decision when the ambiguities of decision major crisis and people want to solve the problem to save their jobs.
• Political-Oriented Leaders more capable of producing an acceptable decision when ambiguities of decision-making are operative; however, it may not be the decision that the college needs at the time.
• Combination of the Task-Oriented and Political-Oriented Leader has the greatest chance of guiding an organization towards a goal that maintains resources to support its mission and to design programs to effectively deliver its mission.

Example of Failed Leadership When Ambiguities in Decision-Making Confounds a Leader An Example from a Recent Article in the Wall Street Journal^[1]

This example discusses the leadership style of Elon Musk while he was head of Doge. Although his work was not in higher education, it did involve work in organizations where clear-cut decision hierarchies were not evident and where politics muddied and often distorted the decisions which he attempted to make.

“The qualities that made Mr. Musk a transformative force – his single-minded pursuit, his dismissal of conventional wisdom, his willingness to disrupt – become vulnerabilities when transplanted into political discourse.”

“What Mr. Musk encountered also reflects a broader societal shift. The technologist-politician- who believes solutions to human problems can be coded or engineered is an increasingly common type: Mark Zukerberg’s flirtation with politics, Bill Gates public-health initiatives, and Jeff Bezos’ influence in urban development all exemplify the appeal of applying technological problem-solving skills to societal challenges. Each also face backlash and controversy, underscoring the fundamental gap between the methodical logic of technology and the unpredictable passions of the electorate.”

“Politics require softer skills: empathy, strategic patience, and the ability to manage competing narratives.”

“Engineers [business] thrive by eliminating ambiguity. Politics thrive on it” An engineer’s worldview is insufficient to deal with partisanship, ideology and personal vindictiveness

1. Clayburn, Joshua (June 6, 2025)“Musk is a Genius but He Isn’t a Political One”; Wall Street Journal; Musk Is a Genius, but He Isn’t a Political One – WSJ ↑