There’s a prevailing fear that quickly obstructs change and progress in higher education, and it’s name is precedence.
When I started my leadership journey, I didn’t realize how dangerous novelty could be. Or at least how it was perceived. The idea of blazing a trail had suddenly become abhorrent in a culture that prides itself on innovation, curiosity, and creativity. It’s a curious and absurd paradox, for sure.
The concern stands on shaky foundations. If it hasn’t been done before, then it might too dangerous to enact in the present moment. Not that the idea itself wasn’t ever imagined or theorized, just never fully tested in practice.
The risk of precedence emanates from its implementation effects. When the thought becomes something more tangible and consequential. When the potential for risk increases by virtue of taking a decisive and deliberate step in a new direction.
In other words, the danger of precedence is what follows the decision and subsequent action(s). It’s the visibility of said actions, and their perceived meaning and intention by others. Because, as I’ve learned and experienced first-hand, fairness and equity are at risk if the collective doesn’t trump the individual. What I mean is that one singular decision, according to this fear-based view of the world, potentially undermines the common good. That even a bold idea or solution to an existing problem sometimes can’t be entertained for fear of what might happen next – in the short, medium, or even long term. A concern that balance must be maintained, despite the apparent imbalances inherent in the larger academic system that contribute to organizational stagnancy and inertia.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily talking about radical or revolutionary actions that might pose compounding dangers for university administration. I’m talking more about quotidian actions that are required in good and decisive leadership. The freedom and ability to exercise authority. To pilot a solution. To pitch bold ideas. To create and own a decision – all for the betterment of the unit and larger organization. To EXECUTE an action.
Risk is omnipresent. So, is it somehow greater when setting a precedent? By definition, there’s more positive than negative in its interpretation. It can mean setting an example, or justifying a subsequent action. It can even lead to establishing a new model. All of which might be sorely needed, which is my principal argument.
It seems that few people want to be the first. To set a trend. To establish a new norm. To take the first step towards what is actually necessary.
Yet everything was novel at one point or another.
Why the avoidance? It all seems a wee bit contradictory, especially when considering the current state of affairs inside most post-secondary institutions across Canada. Where new models should be in our daily design and practice. Where innovation should be the aspiration and objective. Where solving complex and wicked problems in today’s world not only requires different ways of thinking, but at times necessitates the courage to approach matters in entirely new ways.
For these reasons, I struggle with the view of precedence as being dangerous or negative. Because in my world, the fear of precedence leads to change paralysis. Inaction. It reinforces the status quo. It disables innovative and creative thought, effectively dissuading and dissolving it in an environment rife with intellectualism. In an eco-system founded on the knowledge creation, and translation, it presents a pitiful and safe excuse to keep things exactly as they are.