The Initiative Paradox: Why 100 Priorities is the Same as Zero
The Initiative Paradox: Why 100 Priorities is the Same as Zero
Introduction
In the world of higher education administration, there is a recurring fantasy: that an institution can “transform” itself by doing everything, everywhere, all at once. Does this sound like your university?
A strategy consulting firm is hired to “diagnose” the institution. Months later, a massive report is unveiled, proudly announcing a suite of 100 or more “strategic initiatives.” The administration celebrates this volume as a sign of momentum. But as Richard Rumelt argues in Good Strategy, Bad Strategy, this isn’t a strategy—it’s a “Dog’s Dinner.”
The Hallmark of Bad Strategy: The “Dog’s Dinner”
Good strategy is, by definition, an exercise in focus. It is the application of limited resources to a specific, high-stakes challenge. When an institution pursues hundreds of initiatives simultaneously, it has effectively admitted that it cannot make a choice.
In Rumelt’s framework, strategy requires a “kernel”: a diagnosis of the challenge, a guiding policy to deal with it, and a set of coherent actions. A triple-digit to-do list skips the diagnosis and moves straight to a flurry of uncoordinated actions that compete for the same pool of money and attention.
The Illusion of Productivity
Why do intelligent administrators fall for this sprawl? Part of the answer lies in the delivery. These projects are often managed by teams from elite consulting firms, cranking out endless PowerPoints and complex waterfall reports.
This creates a powerful illusion of productivity. If there are dozens of status updates to review and a swarm of committees meeting weekly, it feels like the university is moving. In reality, it is often just spinning its wheels. This “fluff” masks the absence of a real diagnosis and substitutes activity for achievement.
Administrative Bloat and the “Subtraction” Problem
This sprawl almost inevitably leads to administrative bloat. Each of those 100+ initiatives requires a “Project Manager” or a new administrative layer to track its progress. Meanwhile, the value-generating core of the university—the faculty—often see their salaries stagnate or positions cut to fund the very bureaucracy created to manage the “transformation”.
True strategy is defined as much by what you stop doing as what you start doing. If an institution only adds “initiatives” but never simplifies its workflows or reduces overhead, it is practicing expansion, not strategy.
Strategy vs. Planning: A Diagnostic
| The “Plan” (Bad Strategy) | The Strategy (Good Strategy) |
|---|---|
| Volume: 100+ initiatives to please every stakeholder. | Focus: 3–5 coordinated actions targeting one core challenge. |
| Budget: Unfunded mandates that strain existing resources. | Budget: Explicitly moves money from the “old way” to the “new way”. |
| Effort: Measured by the number of PowerPoints and meetings. | Effort: Measured by the removal of obstacles to the core mission. |
| Incentives: Adds administrative layers to “manage” complexity. | Incentives: Simplifies the organization to empower the academic core. |
Is Your Strategy a “Dog’s Dinner”?
If these symptoms sound familiar, you might be dealing with a “Bad Strategy” problem. I’ve developed a Strategic Kernel Diagnostic—a simple checklist based on Rumelt’s framework to help you evaluate if your institution’s plan is designed for action or just for show.
Click here to download the Strategic Kernel Diagnostic (PDF)
Conclusion
Strategy is not a list of hopes; it is a design for action. If a university cannot prioritize through subtraction, it is failing its primary mission. You don’t need 100 new initiatives. You need a handful of hard choices that return the university to its core mission.