How Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) smack into Functional Stupidity: the slippery case of Equity and International student tuition fees in post-secondary
One of my favorite books published over the last little while is written by organizational management and organizational behavior scholars: Mats Alvesson and André Spicer, The Stupidity Paradox: Why smart people don’t think at work.
Here’s a summary of key takeaways, from a Q&A with the authors:
Knowledge intensive organizations often employ smart people, but then encourage them to do stupid things.
In the short term this can benefit individuals and the organization as a whole, but in the long term it can lead to problems.
Organizations encourage stupidity through a misplaced faith in leadership, an addiction to branding, mindless imitation, thoughtless attachment to rules and regulations, and upbeat cultures.
Organizations can protect themselves against collective stupidity by encouraging people to question assumptions, demand justifications and think about the longer term consequences of decisions.
Some techniques to discourage collective stupidity include appointing devil’s advocates, holding pre-mortems and instituting bullshit bans.
Stupidity is everywhere in organizations - and it’s not always blatant and blaring. It does not spring from “utter thoughtlessness”; it is most certainly not abnormal and does not always result in clear results linked to stupid decisions. “Most stupidity in corporate life takes the form of functional stupidity. This involves narrow thinking rather than pure thoughtlessness, which is normal (in the sense of commonplace), and has functional consequences - at least in the short term” (p. 71).
Good people do stupid things; and good, smart people engage in functional stupidity.
Alvesson and Spicer provide three telltale aspects of functional stupidity:
not thinking about your assumptions (self-reflexivity),
not asking why you are doing something (justification); and
not considering the consequences or wider meaning of your actions (substantive reasoning).
“For organisations as a whole, functional stupidity can mean that people start overlooking problems. When this becomes routine, it can build up to large-scale disasters. But also many more modest, suboptimal structures and practices may develop. The result can be an organisation full of smart people that is riddled with stupidity.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Keeping this in mind, riddle me this…
If equity, diversity, inclusion (and sometimes justice) - often referred to as EDI - are ‘top’ priorities in most post-secondary institutions across Canada - then how do post-secondary institutions and leadership rationalize the fundamental inequities that arise when comparing domestic student tuition fees with international student tuition fees?
My tendency in these sorts of perilous contradictions is to look at definitions, such as what is EQUITY anyways?
A dictionary definition suggests that equity ( ˈe-kwə-tē) is:
(a) justice according to natural law or right specifically: freedom from bias or favoritism; and
(b) something that is equitable.
What is equitable? equitable (ˈe-kwə-tə-bəl) having or exhibiting equity: dealing fairly and equally with all concerned.
Hmmmm… let’s continue the riddle.
_ _ _ _ _ _
A little surf of some BC post-secondary institutions websites surfaced the following definitions in relation to Equity:
University of the Fraser Valley: Equity is a just, fair, principled approach to uphold equal treatment for all. It recognizes that while all people have the right to be treated equally, not all people experience equal access to resources, opportunities, or benefits. Achieving equality does not necessarily mean treating individuals in the same way and may require the use of specific measures to dismantle barriers.
UBC: Equity / Equitable: Equity refers to achieving parity in policy, process and outcomes for historically and/or currently underrepresented and/or marginalized people and groups while accounting for diversity. It considers power, access, opportunities, treatment, impacts and outcomes, in three main areas:
Representational equity: the proportional participation at all levels of an institution;
Resource equity: the distribution of resources in order to close equity gaps; and
Equity-mindedness: the demonstration of an awareness of, and willingness to, address equity issues
Camosun College: Equity is about fairness. It is the process that removes barriers to ensure access to educational and employment opportunities. To ensure fairness, individuals or groups may at times need to be treated differently or unequally. Equity addresses the effects of colonization, injustices against marginalized groups, and systemic barriers to access and participation.
Some institutions have designed policies and procedures around this. Others are hiring senior level positions with EDI in the title. Other institutions do not have policies or commitments - or, do not have definitions of each term to support their ‘commitments’.
Alvesson and Spicer suggest that in “organizations where manipulating images is the most important concern, managers focus their efforts on shaping the mindsets of their employees” - this is core in what they call “Stupidity Management”, which is the central and often unacknowledged aspect of making corporate cultures work.
“Here management actively encourage their employees not to think too much. If they do happen to think, it is best not to voice what emerges. Employees are encouraged to stick within clearcut parameters. Managers use subtle and not so subtle means to prod them to not ask too many tough questions, not to reflect too deeply on their assumptions, and not to consider the broader purpose of their work. Employees are nudged to just get on with the task. They are to look on the bright side, stay upbeat and push doubts and negative thoughts aside” (p. 89).
“In today’s image-obsessed organisations, executives also set out to manage their employee’s lives, shaping the way employees think about themselves, how they feel, and what their moral judgement are”.
Sadly, in almost 15 years of public sector work, I have seen this repeatedly. I’ve seen some good stuff; I’ve seen some terrible stuff. What Alvesson and Spicer point out, is a huge reason why I recently stepped out of post-secondary administration, and into a space where I could write more like this.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Now, please don’t get me wrong here. My identity is one that generally carries unearned privilege in the society I live in. White Settler family background, able-bodied, heterosexual, education credentials, etc. Not for a second do I intend to criticize or de-value the importance of principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, nor justice. My concern is that this work will be, or already is, what Alvesson and Spicer call "imitation-induced stupidity” - which is similar to the lowlights I’ve posted recently about Strategic Plans in post-secondary.
My central concern here is that without clear definitions; without clear plans of action and real things to measure and compare (including marginalized folks’ voices); and without some real, and deeper dialogue about fundamental contradictions (e.g in the brave spaces, beyond just safe spaces) - then many of these policies, action plans, commitments, and otherwise simply become Bullshit. And worse… performative Bullshit, that actually most likely results in less diversity, less equity, and less inclusion.
Performative bullshit can then set the work back even further behind from where its starting point was.
Alvesson and Spicer have labelled it “promising rainbows” - they suggest that much of the work around “diversity” becomes symbolism, not substance.
“By showing that they have put systems and procedures in place, organisations can ‘prove’ that they are good employers. Little may have changed in terms of who does what in a corporation, or how ‘minority’ employees are treated, but doing diversity management ticks the box.” (p. 164).
Yet, “the profitable, harmonious and beautiful world of [equity and] diversity promised by consultants and craved by clients is not so easily achieved.”
Initiatives focussed on EDI, are in danger of becoming glamorous branding exercises highlighting what “should” be; not what actually is. And, thus, functional stupidity becomes a self-supporting cycle, because anyone that speaks about the EDI policy failures and shortcomings, will not fit the principles of speaking positively, of speaking about solutions and not problems; about sticking together as a loyal team…
Let me highlight my rationale, riddling, and thinking on this, as I’m no longer in a position where I need to toe the line; or maybe it’s hop on the line to be towed…
_ _ _ _ _ _
At an institution that I have some familiarity with - a community college in north-central BC, of which I highlighted some tuition revenue discrepancies at, in a recent post. For example, about 65% of its current student tuition revenue comes from International students; yet, this group only represents about 25% of the student body. (Let’s be clear that this particular college is not the only institution navigating this mess, with similar ratios of students and tuition revenue.)
If I, or members of my family, apply for a program at the College of New Caledonia in north-central BC such as the Post-diploma in Human Resources Management, current marketing materials state that I, as a Domestic student will most likely pay about: $7,800 over two years.
If I am/was an International student, I would pay: $21,530.
Not quite 3:1 difference, but close.
If I want to do an Accounting Diploma at CNC, I would pay: $6,600
As an International Student: $27,500
This is more than 4:1.
How?
This, by definition, is not equitable. Why is this the case?
At face value, it seems almost ludicrous; however, like anything probably requires a little further digging. I had picked up a book recently that has sat on my shelf. Writing to Learn by William Zinsser. As he suggests “Writing is thinking on paper” or in this case, on the screen. Writing and thinking and learning are the same process, he suggests. Agreed, and the reason for this research blog. Thus, I wonder, wander and write.
_ _ _ _ _ _
In trying to understand this situation of International tuition fees better, I looked through BC government documents to try and make rhyme or reason of why and maybe even, how. I’m sure there are other documents or policy guidance, or individuals out there that are far more in the know than I. I’m in the wondering stage.
Yet, maybe I have found it, in a government policy at the Ministry of Advanced Education going back to 1996: GUIDELINES RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AT BRITISH COLUMBIA PUBLIC POST SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS.
It’s listed as “updated in 2002”. This document was signed off by the then BC Government which was NDP, and the Minister at the time Moe Sihota. The guidelines state:
“The Government of British Columbia recognizes that students from other countries contribute to the cultural, personal, and economic foundations for improved international relations and economic development.
Institutional boards establish tuition fees for programs offered at public post-secondary institutions.
The Ministry of Advanced Education encourages public post-secondary institutions to enrol international students based on the following guidelines:
1. Institutions set tuition fees for international students at a level that covers direct costs and overhead.
2. International students not displace a Canadian citizen or permanent resident from British Columbia or from other parts of Canada from a space funded through institutional block grants.
3. International student numbers be excluded from the institutions’ full-time equivalent (FTE) target established through the block grant.
4. International students registering for a semester or longer at a public institution provide evidence of sufficient health care insurance coverage for the duration of their stay.”
Then in 2011, a BC Government led by BC Liberals and Christy Clark as Premier, opened the floodgates on International students. The main basis for this initiative was job creation in BC.
From a Globe and Mail article, in September 2011:
“The Premier linked the student commitment to job creation, saying that the current population of international students has led to the creation of 22,000 jobs and has contributed $1.25-billion to the provincial economy.”
From another article:
“Our universities are job creators,” Clark said. “We are setting clear targets to dramatically increase the number of international students coming to B.C. These students will also help build strong relationships between B.C., Canada and the rest of the world.”
Maybe there’s more government policy on this somewhere?
And, I understand there is guidance from the Ministry of Advanced Ed to post-secondary to develop more transparency around International Student tuition fees - due out some time this fiscal year.
So let’s put this riddle into more context.
_ _ _ _ _ _
The old ‘96 policy on International students states, the cost of tuition must only be set to cover the cost of the Int. student alone, and some overhead; no displacing Domestic students; take International Student #’s out of Full-time equivalent (FTE) calculations; International students must get health care coverage.
Riddle me this one - in this current day of age, does it cost, for example, the College of New Caledonia or another similar institution, almost $15,000 per year for an International student to take finance and accounting? Over $10,000 per year in a post-diploma human resource program?
Well… maybe it does… this particular institution prides itself on maximum class sizes of 37. The post-diploma programs (like HR) are close to 100% International students. Theoretically then, to run a student through say an average of 5 classes per term, 10 per year, might cost $10,000 per year in straight costs - especially including the costs of paying out the contract agent that recruited the student in their home country. Need to factor in faculty time, administrative time, support, etc. I’m doubtful that costs $10,000-$14,000 per year, per student; but maybe…
Keep in mind, in many programs domestic and international students are in the same class, same instructor, same materials.
Here’s a further wrinkle in the riddle.
If one goes to the BC Ministry of Advanced Education website, and navigates to the data reporting section, you can find documentation of the full-time equivalent (FTEs) enrolment data for every post-secondary institution in BC for the last decade plus. Here’s a screenshot of the Excel spreadsheet, with two north-central BC institutions highlighted.
Remember, this is only documenting Domestic students - not International students - as per the 1996 policy.
According to this data, the College of New Caledonia has gone from 2,351 FTEs in 2010-11 to approaching 50% less than that in 2020-21 at 1,300 FTEs. It’s a steady decline of about 100-200 Domestic FTEs every year for over a decade.
University of Northern BC (UNBC) however, has remained pretty steady.
In a quick comparison, it appears Coast Mountain College (formerly Northwest Community College) is about the only other institution of the 25 that has seen such precipitous declines in Domestic FTEs (with exception of Vancouver Community College, however, I’m going to speculate that their International enrolment has exploded over the last decade).
Why has CNC declined in Domestic students so much?
Good question.
_ _ _ _ _ _
The picture for International student FTEs at CNC is the counter image. As highlighted in a recent post, International student counts have gone from about 450-500 in 2015-16, to a peak of close to 2,100 in 2019-20 or so, and now down around 1,600 this past year (according to Institutional Accountability Reporting to the Ministry).
It would appear by FTE counts when comparing the Ministry report (above) against the yearly #’s portrayed in CNC’s Accountability Reports, that International students are also contributing to a rapidly growing percentage of the overall CNC student FTE count.
Recognize, that I’m probably not even at the level of layperson to begin untangling the complexities of FTE counts for students in post-secondary. I’m no economist and often crappy at math; however, in publicly available information the numbers seem to paint enough of a picture to get a sense of trends.
Here’s a few curious things I found searching further around the Interweb.
Back in 2011, there was a CNC Board meeting which reported out on employment at the college. At that time the college employed over a 1,000 staff as a headcount and about half of that were full-time equivalent (a bit under 500).
In 2019/20, CNC reports that it had just over 700 total staff; on its website it suggests over 600 staff.
It would seem that Christy Clark’s job creation goal through opening the floodgate for International students at BC post-secondary, has not worked out all that well at CNC. What it most certainly has done though, is increase tuition revenues for post-secondary institutions.
_ _ _ _ _
Added to this, I’m still left wondering:
If the block funding provided from the Ministry of Advanced Education on an annual basis, now at about $40 million at CNC, which is an increase of about $10 million per year from a decade ago - and Domestic student FTEs at CNC have declined by about 40% (which also most likely means a decline in Domestic tuition paid) - what the heck is going on?
I do notice that in the current CNC Strategic Plan some Values listed include “Transparency” along with Respect, Integrity, Accountability, and Relationships. I’m sure if some folks asked for some further breakdown on this curious scenario, transparency would prevail (?).
_ _ _ _ _ _
Let’s get back to this idea of equity though, and ponder it in relation to commitments to EDI initiatives - and a similar concept often bandied about: discrimination. A definition of discrimination states that is the: act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually.
To discriminate, means to “recognize a distinction; differentiate.”
Let’s do a quick review of equity, which is apparently about principles of fairness, and access, and addressing inequities; it’s about addressing justice and injustice, historical or otherwise. Equity, by definition, is also freedom from bias and favoritism, that being equitable means demonstrating equity and dealing fairly and equally with all concerned.
So then let’s be clear here - by definition - the current reality is that International student fees in Canada, and in BC specifically, are discriminatory, and there is bias and a lack of dealing equally will all involved. There is also favoritism. Let’s break this down.
If you are not from Canada, you will pay more. That’s discrimination, and it is bias. It is most definitely not equal.
Now, I’ve argued for a long time, that we need to be mindful and clear when we discuss the concept of discrimination. There are many kinds, for example:
my kids cannot drive on public roads and secure a driver’s license until they’re 16. That’s discriminatory.
They can’t legally drink alcohol at an establishment, or be served alcohol, or purchase alcohol in BC - until they are 19. That’s discriminatory.
They can’t vote until they’re 18. That’s discriminatory.
They can most likely not stay at an adults-only resort or complex if they were travelling. That’s discriminatory.
We have all just been navigating two years worth of highly discriminatory processes. Mask, or no mask. Vaccine or no vaccine. If you test positive, you must quarantine. If you cross a border, more discriminatory practices.
I discriminate daily in my decisions. If I’m speaking with someone who appears elderly, I will probably speak differently and in different tones, then I would when a neighborhood kid, say 8 years old knocks on the door looking for one of our kids. That’s discrimination.
There are times and places for discrimination, and some of it is mandatory, legislated, and essential. We all learned discrimination at a young age. I learned quickly, for example, to discriminate between a fireplace in operation, and one that was not.
However, when institutions and government start talking about principles of equity, fairness, justice and the like. Then we may need to have a little more difficult dialogue, and a little more critical thinking. We probably require more transparency and accountability, and most definitely integrity. We most definitely need to limit functional stupidity.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Some components for consideration in this matter.
The majority of International students that attend the College of New Caledonia, are from India. The vast majority of those are from the Punjab region of India. This is similar at some other institutions. Why might this be important from a perspective of equity…? A few reasons.
When I consult with my friend the Goo-machine and I throw some tendrils out into the winds of the interweb, I find that, on average, the per capita income in the Punjab region of India is about 155,000 Indian rupees - at current exchange that’s about $2,500 Canadian. Per capita means average annual income.
There’s an equity equation to chew on for a bit.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Next one.
If the current International student numbers at an institution, like say College of New Caledonia, are about 25-30% of the overall student population - which is also in line with the percentage of self-identifying Indigenous students at the institution - then shouldn’t principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion suggest that the employee make-up should be about the same?
If, for example, a student from the Punjab region of India is walking the hallways of a post-secondary institution, or in the classroom - wouldn’t principles of equity, diversity, inclusion, etc. suggest they see a representative employee workforce at the institution?
If the programs at this particular institution, or other post-secondary institutions, are good - and graduates are qualified, then why aren’t more International student graduates of these programs working at the institution they graduate from?
Well, for one, when it comes to northern institutions, the majority of International students leave after they complete their studies. Some stay for a bit, and this shows up in surveys; however, we can probably safely assume after 3-5 years the majority leave.
_ _ _ _ _
Now, I think I understand the argument that suggests something along these lines: the BC government provides block funding to post-secondary. This comes from government coffers, and from tax revenues collected from citizens and businesses. Thus, in a sense, having a discriminatory practice whereby a domestic student pays less tuition, for the same class or program as an International student - I can wrap my head around part of that.
I can also see that was most likely the intention of the initial policy in 1996. I think it’s fantastic to have students from around the globe at an institution. I’ve deeply enjoyed my time as faculty in classes that were generally 100% International students. I may have, in many cases, learned even more than those students.
The intention of the policy in ‘96 was to open these opportunities up, not to the detriment of seats for domestic students, and that International student tuitions were intended to be cost-recovery only. Maybe in the name of transparency and integrity institutions will start opening their books and showing that in fact, International students must be charged tuitions that are 3x to 4x higher than domestic students, because that is what education costs.
However, former Premier Christy Clark blew that idea out of the water, when she called this a ‘job creation’ initiative - at least her intention was transparent.
I can also see the current labour market and see the importance of attracting more talent and skilled individuals to fill roles. It’s a pretty scary market for employers right now. However, these things always operate in cycles.
An opening of the financial books would most likely demonstrate this is most certainly not equitable; nor equity at work; nor solely a cost-recovery (net zero) exercise on a per student basis. It has, however, increased diversity, and a bit of inclusion. But, my understanding of the much touted EDI initiatives and policies, is that we’re not looking to get 66.6% on this one - e.g. 2 out of 3, as in check mark for diversity and inclusion but an ‘x’ for equity.
However, that is one of the foundational tensions inherent in these initiatives that choose to group three complex and contested terms together, e.g. equity + diversity + inclusion. Re-group these another way, and the acronym becomes DIE…
The challenge post-secondary will continue to face is that at the surface, the divide between domestic and international student tuition fees is not equitable, it is discriminatory, and appears to be a cash grab. If the intention of the ‘96 policy was that International fees set by institutions should be ‘cost-recovery’ plus a little overhead - then, why, for example did the College of New Caledonia (as one example) run surplus budgets for several years, which also coincides with the peak of International students (over 2,000 per year)?
If International student tuition fees were intended to be cost-recovery only (plus a little overhead), then why, when the pandemic hit and international travel shutdown, did many post-secondary institutions all of a sudden find themselves facing potentially disastrous deficit budgets? Why did the federal government and others have to change the rules for permitting more online education? Why did International students continue to have to pay the same level of tuitions, but do it from their home countries?
There is surely more complexity ‘under the hood’; however, until much more transparency enters the equation, this will continue to look like contradictory performative bullshit, as well as functional stupidity continuing to play out.
As Alvesson and Spicer point out, “We are frequently told that we live in post-bureaucratic times. It is common to hear that organisations are not run by hierarchies, rules and regulations any more, but by vision, leadership, organisational cultures and networks. But if you take a careful look at any organisation, bureaucracy is as strong as its ever been…
“… Breaking things up in a detailed and regimented way can make things more efficient, but it can also make them more stupid.” (p. 130).
_ _ _ _ _
Over two decades ago, organizational thinking scholar Peter Senge shared in his book The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization - the importance of dialogue - thinking together, exploring through a free-flow of meaning within a group. He compared this against “discussion” which is akin to percussion and concussion.
One of the classic ‘Systems Archetypes’ that Senge highlighted is that of the “Eroding Goals”. This is described as a system that pursues a short-term solution at the cost of losing long-term goals. At an institution such as CNC, for example, it has been a fixture of the north-central region for over 50 years, and still identifies the value of being a community and community-connected college in its most recent materials, including Strategic Plan. This is the case for other colleges in BC within specific regions.
Unfortunately, poorly thought through government decision-making about a decade ago has contributed to a system with significantly eroded goals. Smart people doing stupid things, has created a mess. Many post-secondary institutions in BC appear to be getting driven by a near endless market (India, about 1 billion people, China about 1 billion people) and super-inflated tuition revenues that some individuals and families from those ‘markets’ are willing to pay. It’s no wonder difficult riddles and questions arise, when the same institutions start parading around about equity and anti-discrimination.
As Alvesson and Spicer point out, one of the strongest kinds of functional stupidity is Leadership-induced stupidity. Like religion, leadership is intended to provide moral order. As they have observed in years of research, “leadership is a source of stupidity. Of course all managers want their subordinates to do their work in a competent way. Very few like thoughtless people around them. Some leaders try to encourage their followers to use the full range of their cognitive capacities some of the time. But usually this isn’t the case. All too often leadership involves the active cultivation of functional stupidity.”
The reality with well-intended EDI initiatives, is that they will be paraded around under moral branding and headlines - yet, the reality in implementation is that these will manufacture compliance and stupidity. Any tough questions or analysis, will quickly highlight how these ‘equity plans’ are bullshit; especially as the clear motive in day-to-day work is to secure $ - at the cost of long-term and sometimes more challenging goals, which rely on community dialogue and deeper engagement.
This is but one riddle of the EDI (& some times Justice) story. Not included in this note today is a pondering of the carbon footprint of all the international students coming for credentials in this country. Again, I am most definitely not against having diverse student bodies and international presence and fair opportunity; however, shouldn’t community-based institutions be having this dialogue with surrounding communities and regions? In some cases, their fancy branding documents with shiny pictures and statements, suggest that is, in fact, what is going on.
It is spring time where I live. Melting snow, wet ground, things revealed under the snow. Generally… when I step in something squishy, that is a sound that resembles shit. If I look at my shoe and it looks like shit; I bend down closer, smells like shit. Chances are… it’s shit.
Shouldn’t the old adage and rule of physics be entering the dialogue: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction? Let’s just be transparent and have some integrity. The current pursuit and recruitment of International students in BC post-secondary has its #1 priority focussed on revenues. Somewhere down the top 20 list, is about diversity and inclusion. Unfortunately, equity didn’t even make the top 100 list - the one based on fact, not bullshit.
Alvesson and Spicer suggest five categories of functional stupidity: (1) leadership-induced stupidity; (2) structure-induced stupidity; (3) imitation-induced stupidity; (4) branding-induced stupidity; and (5) culture-induced stupidity.
Remember the summary point from the first couple paragraphs, knowledge intensive organizations - like post-secondary institutions, for example - often employ lots of smart people, but then encourage and support them to do stupid things. Let’s say in this case, unfettered and rapid expansion of International student admissions to post-secondary institutions, with inflated tuition fees.
As shared, yes, in the short term this can benefit individuals and the organization as a whole, but in the long term it leads to problems.
The issue of declining domestic student enrolment in BC, and specifically the more rural areas, has been forecast for decades. It’s been discussed for over a decade. Smart people saw challenges coming for post-secondary. Families are having less kids, and thus elementary and secondary schools were closed and consolidated. In many cases, the decline of domestic students was seen as the #1 risk factor facing many post-secondary institutions.
However, the same logic is most likely present, that went into building a city called Delta, that is actually on a massive river delta. Or renaming a place Sumas Prairie, when it used to be a lake, and then being shocked when life-altering floods arrive.
So what has happened - in a simplified and generalized nutshell - at many institutions, an explosion and focus on revenue-generation. Where from? From the market drivers that will pay three-times, four-times, five-times what a domestic or local student pays - International students. It’s an almost endless, expanding market.
Institutions were, and still face 2% tuition freezes (BC government mandated) on domestic tuitions, but no limits and no freezes on International student fees. Programs were created out of thin air (e.g. post-diploma programs catering to International students that have Bachelor degrees from International universities).
For awhile, it must have been like a business start-up mentality - ‘holy crap look at this revenue growth’. Institutions went from 500 International students to double that in only a few years. Rolling in the the dough. Surplus budgets.
But, wait a second… says some manager… doesn’t the government policy say cost-recovery and a bit of overhead only?
“Don’t be silly manager.. grow, grow, grow - like a tomato plant in a spring greenhouse.”
“Or a Covid variant” says the manager under their breath…
Functional stupidity, carried out and enacted by smart people, doing stupid things.
The result… institutions now in very precarious situations financially. Some are still sitting plump. However, has all this focus and management of rapid growth in one area, led to the deterioration and demise in another area?
Say, for example, continuous improvement and quality assurance? Or, maybe, in developing lasting relationships in the communities, families, and areas which will still be here after the short-term boom shifts, plummets, and expands again…
We may need anti-stupidity training and management. We may actually need to stay thinking inside the box. We need to ensure we don’t self-stupidify.
Alvesson and Spicer, smart-ass researchers, yet based on experience: “… reasonably intelligent people with successful careers have usually developed high levels of functional stupidity. Careerists are often good at self-stupidification. Skilled leaders are often effective stupidity managers. It can help smooth the action of their working life and economy… In the many image-intensive and seduction-dependent organisations, people inclined to functional stupidity find a good habitat”.
Watch for institutional adoption of performative EDI, and the difficult questions, but needed questions that will reduce it to functional stupidity. Once that moose is on the table with some dialogue, then actual, real change may occur. In the meantime, it will most likely be performative bullshit, and false-identity stupidity.
#toodisruptive #stopfunctionalstupidity