How to Read the Room

Learning to Spot Four Voices That Influence Decisions in Higher Ed

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article about the best explanation I’ve ever found for why decision-making in higher ed can feel so chaotic. It covered a concept that should be top of mind for anyone who has ever tried to get anything done in higher ed—Garbage Can Decision Making.

I wasn’t sure what to expect (it’s a pretty old body of research), but the response surprised me—25 people subscribed just from that one article. That tells me there’s an appetite for this conversation.

So here we go…

For background, I’ve referenced the Garbage Can Model for years—and not just as a way to understand how higher education works but as a guide for getting things done.

Because, in many ways, it’s a very practical concept and a great resource.

Decision Making Always Includes Four Factors

It’s easy to feel like decision-making in universities is irrational or broken, and that’s certainly true to an extent. But once you recognize some underlying patterns, in this case through a garbage can decision-making lens, things start to make sense. You may even learn to work within the system rather than against it. At least, that’s my hope.

For me, the key has been using this concept as a tool.

I walk into every meeting—every “choice arena”—looking for garbage can decision-making at work, which we know will always include four factors weighing in on every decision:

• Problems: The issues that need attention. The reason why we are meeting in the first place. These can range from declining enrollment to student disengagement, outdated curricula, funding shortfalls, you name it. In higher ed, of course, problems don’t always arrive neatly defined. Sometimes, they emerge gradually; other times, they are crisis-driven. It always helps before every meeting to try and identify the problem at hand and how it arrived.
  

• Solutions: The possible fixes, tools, or initiatives that are waiting for a problem to solve. Solutions don’t always match the most pressing problems, and in some cases, they exist long before a relevant problem appears. Watch out for solutions because they can derail you from really understanding the problem. At the same time, they are the only thing that will keep you mired in inaction, so don’t eschew solutions, either. You need solutions.
  

• Choice Opportunities: The moments when decisions get made. These are usually at the end of committee meetings, or as the leadership retreat wraps up, or at the end of an accreditation review. In most cases, they happen during budget cycles. In any case, remember the choice opportunity is not just the meeting itself but the time in the meeting when a decision has to be made. However, just because a choice opportunity exists doesn’t mean a decision will actually be made. Sometimes, not making the decision is the decision, which is a problem—unless you’re not ready for the decision, in which case it buys you time to get the decision right.

• Decision Makers: The people who show up and shape the conversation. These can be faculty, administrators, board members, or external stakeholders. Think of them as participants in the decision, but expect them to cycle in and out of discussions, and don’t be surprised by an uneven or unpredictable level of engagement. That’s never going to change. Instead, learn to work with and within this pattern. It can be done.

Read the Room—Learn to Spot Each of These Factors as “Voices” at the Table

In any meeting, whether it’s a faculty senate discussion, a strategic planning session, or a budget meeting, I think of each factor as a "voice” present at the table. Meaning that I don’t see them as just abstract concepts but as forces that shape every decision, whether people explicitly acknowledge that or not.

Once you see these four voices in action, meetings make a lot more sense. Once you recognize that they aren’t always balanced either, you can start to anticipate where a conversation is likely to go off the rails and get out ahead of it before it’s too late.

For example, a meeting might be filled with great solutions—meaning voices advocating for solutions (maybe even as participants) but without a clearly defined problem, nothing moves forward. So I focus on the problem. I listen to the problem. I try and make sense of the problem.

In some cases, the problem might dominate the discussion, and if no viable solutions are on the table, the meeting ends in frustration. So, in this case, I represent the solution.

A great solution might already be proposed, but if it’s not the right “choice opportunity” (wrong timing, wrong committee), it stalls out. So, I try to create a better choice opportunity.

And if the right participants aren’t present, a decision might get postponed indefinitely. So, I advocate for a more inclusive approach and proactively try to get that discussion on the books as soon as possible.

Here’s another framework I’ve developed to help recognize and work with each voice.

How to Use This Framework

Recognizing these voices isn’t just about observation—it’s about engagement. Once you start listening for them, you can use this framework to shape discussions, anticipate challenges, and ensure decisions actually move forward.

Here’s how to put it into practice:

• Before a meeting, anticipate the voices. Who is likely to emphasize problems? Who will push a solution? Will there be someone advocating for process, and will there be momentum to move forward? If any of these voices are missing, think about how that might shape the conversation.
  

• During the meeting, listen actively. As people speak, categorize their contributions. Are they identifying a problem, proposing a solution, slowing things down for more discussion, or trying to push for action? If one voice is dominating, consider how to balance the discussion.
  

• After the meeting, reflect on what happened. Which voices were present? Which were missing? Did the conversation stall in one area, or was there alignment between problems, solutions, choice opportunities, and participants?

The more you train yourself to hear these voices, the more effective you’ll be at navigating decision-making in higher education. Once you recognize them, you’ll never unhear them—and you’ll be in a much better position to get things done.