Deep Dive: Leading Without Surprise

Olivia Carter

Good afternoon, Mark. Today we're digging into what it really takes to be a technology leader in higher ed—especially when it comes to making big decisions that actually stick without, you know, sparking fires left and right.

Mark Putnam

Olivia, it's good to be back. I'll never forget—it was, what, maybe a decade ago during our ERP rollout—we had all the right people in the room for key decisions, but we made the classic mistake and overlooked something fundamental: the difference between decision rights and influence rights. We thought, because the bylaws were clear and the right technical voices had spoken, we could move forward smoothly. Instead, we ran right into weeks of resistance. Not over the substance of the decision, but over the feeling that influence had been ignored in the process.

Olivia Carter

That distinction trips up so many leaders. Just to set the table—decision rights basically mean who owns the final call. Influence rights are about who gets to shape, question, and inform that decision. Especially in higher ed, folks don't usually resent the CIO having decision rights. They resent being left out of the conversation, or feeling like their expertise isn’t valued along the way.

Mark Putnam

Exactly. In a university, nearly everyone sits somewhere on one of those two paths. And when we skip over influence, it doesn’t matter how technically right the answer is. Decisions feel imposed. You lose legitimacy and trust that way—it just, it doesn’t work.

Olivia Carter

Yeah, and the more you think of influence as a checkbox instead of an ongoing process, the worse it gets. I think that's a thread we've kept picking up in this series, right? Leadership isn't just about crossing the t's on compliance—it's got to honor people's role in shaping what happens next, or else any change just lands flat. Or worse, stirs up trouble.

Olivia Carter

So, something I'm seeing more and more: the real pain for stakeholders doesn’t come from disagreeing about the content itself, but from feeling blindsided by how it rolls out. I mean, I've reported on university policies where even folks who liked the outcome pushed back, just because they felt left out of the loop.

Mark Putnam

That's right. It's rarely about the substance. People say, “No one told me,” or, “Why did this just appear?” That sense of surprise flips quickly into resistance. And—well, it can escalate into full-on backlash, even if the decision makes sense on the merits.

Olivia Carter

Yeah, I remember covering a case at a big university with a new cybersecurity mandate. The researchers there, they supported strong protections. Nobody wanted a breach! But the problem? The rules were dropped on them after the fact. So, instead of alignment, it just fueled open protests and all this organizational drama. It was honestly kind of avoidable.

Mark Putnam

Leaders sometimes assume silence in early discussion means alignment. But most of the time, that’s just confusion, or people holding back because they’re not sure what’s coming or how it affects them. When engagement is rushed or symbolic, trust erodes fast. You end up with escalation not because of what was decided, but because of how people felt about the process.

Olivia Carter

That’s why you hear so many complaints about process, about how decisions land—not just what they are. It’s less an intellectual argument and more of a human, emotional reaction.

Mark Putnam

So let’s talk about a method that actually works—a rhythm, really. I learned this through hard experience: Every significant policy needs two readings, not just a one-off announcement. The first time, you introduce the issue and genuinely solicit concerns. You’re not after consensus. You’re after friction—honest feedback, the kind that surfaces risks you didn’t see from your own seat.

Olivia Carter

I love that. It reminds me a bit of legislative practice, you know? Like, bills don’t pass on the first reading for a reason—they need to air out, get people thinking, even debating. So, in this Two Readings approach, what exactly happens after the feedback?

Mark Putnam

After the first round, the team absorbs what they’ve heard. A bit of time passes, then leadership returns for a second reading: “Here’s what’s changed, here’s why, here’s what stayed the same, and here’s the rationale.” It’s a real update—a closure of that original feedback loop. The point is to give room for concerns to be clarified and addressed in good faith.

Olivia Carter

And folks actually take it more seriously the second time. I mean, I’ve seen—and talked to—plenty of stakeholders who basically just freeze at the first reading. They’re confused, or unsure if it’s a done deal. But the second reading tells them you’re not just ticking boxes. You’re actually listening and willing to revise. That makes a world of difference.

Mark Putnam

Absolutely. I had an information security policy change that almost derailed because I tried to move quickly—one-and-done. There was silence in the room at first. I thought it was agreement. It wasn’t. By moving to two readings as a rule, we shifted the dynamic: folks knew they’d have a real chance to engage, and it took the temperature down throughout the process.

Olivia Carter

Let’s dig a little deeper. Why does this second reading work so well, psychologically? Why does just coming back to people help all that much?

Mark Putnam

Well, initial exposure always runs into confusion or silence—people are digesting, uncertain, maybe even threatened. That first read isn’t consensus, it’s just introduction. When you circle back with the second reading, you show transparency and genuine willingness to adapt. And folks are more likely to give meaningful, thoughtful feedback once they’ve had a chance to process.

Olivia Carter

It really means you’re making space for actual participation, and that goes a long way. I think—if you’re just collecting feedback in a rush, it feels manipulative. If you actually return with what you’ve learned and walk through what you changed and why, that lowers the emotional barriers. Suddenly, people don’t have to defend themselves—they can collaborate instead.

Mark Putnam

Exactly. We had a wireless network policy everyone rejected outright the first time. But, by delaying, running two honest readings, and openly explaining the rationale, it shifted from outright rejection to a collaborative adoption. The surprise, the tension—it all just receded, replaced by this sense of shared ownership.

Olivia Carter

If you’re transparent about what stays, what goes, and you show a real reason for each decision, mistrust fades. People understand you’re serious about partnership, not just optics.

Olivia Carter

Okay, before we wrap, I want to add one last strategy here—Chris Voss’ “accusation audit.” It’s kind of a mouthful, but the idea is really simple: name the fears and suspicions in the room before they fester. You call them out explicitly, so they lose their power.

Mark Putnam

That’s right. Before the first reading, list everything you can imagine stakeholders might worry about. Are they afraid of losing control? Increased workload with no support? That the decision’s already made? Naming those concerns up front shows empathy. People relax. They see you’re not blind to their reality.

Olivia Carter

And after the first round, you do it again. A quick check-in—a second, shorter audit for any new issues that popped up. You bring that back for the second reading. That’s when trust starts to build for real—when people see their anxieties are being acknowledged and addressed, not swept aside as inconvenient.

Mark Putnam

We’ve talked a lot about process today, but none of it matters without that empathy. I think of startup founders I’ve seen turning skeptical investors around—not by arguing harder, but by naming the exact risks on everyone’s mind before anyone else can. It’s the same thing in higher ed leadership: tell people what scares them first, and suddenly the air clears. Resistance turns into contribution.

Olivia Carter

Absolutely—I covered a set of founders at TechCrunch who practically won over entire boards just by putting all the ugly risks on the table before investors even asked. It’s nerve-wracking, but it’s honest, and it creates buy-in way faster than selling certainty that no one really believes. That’s true for campus change, too.

Mark Putnam

Leading without surprise—it’s about rhythm, structure, and a whole lot of honesty. Is it always easy? No. But it’s the only way I’ve seen institutional trust and lasting change, especially when the stakes are high.

Olivia Carter

So, to everyone listening: if you’re navigating change, make space for real influence, avoid surprising people, and name the hard stuff up front, even if it feels awkward. That’s where trust starts—and that’s what gets you from just “procedural compliance” to, well, actual leadership.

Mark Putnam

Couldn’t have said it better. Olivia, always appreciate the conversation. Looking forward to the next one.

Olivia Carter

Thanks, Mark. And thanks to all of you for listening. We’ll be back soon with more ways to navigate this ever-changing digital higher ed world. Take care, y’all.