09/06/2026
Three years ago, a Vice-Chancellor, whom I will call Pieter, called me and we had a good 60-minute discussion. He informed me that, at the outset, he had been referred to me by another Vice-Chancellor who had patronised me before for executive coaching.
Pieter's university had just received another negative accreditation report. Postgraduate throughput was below 30%, staff morale was crumbling, public funding had been reduced, but he had tried everything.
He had used all the tools in his leadership toolbox, including new policies, restructuring, and a fancy strategic plan.
I asked him one question: "Before you designed any solution, did you diagnose?" There was sudden silence as though we had just received bad news. I avoid looking him in the eyes to avoid embarrassment. After all, he had not come to me to be embarrassed but to gain strategic insights that would drive the expected shift at his university. After 2 minutes that lasted a season, Pieter looked at me shyly and said, "Wilbert, we did not carry out any official diagnosis. I did not think it necessary to conduct a formal diagnosis".
He went on to say, "Wilbert, how about you tell me what you mean by diagnosis. Just in case we are speaking about different things."
To cut a long story short, the lack of an official diagnosis was the problem.
Most university transformations fail not because the solutions are wrong, but because the problem was never properly understood.
For example, leaders see a symptom: low throughput, poor research output, and staff burnout, and immediately prescribe solutions. But without a diagnosis, you are treating the fever while the infection rages.
I have learned this the hard way. Early in my consulting career, I proposed interventions within a week, thinking that I was being efficient. But the results revealed that I was actually being reckless.
These days, I refuse to prescribe until I understand the full picture.
Not just the symptoms, but the root causes, the history, the culture, and the hidden dynamics that no strategic plan captures.
Here is what the diagnosis reveals that jumping to solutions will never reveal:
That "lazy" PhD student has not submitted a chapter in six months because her supervisor has not given feedback in four months.
That "unproductive" researcher is drowning in teaching and administrative workload with zero protected time.
That "resistant" Head of Department has tried to implement change in his department three times before and was punished each time.
Without a diagnosis, we blame people. With diagnosis, we fix systems.
To every academic leader feeling the pressure to announce quick wins: resist the urge for a quick fix. Rather, diagnose first, prescribe second, and transform third.
Question: What is that one problem at your university that you suspect has root causes nobody has properly investigated?
