The Games That Sink Academic Institutions
Loose Lips, False Promises, and Power Plays:
The Games That Sink Academic Institutions
Academic institutions are built on trust. Trust between leadership and faculty. Trust between teachers and students. Trust that decisions are made in the institution's best interest.
Yet, institutions rarely decline because of a lack of talent or resources. More often, they are weakened by subtle leadership games careless communication, unrealistic promises, and power driven politics.
Psychiatrist and author Eric Berne, in his classic work Games People Play, explained that people often engage in repetitive behavioral patterns to gain attention, control, validation, or advantage. Unfortunately, these games are not confined to personal relationships. They frequently play out in academic institutions.
Game 1: Loose Lips
The script: "I trust you, so let me tell you something confidential."
- Sensitive information about promotions, restructuring, accreditations, appointments, or strategic decisions is casually shared with a few individuals.
The hidden intention:
- To appear influential and well-connected
- To build inner circles and loyalty
- To control narratives through selective information
- Rumors spread faster than facts. Anxiety increases. Faculty begin operating on assumptions rather than reality. Trust in leadership gradually erodes.
- A single careless conversation can damage relationships that took years to build.
Game 2: False Promises
The script: "You are our future leader." "Next year, you will definitely be promoted." "This initiative will transform your career."
- Promises are generously distributed but rarely supported by systems, timelines, or transparent criteria.
The hidden intention:
- To gain extra effort and unquestioned commitment
- To retain talented faculty without immediate investment
- To create hope that keeps people compliant
- Initially, motivation rises. Eventually, disappointment sets in. Faculty become disengaged, cynical, and emotionally detached.
- Broken promises do not merely hurt individuals; they damage institutional credibility.
Game 3: Power Plays
The script: "I know what's best." "Don't question the decision." "I trust only a few people."
- Information becomes power. Access becomes privilege. Favouritism replaces fairness.
The hidden intention:
- To maintain control
- To create dependency
- To discourage independent thinking and dissent
- Collaboration declines. Innovation suffers. Faculty spend more time navigating politics than pursuing academic excellence.
- When people become afraid to speak honestly, institutions stop learning.
Game 4: The Hero Syndrome
The script: "Without me, this institution cannot function."
- Every decision, committee, and achievement revolves around one individual.
The hidden intention:
- To remain indispensable
- To centralize power and information
- To discourage the emergence of future leaders
- Institutional growth becomes dependent on personalities rather than systems. Capable faculty stop taking initiative because every spotlight is already occupied.
Game 5: The Divide and Rule Game
The script: "I heard your department is not cooperating." "The other faculty members don't appreciate your work."
The hidden intention:
- To prevent faculty unity
- To maintain control through divisions
- To position oneself as the ultimate mediator
- Collaboration deteriorates. Suspicion replaces trust. Talented faculty become competitors instead of colleagues.
Game 6: The Visibility Trap
The script: "I need only committed people for this initiative."
- The same individuals are repeatedly given high visibility assignments.
The hidden intention:
- To create a group of loyalists
- To identify who is willing to say yes to everything
- To reward compliance over competence
- Faculty burnout increases, while equally capable colleagues become disengaged and feel excluded.
Game 7: The Credit Appropriation Game
The script: "Our leadership initiative has achieved remarkable results."
- The idea originated from faculty, the execution was by faculty, but the recognition travels upward.
The hidden intention:
- To strengthen personal reputation
- To build an image of exceptional leadership
- To control institutional narratives
- Innovation declines because people eventually stop contributing ideas that they believe will not be acknowledged.
Game 8: The Perpetual Crisis Game
The script: "This is extremely urgent."
- Everything becomes an emergency reports, events, meetings, accreditations, rankings.
The hidden intention:
- To keep people in reactive mode
- To reduce questioning and reflection
- To create dependency on central decision-makers
- Faculty operate in survival mode.
- Creativity, research, and long term planning suffer.
Game 9: The Selective Appreciation Game
The script: "You are one of my best faculty members."
- The same praise is privately given to multiple people.
The hidden intention:
- To gain loyalty
- To increase emotional dependence
- To encourage individuals to seek approval continuously
- Faculty start working for validation rather than professional purpose.
Game 10: The Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) Game
The script: "Important opportunities are coming. Stay close."
- The opportunities remain vague and undefined.
The hidden intention:
- To retain people through anticipation
- To secure compliance
- To discourage faculty from exploring external opportunities
- Faculty postpone career decisions based on promises that may never materialize.
Game 11: The Manufactured Transparency Game
The script: "This decision was collectively taken."
- Consultations happen after decisions have already been made.
The hidden intention:
- To avoid accountability
- To create the appearance of participation
- To minimize resistance
- Faculty stop believing that their opinions matter and gradually withdraw from institutional engagement.
Game 12: The Scarcity Game
The script: "There are only a few opportunities and only a few deserving people."
The hidden intention:
- To create competition among faculty
- To discourage collective bargaining
- To increase dependence on leadership decisions
- People begin competing for access instead of collaborating for institutional excellence.
Why Do These Games Sink Institutions?
Because they attack the very foundations of academia:
- Trust is replaced by suspicion.
- Collaboration is replaced by competition.
- Purpose is replaced by politics.
- Professional commitment is replaced by mere compliance.
Buildings, rankings, and infrastructure do not create great institutions. Trust does.
And trust is fragile.
How Faculty Can Protect Themselves
- Judge leadership by consistent actions rather than inspiring speeches.
- Commitment should never require blind loyalty.
- Important decisions and commitments should be transparent and verifiable.
- Today's inner circle can become tomorrow's scapegoat.
- Publications, certifications, industry exposure, and teaching excellence remain your most reliable sources of professional security.
Most manipulative games have one common objective: Control without appearing controlling.
The healthiest academic institutions are not those where leaders are indispensable, feared, or endlessly praised. They are institutions where:
- Information flows transparently.
- Credit is shared generously.
- Promises are realistic.
- Dissent is welcomed.
- Systems matter more than personalities.
The ultimate faculty survival principle is simple: Recognize the game, refuse to personalize it, maintain professional boundaries, and keep investing in your competence and integrity.
In the long run, games create followers, but character creates educators and leaders.
Crafted By:
UNSTOP - https://unstop.com/u/sanjetha88702
LINKEDIN - https://www.linkedin.com/in/drsanjeevkumarthalari/
ORCID - https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1634-6017
Comments
Post a Comment