The Modern University. Part 2. The Stakeholders Who Weren't There (#646)

Looking for Community in the Story of Institutional Transformation

In Part 1 of this series, The Meaning of Synergy, I explored the significance of the word chosen as the title of the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine's magazine.

Synergy.

A word that speaks to collaboration.

Participation.

Interaction.

The idea that institutions are strongest when diverse people contribute to a common purpose.

That principle led to a simple question.

If synergy represents the power of many voices working together, where do we see those voices reflected when universities tell stories about major institutional decisions?

The Spring 2026 issue of Synergy provided an opportunity to explore that question.

The issue celebrates a transformational philanthropic gift and an ambitious vision for the future of veterinary medicine.

It is an optimistic publication.

Readers encounter stories of innovation, opportunity, growth, and institutional aspiration.

The future appears bright.

Yet as I read the issue, I found myself looking for something else.

I was looking for the stakeholders.

Not because I expected disagreement.

Not because I expected controversy.

But because Part 1 left me wondering how the concept of synergy appears in practice.

Looking for the Community

The intended audience of Synergy is broad.

Faculty.

Students.

Staff.

Alumni.

Donors.

Clients.

Friends of the school.

In short, stakeholders.

Because of that audience, I expected to find references to the role of the community in shaping the future being described.

Instead, I found something interesting.

The stories focused heavily on vision.

In several places, that vision was described in terms of institutional leadership rather than broader stakeholder participation.

One passage referred to:

Dean Mark Stetter's plans for an expanded veterinary medicine complex.

The wording itself invites reflection.

Not because there is anything inappropriate about a dean having a vision.

Indeed, university leaders are expected to provide vision.

That is part of their responsibility.

The interesting question is whether major institutional transformations should be understood primarily as the vision of a single leader, or as a shared vision developed through engagement with the broader university community.

If synergy is the interaction of many voices and perspectives, should the future of a public university be described as the vision of one person?

Or should it be described as the vision of an institution?

A vision shaped by faculty. Students. Staff. Alumni. Donors. Administrators. And the many communities served by the university.

The distinction may seem subtle.

But language often reflects the way institutions understand themselves.

Individual Vision and Shared Vision

Universities need leaders.

Leadership matters.

Strategic direction matters.

Ambition matters.

No institution succeeds without people willing to articulate a compelling future.

Yet universities are not corporations.

Their strength has traditionally rested upon a culture of participation and shared governance.

The most enduring institutional visions are rarely the property of a single individual.

They become successful because they are embraced, refined, challenged, improved, and ultimately owned by a community.

That is one reason the language of synergy is so powerful.

It suggests that important outcomes emerge through interaction.

Through contribution.

Through collaboration.

The whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

If that principle applies to research, teaching, and clinical service, might it also apply to institutional planning?

The Voices Missing from the Story

As I continued reading the Spring 2026 issue, I found extensive discussion of philanthropy, transformation, opportunity, and leadership.

What I did not find was much discussion of stakeholder participation in shaping the future being described.

To be clear, this observation does not establish that stakeholder engagement did not occur.

Conversations may well have taken place.

Consultations may have occurred.

Input may have been sought and considered.

The point is narrower.

Those voices were largely absent from the public narrative.

My observation concerns the content of the published materials rather than the underlying decision-making process, which may have included discussions not reflected in the magazine.

The publication celebrates a future.

But it says relatively little about how the broader community contributed to imagining that future.

That absence is striking because the publication itself is directed toward the very stakeholders whose voices are difficult to find within its pages.

A Question Raised by the Magazine's Own Title

Perhaps that is why I kept returning to the title.

Synergy.

The word implies more than accomplishment.

Synergy implies interaction.

More than outcomes.

Synergy implies participation.

More than leadership.

Synergy implies collaboration.

The issue repeatedly celebrates transformation.

But the title invites a different question.

How was that transformation imagined?

Whose voices helped shape it?

Whose perspectives influenced it?

And how visible are those contributions in the stories being told?

These questions are not criticisms.

They are questions about alignment.

Alignment between the values suggested by the word synergy and the narratives universities use to describe their future.

Looking Ahead

In Part 1, we examined the principle.

In Part 2, we have examined the narrative.

The next step is to ask why it matters.

What role should stakeholders play in the modern university?

Are they active participants in shaping institutional priorities?

Or are they increasingly positioned as audiences who are informed about decisions after they have been made?

That question will be the focus of Part 3: Stakeholders or Spectators?

Author's Note

This essay is based on publicly available communications, publications, and institutional materials. It does not attempt to determine what conversations, consultations, or deliberations may have occurred outside the public record. Rather, it examines how institutional decisions and priorities are communicated to stakeholders through official channels and considers the relationship between those communications, stakeholder engagement, and public trust.

Glossary of Terms

Accountability

The obligation of leaders and institutions to explain decisions, justify actions, and remain answerable to those they serve.

Alumni

Graduates of an institution who maintain a continuing relationship with their university through professional engagement, philanthropy, mentorship, advocacy, and institutional support.

Author's Note

A statement included by an author to clarify the scope, intent, and limitations of an essay, particularly when discussing governance, institutional processes, or public communications.

Collective Vision

A future direction or aspiration developed through the contributions, perspectives, and support of multiple members of an institution rather than a single individual or office.

Communication

The process by which information, ideas, and decisions are shared. Effective communication in universities often involves both informing stakeholders and listening to their perspectives.

Community

The broad network of individuals connected to an institution, including faculty, students, staff, alumni, donors, clients, and members of the public.

Consultation

The process of seeking input, feedback, or perspectives from individuals or groups before making decisions. Consultation does not necessarily require agreement but demonstrates respect for stakeholder viewpoints.

Decision-Making Process

The procedures and discussions through which institutional choices are developed, evaluated, and ultimately approved.

Engagement

A two-way relationship in which institutions not only communicate with stakeholders but also invite participation, feedback, and dialogue.

Faculty

Academic staff responsible for teaching, research, clinical service, and participation in university governance.

Institutional Narrative

The story an institution tells about itself, its achievements, its priorities, and its future. Narratives help shape stakeholder understanding and public perception.

Institutional Transformation

Significant changes in an institution's facilities, programs, priorities, resources, identity, or strategic direction.

Leadership

The process of guiding an institution toward a desired future. Effective leadership often combines vision, communication, collaboration, and accountability.

Narrative

A structured account or story that explains events, decisions, goals, or achievements. Narratives influence how stakeholders interpret institutional actions.

Participation

The involvement of stakeholders in discussions, consultations, planning processes, and governance activities affecting the institution.

Philanthropy

The donation of financial resources or other support intended to advance educational, scientific, medical, cultural, or charitable objectives.

Public Narrative

The information, explanations, and stories communicated through official publications, websites, speeches, and media intended for stakeholders and the broader public.

Public Record

Information that is publicly available through official documents, publications, communications, policies, reports, or other accessible sources.

Shared Governance

A principle of higher education in which faculty, administrators, governing boards, and sometimes students share responsibility for institutional decision-making. Shared governance emphasizes consultation, collaboration, and mutual respect.

Shared Vision

A vision for the future that is broadly understood, supported, and shaped by members of a community rather than belonging solely to an individual leader or administrative office.

Stakeholder

Any person or group with a meaningful interest in the direction, reputation, success, or future of an institution. Stakeholders typically include faculty, students, staff, alumni, donors, clients, and the public.

Stakeholder Participation

The involvement of stakeholders in conversations, planning, consultation, and governance activities that influence institutional priorities and decisions.

Strategic Vision

A long-term view of where an institution seeks to go and what it hopes to achieve. Strategic visions are often articulated by leaders but are most effective when broadly understood and supported.

Synergy

The concept that collaborative efforts produce outcomes greater than the sum of individual contributions. In this series, synergy serves as both a guiding principle and a lens through which stakeholder engagement is examined.

Transparency

The practice of openly communicating information about decisions, processes, priorities, and rationales so that stakeholders can understand how and why decisions are made.

Vision

A description of a desired future state. In universities, visions may be articulated by leaders, but often become most powerful when they are embraced and shaped by the broader community.

Voice

The opportunity for individuals or groups to express perspectives, concerns, questions, and ideas within institutional discussions and decision-making processes.

The Stakeholders Who Weren't There

The title of Part 2 of this series. It refers not to the absence of stakeholders themselves, but to the relative absence of stakeholder perspectives within the public narrative examined in the essay.

The Modern University

A blog series exploring leadership, governance, philanthropy, stakeholder engagement, institutional culture, and public trust in contemporary higher education.

#bunyipsbooksbeyond