Dear Colleagues,

Last week’s newsletter ended with Scharmer’s quote on the power of turning our beam of attention inward and dispassionately examining what we do. There is equal value in inviting others to turn their attention toward us and reflect to us what they see. Last week our Elliance consultants did just that. 

What they observed was a leadership team that is deeply passionate and highly engaged. Despite differing opinions and the intensity of the topic, they were struck by the commitment and openness of everyone involved. Each person brought candor, curiosity, and a genuine desire to contribute. To me, this defines true leadership. This feedback validated what I have experienced with all of you, and hearing it filled me with pride and gratitude. 

Some of the passion shared was about the reorganization. While reorganization is not uncommon in many sectors, in academia it resonates more deeply. It touches on our identities, our disciplines, and the relationships we’ve built over time. For better or worse, our identity is shaped as much by our discipline -if not more- as by our institutional affiliation. We choose this profession because we value independence, autonomy, and shared governance—perhaps more than in any other field. We cultivate deep bonds with discipline-specific peers, mentors, and protégés. These relationships often become intertwined with the organizational structures that support them. 

At the same time, at every position I held, at every institution, whether we were growing, shrinking, or staying stable, we often debated structure, size, and resources. We always debated the question of what size we should aim for and whether to merge, combine, or create new structures. 

These questions always sent me to the work of Geoffrey West, theoretical physicist, who explored the seemingly far-fetched question of whether there are universal laws and a quantitative science that underlie the life, growth, and death of biological organisms, cities, and companies.  

Credit: Fun with Mathematics

This reflects the well known phenomenon of economies of scale. The bigger, the more efficient, up to a point. The physical explanation behind the 75% ratio –and why growth is ultimately bound– is fascinating. (hint: fractals) 

Of more direct interest to us is the finding related to human made organisms, cities and businesses. Cities, like biological organisms, exhibit sublinear exponential ratios. The bigger the city, the more efficient it is in terms of resources and physical infrastructures needed per inhabitant. As in biology, the ratio is reproduced with an astounding fidelity and precision, although it is not 75% but 85%. Within the same country, a city that is 100% bigger uses 85% more resources. What is much more interesting is that its outputs are superlinear: wages, revenues, number of patents, pace, disease, crime, all increase by 115% when the size increases by 100%.  

Bigger cities use fewer resources per inhabitant but also generate more ideas and more innovations, (yes and disease and crime) per inhabitant. The secret behind the constant 85% is also fractals (the self repeating structure of human social networks). In contrast with other organisms, cities have the unique characteristic that they do not die. Even when decimated by wars, they reemerge and grow.

Is a college like a city or like a biological organism? There is a third category that is maybe more relevant: businesses. Businesses also exhibit similar patterns of growth, although with much more variability than biological and urban organisms. Businesses, like cities, exhibit economies of scale, but with much more variability. Businesses, unlike cities, have a bounded growth and lifespan. One significant difference is that cities diversify and expand their scope as they grow, while businesses tend to unify, conform, and narrow their focus. The range of problems, ideas, and people expand in cities generating symbioses and new combinations that stimulate further growth. The bigger and older businesses get the more they value repeatability, predictability, and uniformity of processes, experiences, and outcomes. 

These are thoughts we may want to ponder as a college and as a university:

• Do we want to organize and grow more like a city—unbound and eternally adaptive? Or like a business—efficient but ultimately finite?
• What structures and culture will promote city-like features: diversity of backgrounds, commitment to an encompassing mission, and the symbioses that fuel perpetual growth?
• How do we reorganize to become an undying, always-changing, and thriving organization for generations to come?"

Thank you for indulging me in these reflections. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts and reflections.

Have a great week everyone,

Fatma