The Invisible Decision-Maker: When Choices Happen Without Transparency

Academic libraries—and the broader higher education ecosystem—are built on the flow of information. A single decision can influence instruction schedules, access to resources, student learning pathways, and cross-campus collaboration. When those decisions arrive without context or explanation, the people responsible for delivering and sustaining academic services are left navigating a landscape of half-understood directives and unspoken implications.

In these environments, the invisible decision-maker becomes a familiar figure: someone who makes choices behind closed doors, shares outcomes without narratives, and unintentionally leaves staff unsure how to proceed. This pattern isn’t usually malicious. Most supervisors are juggling institutional pressure, shifting demands, and limited time. But good intentions do not erase opaque communication.

And yet, this is one of the most solvable challenges in academic leadership.
Because behind frustration—and even behind resistance—is something hopeful.

Resistance as a Form of Critical Hope

Kari Grain’s concept of critical hope reminds us that hope is not shallow optimism, nor is it silent endurance. Critical hope is grounded in clear-eyed recognition of institutional realities—the constraints, the inequities, the bureaucratic habits—and still choosing to work toward something better.

In academic libraries, resistance often emerges when decisions are unclear, sudden, or disconnected from the lived experience of those who carry out the work. That resistance is not dysfunction. It’s a signal. It’s an invitation. It’s a form of critical hope.

It says:

• “We believe the institution can do better.”
  
  
• “We deserve a narrative that honors the complexity of our work.”
  
  
• “Transparency is possible, and we are willing to engage in it.”
  
  

When employees ask for clarification, push back gently, or offer alternatives, they are not undermining leadership. They are participating in institutional hope—hope that decisions can be more inclusive, more thoughtful, more aligned with the mission of higher education.

Resistance, in this sense, is a sign of engagement.
Silence is the real warning sign.

When Decisions Arrive Without a Story in Higher Education

Academic environments thrive on context. Librarians need to know why curricular shifts are occurring so they can adapt instruction. Staff need to understand the purpose behind schedule changes so they can support students effectively. Organizational clarity is not a luxury in higher ed—it's infrastructure.

When decisions arrive without a story, people fill in the gaps themselves.
Even well-intentioned decisions can feel abrupt, politicized, or personal.

But the confusion also reveals something important:
people want to understand because they want to participate.

This desire to make sense of institutional dynamics is itself an expression of critical hope.
It shows investment, care, and belief in the mission.

Inviting the Story Behind the Decision

Employees can act from a place of critical hope by asking for the story—without implying wrongdoing.

A question such as:
“Could you share the reasoning behind this change? It will help us align our instruction and services.”
is both practical and hopeful.

It signals trust in the supervisor’s thought process while also asking for the narrative that academic work requires.

When employees summarize what they heard—
“Here’s my understanding of the decision. Is that accurate?”—
they create shared meaning and help prevent misunderstandings.

And when they propose structured options instead of vague concerns, they express hopeful engagement:
“Option A supports these student groups; Option B helps faculty in these ways.”

This isn’t resistance to the decision.
It’s resistance to opacity.
It’s the kind of resistance Grain describes: a committed, relational, ethical form of hope.

Helping Supervisors Make Decisions Visible

Supervisors in academic libraries carry complex responsibilities—balancing accreditation needs, student support, faculty expectations, budget constraints, and institutional priorities. In such environments, transparency isn’t always instinctive.

But it is powerful.

Simply narrating decisions transforms how they land:

• “We’re making this change to support retention goals.”
  
  
• “I chose this direction because of faculty feedback.”
  
  
• “Here’s the broader context from the dean’s office.”
  
  

This small addition—storytelling—turns a directive into a shared journey.

Supervisors can also clarify the decision stage:

• seeking input
  
  
• analyzing options
  
  
• preparing to decide
  
  
• finalizing the decision
  
  

This clarity reduces anxiety, affirms employee contributions, and supports a climate of mutual respect.

Dorie Clark’s HBR insight—that leaders who feel insecure in their expertise may hide decisions—applies here, too. But visibility, not secrecy, builds influence in higher ed. Sharing the thinking is what strengthens credibility.

What Institutions Can Do to Support Transparent, Hopeful Decision-Making

Institutions committed to critical hope must build decision-making structures that reflect those values.

They can:

• create shared decision logs
• encourage open meeting notes
• communicate institutional priorities clearly
• include libraries early in curricular or policy changes
• train supervisors in participatory leadership and narrative communication
  
  

Critical hope is not passive. It is enacted through systems that make transparency routine rather than exceptional.

Further Reading

To learn more, you can explore how leaders can make decision-making more participatory, transparent, and grounded in trust:

• Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes for an Answer by Michael Roberto
• How Transparent Should You Be with Your Team? https://hbr.org/2023/01/how-transparent-should-you-be-with-your-team
• How to Stay on Top of Your Team’s Projects—Without Micromanaging https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-to-stay-on-top-of-your-teams-projects-without-micromanaging
• A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making
• Get People to Listen to You When You’re Not Seen as an Expert https://hbr.org/2015/05/get-people-to-listen-to-you-when-youre-not-seen-as-an-expert?autocomplete=true
  
  

Each reinforces the same truth: transparency is not about sharing everything—it’s about sharing enough.

Looking Ahead

Academic libraries model information access and shared understanding for the entire campus community. When decision-making becomes invisible, these core values are compromised. But when decisions are narrated—when people understand not only what but why—the institution moves closer to Grain’s vision of critical hope: hope rooted in honesty, grounded in reality, and expressed through collective agency.

Resistance is not the enemy of good leadership.
It is a sign that people care deeply enough to respond.

And when supervisors welcome that response—when they see it as an invitation instead of a threat—the workplace becomes more trusting, more collaborative, and more aligned with the transformative mission of higher education.

People don’t need to approve every decision.
They need to understand the story.
And when decision-making becomes visible, we all step a little closer to the hopeful, human-centered academic environments we’re working to build.