Using human agency principles to support unprecedented decision-making in higher education

“Remember that you are setting a precedent.” This statement has echoed throughout my career in higher education, constantly reminding me of the weight carried by every decision. Whether it was proposing alternatives to policies, rethinking procedures, or questioning entrenched practices, one critical question continued to surface: If we constantly innovate the future through rear-view thinking, will we only recreate the past?

Bold and unprecedented decisions are not just necessary in times of uncertainty; they are vital to establishing equity and fairness. But how do we achieve this as decision-makers in higher education, a sector often bound by tradition and a slow pace of change?

Albert Bandura’s human agency theory provides a framework for navigating these complex choices. This theory suggests that decision-makers have the capacity to create visualized futures, evaluate courses of action and overcome environmental influences to secure valued outcomes. To do so, they engage in four essential functions:

1. Intentionality
2. Forethought
3. Self-reactiveness, and
4. Self-reflectiveness.

Through these principles, decision-making in higher education can expand beyond mere precedent-setting to actively create a future that embraces complexity, equity and justice.

Intentionality: Reframing risk as a path to liberation

At the heart of setting a precedent lies the pervasive fear of risk – failure, mistreatment, overuse, and, often, the inability to replicate the same pathway for someone else. Thus, risk becomes something to minimize or avoid. Yet, with innovation and progression as central tenets of higher education, we must ask: What if risk were reframed as a liberatory act?

Dr. Bandura’s concept of intentionality challenges us to establish a deliberate plan of action that changes the circumstances of those most impacted by systemic barriers – whether that’s a student appealing a decision or a staff member facing ongoing challenges and needing accommodations. When viewed through intentionality, risk becomes an opportunity for conscious liberation rather than avoidance.

What power do I have to reshape this situation? What if the conventional options are not enough? These questions help decision-makers visualize desired outcomes and take calculated risks that dismantle systemic inequities embedded in outdated and, at times, oppressive policies. By viewing risk as a catalyst for change, intentionality shifts decision-making away from replicating the past toward a transformative future where risk becomes a tool for breaking down barriers and creating new possibilities.

Forethought: using ‘both-and’ thinking to anticipate complex outcomes

In unprecedented decision-making, there is an allure of the trap of binary thinking – yes or no, right or wrong, with or against us. Dr. Bandura’s second function of agency – forethought — invites decision-makers to anticipate potential outcomes by adopting both-and thinking, which embraces the complexity of multiple truths and diverse perspectives.

Rather than forcing a decision into a binary framework, forethought allows us to ask: What if both outcomes are valid in different ways? Can we embrace multiple possibilities simultaneously? In higher education, this might look like balancing the needs of various groups by creating policies that may benefit some while requiring further adjustments for others. For example, decisions about admissions, funding, or policy reforms can be viewed as opportunities to foster conversations about fairness across various communities while accepting that no solution will be universally perfect.

By mapping out potential futures and embracing the nuance that both-and thinking offers, decision-makers move beyond the rigidity of either/or choices into a realm of innovative solutions that account for the complexity of today’s educational landscape.

Self-reactiveness: building equity into dynamic decision-making

Systemic transformation only becomes possible when the system’s components are evaluated against the values it seeks to shift toward. Institutions are tasked with embedding principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) into their policies—values that are accompanied by hesitations about how they are not just words on paper but actively shape decision-making. Dr. Bandura’s third function, self-reactiveness, calls for adaptability and self-regulation in challenging situations.

Without self-reactiveness, even the most well-intentioned decisions risk reproducing the status quo. Rubrics, assessments, frameworks, reviews and other decision-making tools must incorporate justice and inclusion criteria directly into the evaluation process. For instance, when faced with critical decisions – such as budget allocations or hiring policies – decision-makers can measure each decision’s social and institutional impacts against the criteria. This ensures decision-makers remain aligned with institutional values and can adjust based on real-time feedback. The intentional shift allows for regulating actions consistent with EDI commitments, even when the pressure to conform to past practices feels overwhelming while sitting in liminal spaces of constant change, tension and confusion.

Self-reflectiveness: co-designing decisions with communities on the margins

None of us can fully grasp the lived experiences of the diverse communities we serve in higher education. Yet, decision-makers are often tasked with determining access, opportunities, and experiences. This is where self-reflectiveness becomes important, the fourth function of human agency. Decision-makers must constantly reflect on their actions, but more importantly, they must seek out and incorporate the voices of those often left out of these conversations.

Who is missing from the decision-making table? How can we ensure that their perspectives shape the outcome? By engaging in co-design – a process where members of vulnerable communities actively participate in decision-making – decision-makers can ensure that decisions are inclusive and genuinely reflect their stakeholders’ diverse needs.

Self-reflectiveness requires decision-makers to examine their biases, assumptions, and systems that perpetuate exclusion and reflect on responsible engagement within ethical spaces. Inviting marginalized voices into the conversation distributes ownership and power across many hands, hearts, and minds, ultimately creating fairer and more just decisions.

Human agency as a catalyst for transformative leadership

In times of uncertainty, we often look to the past for guidance. However, Dr. Bandura’s human agency theory reminds us that our true power lies in our ability to create futures that transcend the limitations of what has been. By leveraging intentionality, forethought, self-reactiveness and self-reflectiveness, decision-makers in higher education can move beyond precedent-setting to forge bold, equitable decisions that serve all communities.

As we face unprecedented challenges, the question is no longer: What precedent am I setting? Instead, how can I use my agency to transform discomfort into courageous, equitable action? By rethinking risk, embracing complexity and prioritizing justice, decision-makers can harness the power of human agency to create a future in higher education that is fair, inclusive and transformative.

Rohene Bouajram is the associate director of the strategic Indigenous, Black and people of colour (IBPOC) initiatives at the University of British Columbia where she advances equity, diversity, inclusion, decolonization and anti-racism in policies, systems, initiatives and programming.