As part of the Student Affairs NOW series, Keith Edwards interviewed Kathleen Fitzpatrick about her two recently published books - Generous Thinking (2019) and Leading Generously (2024). These two books address the complexities of higher education and the vulnerability that has always been there, but not as graphically exposed as we see now - the competitive individualism that has for generations characterized academic thinking and processes. Her point is that the pervasive influence of individualism and competition in structures and approaches to research, theorizing, and publication have prevented cooperation that should be fostering greater innovation.
I have believed for a very long time that the divisiveness of the academy has undermined much of what most of those working in it, as well as consumers of it, dreamed it was accomplishing. I have attempted to counter systemic competitive isolation in multiple ways but have failed repeatedly, especially when I look at the long-term impact of what I hoped to accomplish. Combining the foundation of generosity with another idea I've recently encountered, has begun to introduce approaches that might actually work. The other idea is authentizotic culture. These ideas, generosity and authentizotic culture, are explained in the following paragraphs.
Fitzpatrick and Edwards engaged in conversation about how essential it is for higher education institutions to transform themselves into generous rather than competitive places. Especially at a time when enrollments are shifting, public support has softened, and where some governments (particularly in the U.S.) have become skeptical or hostile, institutions and their faculty/staff, need to pull together. Fitzpatrick advocates twelve practices or tools for personal and institutional transformation (chapters in Generous Leading, 2025). They might also be viewed as values that guide the conduct of leading generously - people, yourself, vulnerability, together, trust, values, listening, transparency, nimbleness, narrative, sustainability, and solidarity. Fitzpatrick identified these characteristics by talking to mid-level institutional leaders and reflecting on those things that seemed to make the most difference. In doing so, she also recognized the difficulty of consistently putting them into practice.
The idealization of an authentizotic organization was coined by Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries. From the INSEAD description of his 2022 article, "Authentizotic Organizations: Best Places to Work":
"authentizotic" - derived from the Greek words authteekos and zoteekos. An organization that is authentic inspires employees through the integrity of its vision, mission, values, culture, and structure. Zoteekos, meaning "vital to life", when applied to an organizational context implies that people are invigorated by their workplace and find in it a sense of balance and completeness.
I have not read Kets de Vries' complete article, but this definition alone is enough to stimulate images of joy, fulfillment, and innovation in work and leisure. The problem is that I've seldom worked or lived within such an environment. What often occurs is that there are those, often in leadership roles, who can envision and advocate ideas much like an authentizotic organization, but their behavior contradicts it.
The two concepts - generosity and authentizotic culture - are inseparable in my view. It would be extremely difficult to be generous without true knowledge and compassion for an individual or institution. It would also be difficult to foster an authentizotic culture without a commitment to generosity, forgiveness, and welcoming different perspectives. How inspiring and fulfilling would it be to work and live in an organization that strove for both of these ideals?
