Thirty years ago, as a school social worker, I sat across from parents whose children had just been removed from their care. They were devastated. But devastation alone doesn’t create change. I would gently ask, “What are you willing to do to get your children back?” The answers I heard shaped what happened next—who stepped up, who turned inward, and who, tragically, could not change.

Today, I work at YU Global, the digital content and program development arm of Yeshiva University. And I’m seeing that same crossroads moment play out—not in living rooms, but in boardrooms. Higher education is in crisis. Enrollment is dropping. Campuses are closing. Leaders often call it a “sign of the times.” But the institutions that survive will not be the ones with the biggest endowments or the most prestigious names. They’ll be the ones that answer a far more personal question: “What are you willing to change to survive?”

Because survival, it turns out, is not an economic equation. It’s a leadership one.

Leadership Patterns That Predict Institutional Fate

Social workers are trained to recognize patterns that predict outcomes. And in consulting with dozens of higher ed institutions, those patterns are unmistakable. Leadership choices—made daily, habitually—determine whether an institution evolves or disappears.

Pattern 1: Status Quo vs. Urgency-Driven Response

Imagine a fire chief leaving a burning building because they had a staff meeting scheduled. “We take this fire seriously,” they say, while walking away from the flames. That’s what it looks like when a university maintains its usual routines—committee meetings, calendar reviews, strategic plans written in 18-month cycles—while enrollment collapses and programs go under.

The failure? Leaders who acknowledge the crisis but act like it’s business as usual. True crisis leadership means suspending old rules. It means doing uncomfortable things, fast. Without that urgency, the transformation window slams shut.

Pattern 2: Silos and Turf Wars vs. Collaborative Innovation

In too many institutions, departments guard their territory like it’s sacred ground. “My program.” “My faculty.” “My students.” It’s like trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle where no one shares their pieces. The result? Fragmented fixes to systemic problems.

The failure? Leaders who tolerate (or worse, enable) territorial behavior forget the big picture. Today’s challenges demand cross-functional thinking. The problems are bigger than any one office or department—and so are the solutions.

Pattern 3: Identity Preservation vs. Adaptive Evolution

Some schools treat their identity like it's encased in glass—untouchable. But as one president told me, “You can’t save the mission if the institution dies.” Clinging to legacy delivery models, markets, or formats—even as student needs shift—leads to slow irrelevance.

The failure? Confusing mission with method. Values can stay. But delivery, audience, pedagogy, pricing, format? Those must change. Visionary leaders know how to honor the soul of the institution while updating the way it lives in the world.

Pattern 4: Incrementalism vs. Transformation

If the building’s collapsing, a fresh coat of paint won’t help. Yet many leaders respond to existential threats with minor upgrades: a marketing refresh, a new course here or there, a modest shift in recruitment tactics.

The failure? When the pace of external change outstrips the pace of internal adaptation, you're falling behind. Survival sometimes requires leaps, not steps—leaps in thinking, structure, and offerings.

It's Not the Budget—It's the Vision

These patterns tell us something profound: Higher ed’s crisis isn’t primarily financial. It’s psychological. It’s cultural. It’s a leadership reckoning. The schools that survive will be the ones with leaders who:

• Question Tradition – and aren’t afraid to disrupt sacred cows

• Foster Partnership – inside and outside their walls

• Lead Cultural Change – inspiring rather than mandating adaptation

• Act with Urgency – because the clock is ticking

What Bold Leadership Looks Like: The YU Global Story

When other institutions were still debating whether online learning would “dilute their brand,” Yeshiva University did something different: they moved. They launched YU Global—not as a sideline or a reluctant necessity, but as a strategic engine of growth, innovation, and mission-aligned expansion.

This wasn’t about uploading lectures to Zoom. It was about rethinking what a university could be in the digital age. YU’s leadership invested in digital transformation not as a tech project, but as a cultural shift. They asked:

• How do we reach learners we’ve never reached before?

• How do we serve traditional students in non-traditional ways?

• How do we preserve our identity while transforming our structure?

Today, YU Global offers robust online programs, career-relevant certificates, and co-branded solutions for partner institutions—proving that change doesn’t mean compromise. It means courage.

A Final Parallel: Families and Institutions

Looking back, I remember one mother who came to every court date, every therapy appointment, every parenting class. She took responsibility. She asked for help. She made the changes. And her children came home.

Institutions face a similar choice.

Yes, change is hard. But it’s also necessary. And the most hopeful thing I’ve learned—first in social work, now in higher ed—is that transformation is always possible. Not easy. But possible.

The real question is: Will you lead it—or resist it until it’s too late?