Further Misuse of Terms

 

As I watch the job market, follow the news, and scroll through social media "influencers," I find myself thinking about how we misuse certain words and phrases.

I am Gen X. That means I absolutely understand the value of respect, but I am probably not what many people today would consider politically correct. My generation could throw hands, curse you out, and tell jokes that would probably get us canceled in today's environment. We were far from perfect.

What we were not, however, was rude.

Lately, it seems that being rude is being confused with being politically incorrect. They are not the same thing.

Being politically incorrect means saying something that challenges social norms or accepted conventions. Being rude means treating people poorly, showing disrespect, or behaving without basic courtesy.

My generation also understood something that seems to be missing today: consequences. If you ran your mouth recklessly, there was a good chance you would have to deal with the outcome face-to-face. The internet did not exist to provide distance, anonymity, or an audience cheering you on from behind a screen.

Social media has given many people a microphone, but it has also removed many of the natural consequences that once kept basic civility in check.

Not everything offensive is politically incorrect. Sometimes it is just rude. Sometimes it is just bad behavior. And perhaps we should stop confusing the two.

Dr Flavius A B Akerele III

The ETeam

 #GenX #Communication #Leadership #Professionalism #SocialMedia #Respect #WorkplaceCulture #CriticalThinking #Civility #PersonalResponsibility

The continued misuse of words

 

Today, I am going to look at the word controversial.

“Controversial: describes something that causes prolonged public disagreement, debate, or strong opposing views. It applies to topics, actions, or people that spark intense discussion and lack a general consensus”— Dictionary.com.

“Root: stems from the noun controversy, which means a prolonged public dispute.”

“Common examples: often used to describe polarizing policies, public figures, or debated art.” — Cambridge Dictionary

There are certain people in the news right now publicly displaying abhorrent and antisocial behavior, yet the media keeps calling them “controversial.”

I am not sure why.

There is nothing controversial about simple rudeness, cruelty, or a complete lack of basic respect for others. (There is another term I could use, but I am keeping this PG.)

At some point, we as a society need to stop romanticizing or excusing bad behavior under labels like “controversial,” “unfiltered,” or “not politically correct,” and simply call it what it is.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

And frankly, sometimes telling people the truth about themselves might save their life before they meet the “wrong person on the right day.”

Things to think about.

Dr. Flavius A. B. Akerele III
The ETeam

Higher Education’s “Accidental Leadership” Problem

 

Why institutions must begin treating leadership development and institutional memory as strategic priorities

Dr. Flavius A. B. Akerele III

Adapted from a keynote presentation delivered at the 12th Annual California International Conference on Management and Leadership at Alliant University (May 2026).

Higher education institutions excel at developing disciplinary expertise, academic knowledge, and professional specialization. Yet many institutions still rely upon surprisingly informal systems for developing leaders.

Faculty, staff, and administrators are frequently promoted into leadership positions based upon technical expertise, longevity, or operational success without receiving structured leadership preparation beforehand. Leadership often develops reactively rather than intentionally.

I refer to this as the “accidental leadership” model.

This approach may have evolved naturally over time, particularly during periods when institutions were smaller, organizational structures were simpler, and employees often remained within the same institution for decades. However, today’s higher education environment is far more complex.

Modern colleges and universities face growing pressures related to accreditation, enrollment management, technology integration, operational sustainability, workforce development, and student success outcomes.

At the same time, many institutions are experiencing significant generational transitions as long-serving administrators and faculty leaders retire. Without intentional systems for mentorship and knowledge transfer, institutions risk losing critical operational continuity and institutional memory.

One of the most overlooked challenges in higher education today is the loss of institutional knowledge.

When experienced personnel leave, institutions often lose far more than individual employees. They lose historical context, accreditation expertise, informal problem-solving networks, and operational insight accumulated over years or decades of service.

The consequences are not merely administrative. Students are affected when institutions struggle with inconsistent processes, unclear communication channels, delayed decision-making, or operational inefficiencies caused by fragmented organizational knowledge.

This issue frequently becomes visible during accreditation reviews. Institutions that struggle during accreditation visits are often not failing because of a lack of effort or commitment. Rather, they struggle because critical institutional knowledge is fragmented, undocumented, or concentrated within too few individuals.

In many cases, personnel simply do not know where information is located, which office owns a process, or who has the institutional knowledge necessary to answer questions effectively.

By contrast, institutions with strong mentorship structures and operational continuity are often better positioned to navigate organizational transitions, accreditation processes, and leadership turnover.

The good news is that higher education institutions already possess many of the resources necessary to begin addressing this challenge immediately.

Most colleges and universities already offer MBA, leadership, public administration, or organizational management coursework containing many of the exact competencies leadership pipelines require: communication, strategic planning, conflict resolution, organizational behavior, knowledge management, and leadership theory.

Institutions do not necessarily need entirely new departments or expensive external programs to begin developing intentional leadership pipelines. Existing resources can be adapted into leadership academies, mentorship cohorts, professional development certificates, and cross-functional leadership initiatives.

Equally important, institutions can begin viewing mentorship not merely as professional courtesy, but as a strategic continuity mechanism designed to preserve institutional knowledge and prepare future leaders before leadership gaps emerge.

Higher education has long invested in developing academic expertise. The next challenge may be developing equally intentional systems for cultivating the next generation of institutional leaders.

Selected References

•

CUPA-HR. (2023). Exploring the leadership pipeline in higher education.

•

Johnson, W. B. (2017). On being a mentor: A guide for higher education faculty (2nd ed.). Routledge.

•

Mullen, C. A. (2017). Mentorship in higher education. In The handbook of formal mentoring in higher education.

•

Wiig, K. M. (2008). People-focused knowledge management: How effective decision making leads to corporate success.

•

WASC Senior College and University Commission. (2023). Accreditation handbook and institutional effectiveness standards.