The cost of anti-education: why dismissing “academic” insights undermines your future

Ever been called “academic” when you bring in new ideas? I have. And I can tell you, one person’s “ivory tower” is another’s lived experience, domain knowledge, and proven formula for growth.

I have been recruited to or consulted for many organizations that want my help in either maturing their teams in general or turning around trouble teams. The irony is that I have often introduced those teams to frameworks grounded in measurable results only to get side-eyed by the same leaders for being too “theoretical” or “academic” and that they don’t feel like there’s application. The folks who continue to dismiss these tools despite hiring an expert with proven results of getting the best out of teams? They missed out on:

• Real innovation. If you brush off research-driven methods, you shut the door on powerful insights.
• Structured problem-solving. Without the architecture of clear processes, chaos reigns.
• Repeatable success. Without structure, you reinvent the wheel and misunderstand or outright lose what got you there.
• Team evolution. When we skip deeper learning, the team grows stagnant and less competitive.
• Data-informed decisions. Going on gut feeling only works until your competitor uses actual data.
• Aligned goals. Avoiding frameworks leaves everyone guessing at what success looks like.
• Resilience. Proven approaches help you adapt under pressure—just ask the companies who pivoted fast (and thrived) this year.
• Long-term potential. Surviving isn’t the same as thriving; theory can fuel truly transformative moves.

Sometimes, “academic” is code for “I don’t trust this yet,” and we need to do more work to bring people along. But that’s exactly why structured approaches exist: to build trust through evidence, iteration, and learning.

Curious about blending theory with no-nonsense results?
Subscribe to my writing here as well as checking out spencergoldade.ca for more insights.