Every year, more and more researchers take up this quest. However, only a few go beyond the "familiar" complexity and reveal a new, more complex, and therefore difficult to perceive, realm where real answers and solutions lie. And this emerging layer of reality is worth observing!
So, Gesa Pflitsch and Max-Peter Menzel in their work "Rethinking the Third Mission : Organizing Dissonance in Transformative Universities" (Pflitsch, Menzel, 2026), building on earlier researchers of transformations (Stark, 2009; Smith, Raven, 2012) reveal why this layer is so difficult to detect. And why two seemingly progressive university models — "entrepreneurial" and "engaged" — are hardly capable of addressing this layer of reality. Funding, even generous, does not play a decisive role in the implementation of transformational projects. Statistics from around the world relentlessly prove this.
But these barriers are surmountable for a new, increasingly popular model: the “transformative university.”
The key feature of the transformative university is that it applies paradoxical approaches that are mastered in multi-loop learning.
There are many "paradoxical" abilities. But the most essential for transformation is the ability to combine incompatible: ideas, values, processes, and paths. It is the ability to unite the divergent, conflicting views, values, and expectations of participants in transformation projects (science, business, government, society) into a new semantic field — a "temporary" space of consensus with powerful creative energy and a drive for achieving outcomes within the allotted project time.
Transformation requires profound and systemic changes that go far beyond technological innovation and involve restructuring knowledge creation processes, institutional mechanisms, and reformatting societal values.
The outcome of transformation projects depends on this last aspect. It's possible to navigate the previous (undoubtedly difficult) phases of a project, only to stumble at the final two and "fade away" because the skills to create such a unique space were lacking.
It is in the value dimension that most of the contradictions lie: between conflicting value orientations, between entrenched institutional structures and the imperative for change, and between short-term interests and long-term sustainability goals.
And here's the crucial, almost "cosmic" point of this skill: combining disagreements in transformation processes. Disagreements, in the optimal (!) "dosage," are important, as they are a constructive trigger for transformation, a source of innovative ideas and practices, and help in building consensus among actors. Another key factor is "temporary unanimity." Established systems of rules and values are questioned and reshaped to meet the challenges of not only survival in a changing and highly complex context, but also the establishment of sustainable development.
Yes, it is a quest! But it offers so many opportunities and chances for new levels of progress.