If you work in international education, you already know that certainty is rare. Policy settings shift with little notice. Visa caps are announced, revised, hinted at, or reframed, often without the operational detail institutions need to act with confidence.
Yet the work continues. Recruitment pipelines remain live. Agents still seek guidance. Students and families are making life-shaping decisions about study, finances, and relocation.
At the same time, institutions are navigating an increasingly complex landscape of risk, compliance, reputational exposure, and public scrutiny. In such a fast-moving environment, waiting for complete clarity can feel like the safest course of action. When policy shifts, markets move, and student decisions continue regardless, delaying decisions can appear prudent.
In reality, certainty is a luxury international education rarely has.
Deferring decisions creates its own consequences: prolonged uncertainty, increased anxiety, and missed opportunities for students, agents, and institutions alike. It is in this context that the 70% rule, drawn from military decision-making frameworks, offers a disciplined and ethical way for leaders to act responsibly amid uncertainty, balancing timely action with the ability to adapt as conditions evolve.
The core principle of the 70% rule
The 70% rule does not encourage acting on impulse or with too little information. Instead, it values making decisions when you have enough facts to move forward, while remaining flexible.
If you have sufficient information to keep students safe, uphold institutional standards, and adjust later if needed, it is often more responsible to act than to wait for perfect certainty.
In international education, we are always working against the clock — not against an enemy, but against student decision timelines, narrow policy windows, shifting market conditions, escalating risk, and reputational exposure. All of this sits alongside real student vulnerability, where uncertainty carries personal, financial, and emotional consequences.
Time, in this context, is not neutral. How long a decision takes can matter just as much as the decision itself. Delays usually hurt students more than timely action, even when those decisions are not perfect.
The hidden cost of waiting for certainty
Excessive caution often appears not as a single choice, but as a pattern of delay. Admissions decisions stall. Responses to policy or visa changes take time to form. Uncertainty for students and families persists while issues escalate rather than resolve. Over time, risk is pushed upward instead of being managed where it can be most effectively contained.
In some cases, hesitation allows poor or questionable practices to continue unchallenged — not because leaders are unaware of them, but because they are waiting for full agreement or absolute certainty. While understandable, this quietly compounds risk and erodes confidence across the system.
For our work, this can translate into:
- Lost offers and missed intakes affecting student pipelines, agent confidence, and institutional revenue
- Heightened financial and emotional stress for students and families, alongside increased pressure on frontline staff
- Fragmented or delayed communication, leaving agents without clear guidance and teams exposed to conflicting messages
- Erosion of trust among students, agents, and partner institutions
- Disrupted study plans and growing wellbeing risks for students, creating downstream workload and risk challenges
Ironically, delaying decisions to protect students can end up achieving the opposite.
The 70% rule in international education contexts
- Shift the question from “Are we certain?” to “Are we sufficiently informed?”
A 70% decision asks:
- Do we understand the material risks to students?
- Do we know the likely consequences of action and inaction?
- Can we adapt quickly if assumptions change?
- Are students’ and the institution’s interests protected if we proceed now?
This shift moves leadership from guessing at the future to taking responsible action in the present.
- Use time as a risk variable, not just compliance
The military treats time as a strategic tool. Universities often overlook its importance.
For international leaders:
- Every week of indecision increases student anxiety
- Delays compound misinformation through agents and networks
- Silence is interpreted as indifference or dysfunction
A 70% decision recognises that acting quickly is central to student wellbeing, not just operational efficiency.
- Make provisional decisions with explicit review points
A common misconception is that 70% decisions are final. They are not.
Effective leaders:
- Act confidently based on available information
- Communicate clearly that decisions will be reviewed
- Set defined checkpoints for reassessment
- Adjust course transparently as new information emerges
This builds more confidence than prolonged silence or indecision.
- Anchor decisions explicitly to system-wide outcomes
One of the most ethical ways to apply the 70% rule is to ask:
Which option best protects clarity, fairness, and trust for students, agents, and the institution right now?
In practice, this means:
- Issuing early, conditional guidance rather than waiting for late-stage certainty
- Being open about risks so agents can give honest advice and teams can act consistently
- Prioritising clear communication to students and agents, even when internal alignment is still forming
- Intervening early in recruitment or compliance concerns to protect students and institutional reputation
When leaders act with integrity during uncertain times, students feel respected, agents stay confident, and institutions maintain long-term strength.
Build moral courage into leadership culture
At its core, the 70% rule is about moral courage. It requires making thoughtful decisions before everything is settled, having difficult conversations, and taking responsibility for outcomes. In university life, this often means challenging what has become normal, naming trade-offs honestly, and resisting the temptation to hide behind process or endless consultation.
When decisions are continually delayed, the message can become that certainty matters more than students or staff. Acting with integrity in uncertain times reminds people that leadership is about judgement, not just compliance.
Example: reopening borders and student returns during COVID (2021–2022)
When borders began reopening after COVID, universities operated with very little certainty. Visa timelines were unpredictable, health requirements shifted frequently, airline capacity was unreliable, and students’ readiness varied significantly. Government messaging was often ambiguous or arrived too late to be operationally useful.
Waiting for complete clarity would have meant taking no action.
What 100% certainty looked like
Some institutions delayed key decisions, withheld offers, postponed arrival guidance, hesitated to commit to on-campus teaching, and limited offshore support. For students, this meant prolonged uncertainty, heightened stress, and, in many cases, missed intakes or withdrawals.
Where the 70% rule was applied well
Other universities recognised that although information was incomplete, there was enough to act responsibly. They issued early conditional guidance, staged arrivals, secured accommodation contingencies, communicated openly about possible changes, and put wellbeing measures in place before certainty existed.
In these cases, students felt informed rather than abandoned. Proactive communication reduced anxiety, strengthened trust, and made institutions appear decisive rather than evasive. Early relationships allowed plans to evolve as conditions changed, rather than repeatedly starting from scratch.
Why this matters now
We continue to operate in an environment shaped by constant policy shifts, compliance ambiguity, and volatile global markets. These pressures are compounded by competing stakeholder demands pulling in different directions and on different timelines.
The lesson from COVID is clear:
- Institutions that waited for certainty protected the process.
- Institutions that acted at 70% and built in flexibility, protected people and remained agile.
When applied thoughtfully, the 70% rule creates momentum. Messages become clearer, anxiety reduces, and problems are addressed earlier instead of being left to grow. Leadership feels more visible and honest, and trust deepens because decisions are seen to be made with purpose.
Students and our teams are not looking for perfect answers. They are looking for leaders who are willing to act and who genuinely care about their experience.
Final thought
As international education leaders, we are already accustomed to working with incomplete information, competing demands, and decisions that carry significant consequences for people.
The 70% rule is not a call to be reckless or to lower standards. It offers a disciplined way to judge when timely action may be better than continued delay. In many cases, a thoughtful decision made early, with the intention to review and adapt, will have more impact than a perfect decision that arrives too late to matter.
It is worth reflecting on where, in your own leadership context, acting at 70% could make a meaningful difference.
Nicola Bate is a senior leader in global student recruitment and engagement at Federation University Australia, with extensive experience in sales, marketing and communications. She is known for her engaging, collaborative and practical approach to building high-performing teams and delivering meaningful student experiences.
Graham Jones is an executive coach and leadership practitioner with extensive experience in higher education. He works alongside senior leaders, using a values-led and psychologically grounded approach to align judgment, behaviour, and decision-making in complex, high-stakes environments.
