Accreditation Is Just a Game (And That’s Not a Bad Thing)

data-informed decision-makingstrategic planningaccreditation

Jun 2

Accreditation can be a black box for many institutions, whether you're a charter school, a museum, a university, or a nonprofit arts organization. It’s a process shrouded in anxiety and over-preparation, often treated as a looming test of legitimacy. But let’s name the truth:

Accreditation is just a game.

By "game," I don’t mean it’s unimportant. I mean it follows predictable patterns, built on a structured set of incentives, players, strategies, and expected payoffs. In other words, it’s a classic game-theoretic system. (It’s worth noting: this post could substitute “accountability” for “accreditation” and the overall logic would remain the same.)

The tragedy is that so many organizations play it poorly, not because they’re failing to meet quality standards, but because they misunderstand the structure of the game itself. They treat accreditation like an unknowable judgment rather than a solvable puzzle.

Let’s reframe the process using the lens of game theory, to make the process more transparent, rational, and purpose-driven.

I. Accreditation as a Game-Theoretic System

In game theory, every game has:

Players (institutions and accrediting bodies)
Strategies (how you prepare, present, and respond)
Rules and payoffs (standards and the value of accreditation status)
Information asymmetry (what you know vs. what your reviewers know)
Repeated interactions (cycles of renewal and review)

Accreditation is a repeated signaling game, in which institutions send signals to accrediting bodies to demonstrate value and alignment with criteria. The accrediting body, in turn, updates its beliefs and makes a judgment: do these signals suggest compliance, improvement, and mission fidelity?

Because the “payoff” (accreditation status) is significant, possibly including funding access, reputational gain, and donor confidence, the institution has a strong incentive to send signals that meet the expectations, even if those signals are carefully curated.

That curation creates a key tension between authentic quality and perceived quality. And this tension is where strategic behavior emerges.

II. Strategic Compliance: The Equilibrium Behavior

Once an institution understands the rules of the game, it moves toward what game theorists would call a Nash equilibrium: a stable state where no player has an incentive to change strategy unless others do too.

What does that look like in practice?

Schools create documentation systems tailored not to everyday operations but to accreditation reports.
Cultural institutions spend an extended amount of time, energy, and unnecessary stress building mission statements that echo accrediting criteria rather than community realities.
Universities develop assessment plans more focused on rubrics than on student learning.

This isn’t inherently bad. It’s rational. Institutions learn how to win the game, and then optimize their behavior to secure that outcome.

But it also means that many organizations invest more in looking like they’re improving than actually improving. The structure of the game itself rewards appearance over substance, especially when stakes are high and consequences (like losing accreditation) are rare.

III. The Reputational Game: Signaling vs. Substance

One of the most interesting applications of game theory here is signaling theory: the idea that in markets with imperfect information, actors must signal their quality to others. Accreditation is, fundamentally, a signaling device. It says: “We meet a certain standard.”

But what does that standard really measure?

If your organization’s primary value proposition is its accreditation status, that’s a weak position. You’re signaling conformity, not excellence, and certainly not innovation. You’re leaning on a third party’s endorsement, not your own demonstrated impact.

This leads to a meta-game, a reputational game, in which the goal isn’t improvement, but the appearance of quality:

Institutions tout their accreditation as proof of excellence, when it's often just proof of savvy compliance.
Board reports highlight processes and plans, not outcomes.
Visitors and stakeholders are impressed by the seal, not the actual experience.

This reputational game isn’t inherently unethical., but it is shallow. And institutions that rely too heavily on accreditation status as their public narrative risk conflating strategic compliance with genuine mission alignment.

IV. Playing Smarter: Design a Winning Strategy

So how do you approach accreditation as a game, while maintaining your values in the process?

1. Understand the Rules

Every accreditor provides standards, benchmarks, and criteria. Read them carefully. Decode the language. Know which standards are mandatory, which are open to interpretation, and which are often overlooked but still important.

2. Build Your Narrative

Accreditation is a storytelling process. Your job is to demonstrate how your mission, systems, and decisions align with the standards. That doesn’t mean inventing a new narrative; it means translating your actual work into the language of the accreditor.

3. Work Backward from the Payoff

Game theory teaches us to anticipate outcomes. If the “win” is accreditation status, what are the inputs that lead there? Who needs to be involved? What needs to be documented? Map the gameboard, and plan your moves accordingly.

4. Invest in Systems, Not Theater

Instead of staging a “compliance play” every five or ten years, build internal systems that collect evidence, track performance, and foster real reflection. That way, when it’s time to submit documentation or host a site visit, you're ready and you're honest.

V. Accreditation Doesn’t Have to Be Stressful

The process feels overwhelming only when it’s misunderstood. Accreditation isn’t mystical. It’s not unknowable. It’s not sacred. And frankly, in most cases, it isn’t even that impressive.

It’s a solvable game.

And when you treat it as such, with the right strategy, preparation, and mindset, it becomes far less stressful and far more productive.

I’ve supported international schools, universities, and state agencies through accreditation processes. I’ve seen the difference between panic-driven compliance and clear-headed strategy. When leaders understand the game, they play with confidence. They reduce the noise. They focus on purpose. Their staff understand the gameplan, they each execute their individual roles, and the victory is shared by all. And often, these institutions improve as part of accreditation, not because the process forces them to, but because it creates space for smart, mission-aligned reflection.

Final Thought: Redesigning the Game Itself

If we want accreditation to truly support quality improvement, we need to rethink the design of the game. That means:

Rewarding long-term, authentic outcomes, not just compliance snapshots
Encouraging collaborative learning between institutions, not just judgment from above
Building accreditation models that value context, narrative, and nuance, not just standardization

Until then, let’s stop pretending that accreditation is anything more than what it is: a structured game. Play it well. But don’t confuse the game with the goal.