In today’s Akron Beacon Journal we find a guest editorial written by retired Summit County Common Pleas Court judge Jane Bond, who is a also a former member of the UA board of trustees.  For full text click here.  For the press release UA put out when Jane Bond initially joined the UA board of trustees, click here.   For the UA statement at the time of her curious departure from the board, click here.

As we read this, keep this in mind:  this is an ongoing conflict on our campus, so I urge you to follow Jane Bond’s advice and seek out as many divergent opinions on this controversy as possible. 

I am not endorsing Bond’s position within that conflict; I am using her decision to weigh in on an active conflict as an opportunity to demonstrate to you that the insights we focus on in the Center for Conflict Management are, in fact, powerful tools for making sense of the world we live in.  My comments , in brackets, and in blue.

Jane Bond: UA Board Suffer from ‘Group Think’

What has happened to the trustees at the University of Akron?

Why is the university in such turmoil?

How could they let this happen?

These are questions I have been asked by dozens of community members who care deeply about the university and its role in Akron. I served as a member of the board of trustees from 2008 to 2012. During those years I observed the complexity and the breadth of the university as an institution serving 26,000 students and employing thousands of people striving to bring the university to a position of strength and educational excellence. So why is there so much turmoil, anxiety and conflict today?

[The fact that our author here served on the board is a mixed blessing.  On the one hand she has insider knowledge another analyst could not have.  At the same time, she may have an ax to grind. She may be an opponent of those currently serving on the board.  Thus, as with all texts, read this to learn but read it in the context it was written within.]

The fiduciary duty of the trustees is to set the overall direction of the institution and to guide the administration and faculty in reaching those goals. Fiscal responsibility comes first and the integrity and mission of the university follow. To do its job the board must have trustees who are independent, willing to challenge the recommendations that come to them and are open to all of the constituent stakeholders. They must not become a captive board that falls victim to “group think.”

[The above is fairly non-controversial stuff, leading readers to her question: is the group independent and/or subject to group think?  In her next sentence (below) she states her thesis:  they are the victims of group think and this compromises their capacity to be effective independent agents.]

This is what I fear has happened at the university and contributed to the situation we now face.

What is “group think”? It is a concept that was developed after the war in Vietnam when highly ranked officials in the Defense Department asked how such blind decisions, which escalated the war beyond all reason, could be made by experienced, intelligent, well-intentioned people.

They analyzed the military’s decision-making process and found a distinct group dynamic at work. In August 2011, I presented this concept in Columbus at a training session for trustees of Ohio universities and community colleges. Several of my fellow board members were there.

There are specific processes that result in “group think”:

• A closed system with decision-makers dependent for information on a select, self-interested group.

• A refusal to develop and consider alternative courses of action.

• Failure to take time to evaluate, valuing quick and easy decisions.

• Characterizing dissent as disloyalty to the group.

• Dismissing criticism as unfounded and politically motivated.

• Valuing consensus above all else.

During my years on the board I saw many of these processes at work. All information came from a select group of administrators and was carefully vetted before it reached the board. No “outside” voices were heard.

Alternatives to the recommendations of the administration were never given or requested. Everything had to be decided immediately. Deadlines were driving almost every action. Decisions become easy when you are only given one side of an issue and no alternatives are presented.

[Here we see our author recounting, on the basis of her experience on the board, a dynamic on the board that appears to fit the characteristics of group think she summarized earlier:  the board only heard from UA upper administrators about what they wanted to do.  The board never heard from faculty or students or community leaders—particularly those with views contrary to the story being told by upper administrators.  Entrepreneurs like Jeff Hoffman of Priceline.com would describe this as a leadership failure to break out of one’s bubble.]

Every vote should be unanimous. It was damaging to the university if there was contention or disagreement among board members. If you couldn’t agree, be quiet. If you refused to be quiet, you were disloyal.

Criticism was always produced by the disgruntled and the greedy. It was never legitimate. The faculty were presented as a problem to be managed never an asset to be cultivated.

[Here our author, following great thinkers like JS Mill and others, points out that is an intellectual failure to recognize that we make progress only when ideas are rigorously contested.]

The board members were cheerleaders who were expected to lead only cheers. All the administrators were doing a terrific job and deserved to be highly compensated. Trustees, to their faces, were flattered, fawned over and given the best seats in the house for all sporting events. I would be very surprised if any of this has changed since I left.

[Here our author transitions from looking backward to analyzing the present.  She starts, quite intelligently as I see it, by not demonizing the opposition, but instead analyzing the situation…focusing on how institutions, processes, cultural norms can constrain even the best among us…she does not argue the problem is that the board members are bad people, but that they are in a situation where they are not getting the information they need.]

The trustees today are well-intentioned, caring people concerned about doing the best for the university and the community. But they have selected a president who does not share the values or priorities that have built the University of Akron. They are now circling the wagons around him as he seeks to privatize whatever possible, lay-off employees, eliminate programs, shift instruction to online for-profit companies, abandon liberal arts as a basis for a quality education and fill lucrative positions with friends and loyalists.

So, they must ignore the critics and the cries of the outraged. Disparage them. Pay no attention to the collateral effects of the actions taken. Burn down the village to save it. To do otherwise is to admit they were wrong. This is “group think” in action.

I respectfully ask my former colleagues to consider some antidotes. The first is “principled dissent.” This is not rancorous disagreement or public wrangling. It requires stating the basis for a position; stating the reason a proposal is not acceptable; and acknowledging that others may also hold equally principled positions.

[Here our author could be drawing from the very best research on conflict management:  open-minded dissent is a sign of engagement and respect, not a lack of loyalty.  Listening to alternative perspectives is the core of great leadership. Blind loyalty is just that, blind…and blind cannot be innovative, or entrepreneurial, or thoughtful or leadership in action.]

Consensus is desirable, but it may also be a trap. Sound judgment and ethical responsibility occasionally require “principled dissent.” It is not disloyal. It is honorable and necessary.

The second is have the other side of every issue presented. Tell the administration to leave the room. Listen to community leaders, faculty members, parents, students, business men and women. Get information from neutral sources. Consider that many of the decisions that have been made could be wrong. Insist on alternatives being presented. Take time to do the right thing — not the quick and the easy way.

The third is do not be blinded by loyalty, influenced by friendship, corrupted by partisanship or paralyzed by cowardice. This historic institution may be facing its greatest challenge since Buchtel College burned to the ground. We are trusting in you to lead, to heal and to preserve a great university for the future.

Bond is a retired Summit County common pleas judge.