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.
