Dialogue v. Communication

Date: May 16, 2004

Dialogue v. Communication

Date: May 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David Johnson
"Speaking of which, "university" is an interesting word. Unity and diversity. Unity out of diversity. Single purpose, many means of accomplishing. Unified focus, diverse people and ideas coming together to make it happen. Seems to me that with the current situation, we might be the Versity of Southern Mississippi. Maybe, just maybe, dialogue could help us begin to put the "Uni" back in "University." Just a thought."

This is great stuff. I've never heard the word "university" dissected quite this way & it's a great way to think.

The distinction between "communication" & dialogue is spot on, too.

One thing I've observed in 25+ years in education is that if, through communication and dialogue, enough different folks, enough different factions feel that they have a real stake in an idea, that idea is going to succeed. The operative concept is "consensus-building."

The problems at USM right now result in large part from decisions "made in a vacuum" without broader dialogue. Fiat decree may be easier in the short run, but it is almost always less effective in the long run. People can't be bludgeoned into consensus.

Unfortunately, I think Gene Saucier is right: Shelby Thames does not have the temperament or people skills to use dialogue effectively to build consensus.

Date: May 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" This is great stuff. I've never heard the word "university" dissected quite this way & it's a great way to think. The distinction between "communication" & dialogue is spot on, too. One thing I've observed in 25+ years in education is that if, through communication and dialogue, enough different folks, enough different factions feel that they have a real stake in an idea, that idea is going to succeed. The operative concept is "consensus-building." The problems at USM right now result in large part from decisions "made in a vacuum" without broader dialogue. Fiat decree may be easier in the short run, but it is almost always less effective in the long run. People can't be bludgeoned into consensus. Unfortunately, I think Gene Saucier is right: Shelby Thames does not have the temperament or people skills to use dialogue effectively to build consensus."

You may be right. Of course, consensus-building is the ultimate goal of dialogue. It doesn't always happen, even with the very best and most skillful leaders...but it's worth pursuing.

Seems to me that what is important, both strategically and just in terms of what is right, is that we continue to try to engage the dialogue as long as we can. I DO understand the frustration, and I"m fully aware that dialogue has been attempted unsuccessfully for some time now.

Whether the President has the skills or the temperament to do it, what do you think would happen if he suddenly started moving that direction?

Date: May 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David "DJ" Johnson
"Whether the President has the skills or the temperament to do it, what do you think would happen if he suddenly started moving that direction?"

Flippant reply: I & a number of other people in Southe Mississippi would be immediately admitted to the cardiovascular unit at Forrest General!

Serious reply: It would be wonderful not only for the University of Southern Mississippi but for Shelby Thames personally. But I don't know if Shelby Thames is that brave, quite frankly.

Date: May 16, 2004

What would happen if Shelby Thames moved in that direction?

It would be a "Touched by An Angel" moment.

Date: May 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Invictus
" Flippant reply: I & a number of other people in Southe Mississippi would be immediately admitted to the cardiovascular unit at Forrest General! Serious reply: It would be wonderful not only for the University of Southern Mississippi but for Shelby Thames personally. But I don't know if Shelby Thames is that brave, quite frankly."

Bravery may have nothing to do with it. Necessity may be the order of the day. My experience of change (in my own life as well as others) is that people change once they perceive that the pain of changing something is less than the pain of staying where you are. There's been a lot of pain around USM of late, on all sides.

Am I hopeful of broad-based change? Not really. But, I haven't been in the trenches as long as most, so I am able to maintain cautious optimism.

Date: May 16, 2004

David Johnson:

If you are the person on the PUC committee, I would like to offer a constructive suggestion for the next PUC meeting. Please indicate on this thread if you are interested and I will post it.

Date: May 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: David "DJ" Johnson
"Am I hopeful of broad-based change? Not really. But, I haven't been in the trenches as long as most, so I am able to maintain cautious optimism."

That is one of your strengths, DJ. Run with it.

By "bravery," I meant that it would take bravery for Thames to make a complete reversal in his management style. Admitting you are wrong is tough for a person; however, admitting that your entire style & approach are wrong is far tougher. I hope for the sake of USM that Shelby Thames is a "braver" man than I think he is.

You see, I don't think that 100% of what Shelby Thames envisions for USM is wrong. I don't think it's 100% right, either. With his old school autocratic approach, though, the good ideas are doomed & the bad ideas can't be moderated.

Good luck with your work, DJ!

Date: May 16, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Problem Solver
"David Johnson: If you are the person on the PUC committee, I would like to offer a constructive suggestion for the next PUC meeting. Please indicate on this thread if you are interested and I will post it."

I'm interested in constructive ideas from ANYONE, ANYWHERE, ANY TIME.

Go for it! (And, yes, I'm one of the PUCers.

Date: May 16, 2004

From the limited information on the last PUC meeting, I can share with you the theory behind the Significant Emotional Experience lecture ? film?

Dr. Morris Massey developed the theory of values in the early 1970's and became quite famous on the circuit with his Values Programming Theory. Back in the 70's hottubbing and values clarification were big topics in understand the self.

Dr. Massey developed the premise that in order to experience a change in one's basic values, one must experience a Significant Emotional Experience. For example, if your value system included the belief that drinking was o.k. and your friend got killed while drunk, this event could be a significant emotional experience in your life and change the way you evaluated drinking and therefore, changed your behavior regarding drinking. However, in the context of the PUC meeting, I do not understand why this topic could be introduced without the massive learning curve that should be accomplished prior to introducing SEE. What was the point? How was it explained as to be related to communication? As a professional, this topic was inappropriate and potentially misleading if not done correctly.

If you want to describe for me some of the other events of the meeting, I will be happy to explain them to you.

Now for the suggestion:

I have read the faculty senate minutes, line by line, and if this committee would read this document and use it as a concrete example of the communication problems, you might, with the right facilitator, at least point out the frustration and ambiguity of the faculty and staff regarding the communication style of the administration. If you read the faculty sentate minutes, it is printed in black and white and cannot be miscontrued in any manner. You will find that the administration has a communication style that includes broad generalities, concrete statements that are soon forgotten and patronizing statements to get off the hook. The more I study the forensic pattern of the communication it become clear that much of this is done out of ignorance of the policies and procedures of the university. Ready, shoot, aim. I regret to report that this type communication does not fall under the heading of a miscommunication or lack of communication, but under the heading of intentional disregard for the targeted audience. An excellent example of this malady is the off the cuff statements made by Mader if she is caught. I believe that a crafty journalist could lead her into saying just about anything. The problem is a lack of accountability for statements made to press, faculty, staff, students and even IHL.

Sadly, there is no cure for this fatal disease. Good Luck to you on this committee, but so far, it has been structured for failure.

Date: May 17, 2004

Nice analysis, Problem Solver

I have attended many Faculty Senate meetings over the last several years and there is some very effective communication there. By all accounts, Shelby Thames just does not have the capacity to listen, much less admit that he made mistakes. Recall his remarks in the press about the open letter fromFaculty Senate? He hadn't read it, even though it was published in the Student Printz and the Hattiesburg American, AND was delivered to his office.

I have no doubt some very constructive suggestions can come from the PUC members. I just fear these working solutions will fall on deaf ears.

Date: May 17, 2004

Sorry for the typos, by eyes aren't open, yet.

Date: May 17, 2004

As this thread is dialogue vs. communication, could I beg to differ on the definitions? I think dialogue is "two people talking"-they could be talking at each other or behind each other or with each other. However, it is when a message is received and another message is sent and that is also received that communication occurs. So-wwaht we want is for dialogue to lead to communication-communication is our goal-dialogue is the means to hopefully get there. Hope I am not being pedantic-but I love communication and I don't think dialogue is necessarily the final point.