Can You See the Forest?

Date: May 24, 2004

Can You See the Forest?

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
"I have followed this site with great interest for quite some time, reserving comment. I feel that it is now time to speak out. While you people are highly intelligent, your reasoning is filled with such vitriol that you are missing the proverbial "forest for the trees." Please allow me to expound.
You are trying to preserve a certain culture that cannot survive in its present form. Despite your honorable intentions, dramatic change in academia is inevitable. Economics and market forces will change the way universities are financed and managed. This is as certain as the industrial revolution superceded the agrarian economy and now the information age is now superceding the industrial economy. You cannot stop it. You focus your attack on SFT (and I hope you succeed), but he is merely the change agent. Eliminating him will not stop change. You may win the battle but you will not win the war, unless you can accept, embrace, and adapt to change. Indeed, you can adapt to this inevitable change without corrupting your academic ideals, but it will not be easy.
For Shelby's part, he misses the "forest" as well. A true change agent cannot impose change on the unwilling. Nor can he/she accomplish true change without the constituents understanding the need for change. Change requires the understanding, participation and support of all participants. All must work together to embrace and adapt to the inevitable changes in order to accomplish common goals and accommodate divergent goals. Heavy-handed tactics are never successful and always result in more opposition to change, as we see in the current situation. Thus, at USM we have the irresistable force meeting the immovable object.
Universities that recognize the changes and exploit them will flourish, while those that do not will die or, worse, stagnate. Which will you choose?
As for myself, I have very fundamental disagreements with your positions, but I am no friend of the Gnome either. I have a different agenda, which will be furthered by giving you true and accurate information that you can use. I will do this from time to time, but cannot disclose my source under any circumstances. You can choose to ignore it, but I can assure you that it is accurate."

Machiavelli,
Are you reading the same board that I'm reading? It is the administration's PR that the faculty is against change. This is not true. Read the Faculty Senate's resolutions. It has always been about SHARED GOVERNANCE and TENURE. Thames doesn't use shared governance and so doesn't even have a chance of producing consensus. The issue is basic management and NOT resistance to change. The faculty knew of Thames previous performance as an administrator and used that information when voting on his appointment to president. Please stop with the PR, that is Lisa's job.

Date: May 24, 2004

You need to understand the basic thrust of our concern on this board. It is not about rejecting change. Change is inevitable, and everyone is aware of this. Our concerns are with the *process* that SFT has employed to create his "changes." His practices as a leader and a university president are nowhere near the "best practices" of any university, business, or other entity, that I'm aware of, other than a totalitarian state. He acts without consulting any of the elected bodies on campus and he subverts the normal procedures for everything from hiring/firing to major structural changes (i.e. the "college consolidation" fiasco). Do you see any other university presidents (his peers) coming to his defense?

What you may not understand is how things work at "great universities." Great universities (and great university presidents) embrace the notion of shared governance (which means that all stakeholders--faculty, students, staff, alums, community members, etc.--have a voice in what happens at a university). SFT, along with the College Board (save for Virginia Newton), has declared war on USM's faculty. As the Neil McMillen quote states: "No great university wages war on its faculty." Period.

Economic realities do need to be addressed in southern Mississippi, but SFT is not the man to do it at USM. It is now time for a new president with less baggage, more vision, and some sort of decent management style to take over the reigns at USM. Until this happens, USM will continue to suffer from a hemorraghing of talented faculty members that will take years (maybe decades) to replace. This is the real economic reality that is going to hit USM hard in the coming years. Unfortunately, it is the students who will suffer the most.

Date: May 24, 2004

Machiavelli,

You need to drop the portentous tone and get down to specifics.

I expect my views on universities and the market, the future of tenure, and the future of most Ph.D. programs in the humanities would surprise you. You would be very wrong to suppose that everyone who has come together on this board agrees about all of these things.

What we have in Shelby Thames' case is not an attempt to be a "change agent." Thames has never acquired a coherent understanding of the current environment in which universities function. A state university president who won't acknowledge tuition as a source of revenue and can't cultivate private donors lacks basic competencies needed to function in today's world. And the extent that Thames isn't motivated by sheer narcissism, he is full of reactionary nostalgia for the despotism of General McCain.

If USM survives Thames, it will have plenty of challenges to handle. But if Thames remains in command, USM will not survive. His kind of overweening, corrupt administration won't promote the functioning of any university.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 24, 2004

Truth,

There is much truth in what you say. As I stated in my original post, SFT's process leaves much to be desired. That is why he has not been successful. However, I also believe that the traditional concept of shared governance must be re-examined as well. In our changing environment, universities must be more nimble and decisions must be made faster. Innumerable committees and endless meetings seldom lead to real action, but stagnation.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating doing away with shared governance at all. What I am suggesting is that the traditional model must be adapted to modern realities. Constituent input is and will remain an invaluable component of the decision-making process, but a new paradigm must be conceived where it can be accomplished without stultifying the decision and change process.

That, my friend, is the true challenge.

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
"You focus your attack on SFT (and I hope you succeed), but he is merely the change agent. Eliminating him will not stop change."

While I agree practically and philosophically with much of your analysis, I would differ in your characterization of SFT as "merely the change agent." He is now, and by any objective review of his career, always has been, a venal, unprincipled, mean-spirited, and amoral tyrant. In short, a man of no honor.

From my perspective, as a scientist who has studied, worked, and taught at several "major" research universities, I would suggest that the new university paradigm you describe can be (and has been) realized without savaging the non-technical academic departments, or diminishing the considerable accomplishments of the many scholars who labor outside laboratories.

I believe Thames should go because of his complete lack of character, not for his vision, whatever it may be.

AE

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
"Truth, There is much truth in what you say. As I stated in my original post, SFT's process leaves much to be desired. That is why he has not been successful. However, I also believe that the traditional concept of shared governance must be re-examined as well. In our changing environment, universities must be more nimble and decisions must be made faster. Innumerable committees and endless meetings seldom lead to real action, but stagnation. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating doing away with shared governance at all. What I am suggesting is that the traditional model must be adapted to modern realities. Constituent input is and will remain an invaluable component of the decision-making process, but a new paradigm must be conceived where it can be accomplished without stultifying the decision and change process. That, my friend, is the true challenge."

Th point I am trying to make is that, currently at USM, there is NO shared governance. Not only is there none, there is a deep and abiding sense of mistrust among faculty members in all colleges (remember the 70% no confidence vote). Until trust is re-established, I can't see how SFT will be able to make any substantive changes at USM. For there to be a change in a shared governance model, there needs to be some sort of model to begin with. Under SFT, there is no model at all.

My prediction: SFT will never be able to regain the trust of his faculty members (at least not 70% of them). He has shot off all of his toes, in that regard, and will only be able to rule with the iron fist that the IHL board gives him. In the meantime, USM will lose many more talented faculty members, and will be a shell of its former self by the time that SFT is gone.

Very sad for this alum to see.

Date: May 24, 2004

AE,

I don't disagree with you. My point is that we must not let our personal opinions of SFT cloud your vision and your view of the ultimate goal. Even if he is gone, substantial changes must be made.

Date: May 24, 2004

Truth,

I agree with you. The problem is, there is a total lack of trust going in both directions (hence, the irresistable force/immovable object analogy). It is too bad someone cannot develop a new shared governance model that can provide the necessary constituencey input while creating a more efficient decision-making process.

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
"AE,
I don't disagree with you. My point is that we must not let our personal opinions of SFT cloud your vision and your view of the ultimate goal. Even if he is gone, substantial changes must be made."

Got it. We're on the same page.

AE

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
"Truth, I agree with you. The problem is, there is a total lack of trust going in both directions (hence, the irresistable force/immovable object analogy). It is too bad someone cannot develop a new shared governance model that can provide the necessary constituencey input while creating a more efficient decision-making process."

Yep, we're on the same page. This is the main problem with SFT (total lack of any shared governance model), and it doesn't look like it will be resolved any time soon. I'm all for expediency in decision-making, but not at the cost of "buy-in" from stakeholders. A fine line, but it must be walked carefully and consistently.

Date: May 24, 2004

So, does anyone have any ideas as what the new paradigm of shared governance would look like?

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
"So, does anyone have any ideas as what the new paradigm of shared governance would look like?"

Apparently for Shelby it is the PUC.

Date: May 24, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Machiavelli
"However, I also believe that the traditional concept of shared governance must be re-examined as well. In our changing environment, universities must be more nimble and decisions must be made faster. Innumerable committees and endless meetings seldom lead to real action, but stagnation."

This is correct. So why don't you go out on a limb, Machiavelli & suggest a truly radical new paradigm for educational institutions: A FLATTENED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE? The real reason for the "innumerable" meetingss is that the department chair has to hold them, then the assistant dean has to hold them, then the dean has to hold them, then the associate provost has to hold them, then the provost has to hold them, then the president has to hold them & then the institution "decides" to do whatever a select few advisors to the president tell him to do.

It's that way at most institutions, great or not. Higher education has ignored the organizational reforms that have been taking place in the business community -- "family run businesses" aside -- for over 20 years.

When given a chance to streamline operations, universities tend to create an entirely new layer of bureaucracy.

Yes, change needs to come to university organizations & what needs to happen is empowerment of faculty & selective elimination of administrative top-heaviness.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating doing away with shared governance at all. What I am suggesting is that the traditional model must be adapted to modern realities. Constituent input is and will remain an invaluable component of the decision-making process, but a new paradigm must be conceived where it can be accomplished without stultifying the decision and change process."

What you are advocating, I'm afraid, is the continued application of an archaic autocratic or oligarchical approach to decision making. "The few of us up at the top know more than you do about what you are doing" sounds like something the stereotypical pointy-headed boss would say.

THAT is what needs to change.

You want a responsive, "nimble" institution? Empower the front line folks in instruction & student services to make decisions. Evaluate their performance based on the decisions they make. But don't require 'em to jump through eight-eleven hoops of fire to get their decisions approved (modified, etc.) & then clobber them when things happen too little, too late.

"Machiavelli"? Hmmm... Methinks you are angling, bubba, in both senses of the word.

Date: May 24, 2004

Invictus,

Your vindictive attitude aside, I agree with much of what you say. On academic matters, the faculty should be given much more decision-making autonomy. However, on administrative matters, I suggest a solution that also streamlines the decision-making process, yet preserves constituent input.

Your attitude demonstrates a prevailing problem of focusing too much on hatred and not enough on constructive solutions, which will be necessary even when SFT is gone.

Date: May 24, 2004

Machiavelli:

I could not agree with you more. I too think that we need to focus towards positive steps for us. When Shebby is gone we must be able to react professionally and not with hatred.

The idea of shared governance has to happen!

This board in my opinion has lost perspective of its real intent. We have focused too much on the leuitenants and not enough on the general. If we were tagged as war strategists we would wind up destroying ourselves, which is what is going to happen when we keep traveling down the same road that we are on now.

To be successful, we need to focus on the general and his communication staff!