Tuesday, May 26, 2009

 

Learning Not to Answer

I've had variations on this conversation several times recently:

Professor: There's option A and option B, and I guess technically there's option C. This clique wants A and that clique wants B. What do you think we should do?

DD: I really don't care, as long as the decision process is valid.

Professor: But what if they choose C?

DD: Then they choose C.

Professor: But C is terrible!

DD: Could be. But if they need to discover that for themselves, so be it.

At a certain level, this could be read as 'evasive,' and in a way, it is. But when things haven't been that way in the past, it actually leads to a hell of a lot of work. The inevitable follow-up conversation goes like this:

Professor: So our process is, the chair chooses.

DD: That's not a process.

Professor: I know. But so-and-so can't be trusted, and such-and-such filed a grievance umpteen years ago, and...

DD: (sigh) Okay, but it's still not a process. You need a process that you could describe in the newspaper and defend in public.

Which leads to a frustrating series of conversations about 'past practice,' and personalities, and long-forgotten administrative decrees, and several layers of policy sleuthing. We get the union involved, and the usual political machinery starts to grind. Which leads to this conversation:

Prof.: This is taking forever! Can't we just decide A for now, and finish setting up the process later?

DD: No, because then you've established a past practice. The precedent is toxic.

Prof.: So you want B instead?

DD: You're missing the point. We have to set up a valid process and honor its result.

Prof: We just need a decision!

DD: All the more reason to finish setting up the process.

Prof: AAARGH!

DD: I know the feeling...

If your horizon of caring is limited to the decision at hand, my responses are probably just maddening. But if you understand that decisions lead to other decisions, the process focus makes sense. I've been doing this long enough to know that the standard countermove when somebody 'loses' is to trot out the old warhorse “how was this decision made?” All those picky little process points that are so tempting to skip are precisely what keep you out of hot water once the call is made. Cut corners on process, and you're wide open to charges of favoritism or worse.

(The issue of timing is a no-win. If there's an urgent issue at hand, there's not enough time to clean up the process. If there isn't an urgent issue at hand, there isn't the political will to address the process. Either way, it's never the right time. Comes with the territory.)

The easy way around all that is the Corporate America solution of empowering managers to actually make decisions. But higher ed as a culture is based precisely on not doing that. I like to think that the truth lies somewhere in between – corporations easily succumb to ADHD, while within higher ed, I've seen 'institutional memory' become dead weight – but in the system we have, a process focus seems like the best we can do. It's just a whole lot harder to execute than it looks.

Comments:
Things rarely play out for me in the way you describe them here. I am usually presented with a decision that is portrayed as a consensus or a majority vote. My only choice is whether or not to go along with that decision.

When I am presented with a department or group that is unable to make a choice, it is usually because they want me to make it for them. They present the reasoning behind each choice, and I select the most promising one, or at least help them arrive at the best choice by providing more information.

I suppose if I was offered a false choice, in the sense that the department had not actually thought through any of the implications of their various alternatives, I might decline to offer a decision, but that rarely occurs. Maybe I am less hung up on process per se, as long as a defensible decision is made, I am generally happy.

DD, I really appreciate the insight you offer on many CC issues, and I feel that you and your readers have given me several very useful ideas that have helped me do my job more effectively. However, at times it seems to me that you approach some issues from the, 'glass is half empty' side; I think this is one of those times.
 
This post made my head hurt, and I am so glad I got off the admin track and back into teaching so I would not have to deal with crap like this.
 
I would offer the observation that you ARE empowering a sub-group of faculty to act as managers, but they don't want the responsibility of formulating a defensible decision.

Thus, Anonymous misses the point! You do have to deal with crap like this as faculty when you are empowered with making administrative decisions, whether it be a new course or a short list for hiring a new professor or choosing how to spend what little money available for lab equipment.
 
It's so funny -- posts like these are what make me want to be an Administrator, because I'm perfectly happy saying "You need a better process, and the process is more important than any given decision."

I was just discussing this with a friend of mine about the small nonprofit I'm heading. We have a fairly large decision to make, and she suggested I just go ahead and make it, because I know what's going on. I responded that that's a terrible process. She said that it can't be, because it would get the right decision.

My response is that a lousy process can make a good decision; the problem comes with the next one.
 
Related to this problem is the one in which there is a process, but it doesn't produce the desired result. I have been going around and around the last few weeks on a case like that, with the faculty, I suspect, willfully refusing to understand that the result they want is not a possible outcome from the process they have chosen. They seem to think that they can mix and match process and outcome, and in this case, they can't.

I swear, I have had more productive conversations with my cat on this topic.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?