BlogU

  • The Hard Part of Transparency

    By Dean Dad October 20, 2009 9:41 pm

    My college, like so many others, has tried to deal with the Great Recession by having a series of public meetings about what's most important to us. The idea has been to give stakeholders from around campus -- including students -- input before decisions are made, so the decisions can be made with a clearer sense of what we all think matters. No secret decisions, no hidden agendas, no "why weren't we consulted?" objections. And some of the conversations have been wonderfully productive, with a surprising degree of consensus around a couple of major issues.
    But now the process is hitting a wall.

    When you ask people "what's crucial for student success?," you can get some wonderful responses. When you ask "what could we do better?," you get some great ideas, some of which could only come from people on the front lines. So far, so good.

    But when you get to "and what would we be willing to reduce to pay for it?," the silence is overwhelming.

    I get some of the reasons for that. I don't want to start a needless fight by saying that somebody else's job isn't important. I don't know what some people actually do in the course of the day, and presuming to pass judgment without that knowledge would be rude at best. Throw someone under the bus, and you'd better hope the bus does its job; if it doesn't, now you have a righteously pissed-off coworker for many years to come. And it's easy to envision a meeting quickly degenerating into a shouting match, with all that that entails.

    But in a very real way, this is where transparency and inclusiveness are the most important. If we get these decisions wrong, the pain will be felt for years to come. This is where we need the most help.

    One professor I spoke with suggested moving from a 'public brainstorming' model to something closer to an 'either/or.' He basically suggested that The Administration come up with two or three options -- call them plans A, B, and C -- and asking for the sense of the college as to which made the most sense. That way, you get around both the 'first mover' problem and the 'otherworldly proposal' problem. Instead of asking people whose self-image is based in excellence at critical thought to venture something, you're asking them to compare things, which is a much more comfortable position for them. It plays more to their strengths.

    I'm intrigued by the idea, but experience tells me that their first move will be to look for some unspecified plan D. (Something similar happens anytime you present statistics: the first move is always to question the methodology behind the data.) Someone will invoke 'false dilemma,' someone else will propose forming a committee, and you're right back where you started.

    This is one of those message-in-a-bottle posts in which I hope someone has a better answer than anything I've seen or surmised. So, wise and worldly readers, I seek your counsel. Is there a productive way to engage the campus community in a discussion of what to cut?

Go to comments (7) »
Advertisement
Don't Miss a Great Opportunity

Comments on The Hard Part of Transparency

  • Posted on October 21, 2009 at 8:30am EDT

  • Don't offer full-blow plans A B and C to choose from, offer a series of hypothetical decisions A or B. Would you prefer competitive funding to travel to conferences or a 1/2% raise across the board? Would you prefer 1 furlough day or 5 more students in all of your course sections?

    It's not that any of those decisions are "real", but if you construct them well, you can use them to get a sense of what the people would give up. The key is that both sides of the equation are "bad choices". You're forcing them to make decisions between two bad choices (welcome to your world, right), and you're getting a sense of their values.

  • Go with Plan D
  • Posted by GC on October 21, 2009 at 8:30am EDT

  • I agree that true stakeholder involvement and input is critical for support and implementation of any institutional efforts - particularly ones that require sacrifices due to financial or other constraints. Thus I commend you and your institution for doing this and I can certainly relate to the difficulties that these types of stakeholder input exercises present.

    My only comment would be why not consider Plan D (or E or F, etc.). If a blank slate approach is problematic, then you present options and allow those involved in the process to compare their relative pros and cons. Inevitably they will still come up with a "better" plan. But it might just be this type of comparative exercise that they need in order to "get" the compromises that have to be made and thus spark them to generate their own original ideas that fit within the parameters of what types of decisions are possible under the circumstances.

    Thus the presentation and rejection (or modification) of Plans A, B, and C may be part of a process necessary to do what you started off seeking - namely stakeholder generated ideas.

  • Posted by mondog on October 21, 2009 at 11:00am EDT

  •  I agree w/the idea of offering pieces rather than full plans.  If you followed the budget cuts at some of east coast college last spring, there were some interesting volleys.  People made their opinions known on closing satellite libraries vs. cutting faculty tuition benefits, for example.  Then, when the cuts come, at least there's some true sense of agency and collaboration.  

  • Posted by DoveArrow on October 21, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT

  • I don't know if you phrased the question exactly the way you put it in your blog entry, but if you actually asked people what they're willing to reduce to pay for it, then it's pretty clear to me why they responded with silence. The word 'reduce' has a connotation that suggests you want to take away something that is valuable in order to fund something that is even more valuable, and the reason people have a difficult time answering that question is probably because they can't think of anything valuable that they're willing to give up.

    I think one way to shift the conversation is to change the language you use. Instead of asking people what they are willing to reduce in order to pay for something, you might ask what they are doing right now that isn't working, and/or isn't helping students? Then ask if there are ways to make improvements to those things without spending money. For example, I know from experience that simply analyzing the way certain things get processed, and then taking steps to change them, can improve efficiency and accuracy within a department, and not a single extra dime needs to be spent on new software, hardware, and/or employees. If you can approach it from that angle, and try to look at ways of streamlining departments and processes, I think you might find the conversation a little more productive then if you ask people to give up something that they already have in order to fund something they find more valuable. Just a thought.

  • Streamline
  • Posted by Tk at Samuel Merritt Univ on October 21, 2009 at 2:45pm EDT

  • I agree with the previous comment. Often we find that the stakeholders see waste in departments that managers may not see. By offering a couple of plans, with a comment along the lines of "here is what we have come up, does anyone want to take time to rework, or revision these plans?" In my experience the plan comes back changed, better, or a real different plan that works. It is always better to have a shared governance model when making tough changes.

  • Hence, Administrators
  • Posted by John Frazee , Director of Faculty Relations at University of Colorado-Boulder on October 21, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT

  • The understandable trouble faculty and staff members have making decisions about cuts goes a long way toward explaining why colleges need administrators. Someone has to have both the big picture and the authority to make a decision. On most days, administrators are perceived as "a necessary evil," but it's in dire circumstances like these that it makes sense to emphasize the NECESSARY part of the phrase. It's the tough decisions that most faculty members are happy to leave to the administration--reserving the right, of course, to criticize those decisions afterwards.

  • Other options
  • Posted by sibyl on October 21, 2009 at 5:30pm EDT

  • One choice is to say that you will commit to bring three plans (A, B, C) to a meeting on November 15. You would also welcome discussion of other plans as long as they fit these requirements: they must account for the following 16 major activities, they must be revenue-neutral, etc. In other words, welcome the contributions of others as long as they lead to meaningful plans, not just "none of the above."

    Another choice would be to conduct a survey or poll that allows the declaration of a few core values. If there is stronger support for "access" than "breadth of programs," then you have a clear indicator of where the institution should go and where it should cut.

Print
© Copyright 2010 Inside Higher Ed