- The task force will meet the the A&S chairs at the dean's monthly chairs' meeting. I expect that the big topic will be budgets.
- Liz Baker and Kimily are still working on the COAS budget sheets. We'll post summary data when it's available.
- Liz Baker and Kimily are still working on the COAS budget sheets. We'll post summary data when it's available.
- The Chronicle has an interesting article this week entitled "Why Universities Reorganize." You may recognize UWG in much of what it says.
chronicle.com/article/Why-Universities-Reorganize/123903/
- On a more personal note, thanks for all the encouraging and/or commiserating notes about our 1st recommendation and last week's COAS meeting.
- Right after the meeting I was peeved with myself for not keeping the discussion more focused on the recommended college structure and makeup.
- After thinking about it, it's probably better that I didn't do a better job of staying on task. It's more important to have people express their frustration, doubts, and opinions, even when - maybe especially when - they seem directed at me. I can learn a lot from those willing to point out my faults!
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Chairs' meeting tomorrow; interesting article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thank you, Will, for the article. It's a fascinating read in several ways, I think, and a serious comment about the ways in which many people misunderstand the nature of dissatisfaction with the change.
ReplyDelete1) Except for Northeastern University (which I'll get to in a second), these reorganizations were undertaken to SAVE MONEY and CREATE EFFICIENCY. Our reorganization was undertaken because leadership took criticism personally and is punishing the college. These changes patently will NOT save money. Whether they create efficiencies remains to be seen, but reduplication of administrators has historically not led to efficiency, rather the reverse. See India, for instance.
2) In the case of Northeastern, the division of A&S was to move the college into a research tier -- to give it space and money to grow academically speaking. That would be nice for UWG, but for that to happen, we'd need a change of culture -- an entire change of culture -- so that we privilege expenditures on academics (travel, equipment, facilities and the like) and not the externals of prestige (like fancy stadiums). If I believed for a second that we were in a place to refocus our culture, and this was a piece of that project, I'd feel differently.
Because if we were actually interested in becoming a destination/research university in the sense that Northeastern apparently is, we'd be faculty-focused, since faculty (faculty grants, publications, outreach, and faculty-student interaction) are the source of real academic culture. We'd also be interested in shared governance -- even faculty governance -- for the same reason.
So my strenuous objections to this change don't come from what the writer of this article guesses they do. Change is indeed difficult for people, but it's not the change that bothers me in this reorganization. It's actually the same-old, same-old: that is, the politics of resentment, secrecy, personality, and disenfranchisement that govern the administrative culture here. I'd like a lot of change if it means moving towards including those affected by policy in the policy making. I could seriously embrace that change, and right away.
I agree with the writer above. Even those that are happy with the change are probably content only because they or their departments directly benefit. But, who can actually defend that the decision is management genius destined to save us all? Heck, not even the folks who made the decision (those who stuck around) have bothered to provide real reasons as opposed to rhetoric not based in any reality. Conveniently, many faculty would rather ignore the moral and political reasons why this whole process stinks either because they are tired of being slapped around or, just, tired. Clearly a group think of denial going on here.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised the chronicle article was referred to with such rose colored glasses. I see nothing in that essay that comes close to defending the way this campus is handling the process. What can possibly be meant by "we can recognize UWG" in this? Did anyone on the committee actually read this article? If anything it calls us out for all the reasons noted by the writer above . We can all see past this charade but sadly, and probably just as BS had hoped, everyone is scrambling to protect the themselves and not seeing the forest for the trees. Many of us are sick and disheartened over the whole thing. Just the kind of moral booster needed in these economic times huh? What leadership!