Apologies for re-treading on this old ground, but this has been gnawing at me for a few days.
I was at an "unofficial" class reunion event less than 2 weeks ago and there were several "open mic" sessions where we put our names into a hat and were encouraged to speak our minds for 3-4 minutes. The first speaker was a respected attorney, who had been a successful prosecutor in his work years, and he immediately tore into the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding Stanford's actions on a number of fronts -- the MTL fiasco, the axing (and restoration) of 11 sports, the whole process leading up to Katie Meyer's suicide, the Pac12/ACC cloud, etc etc.
My name was drawn next, and I had planned on speaking about something else, but my classmate's words triggered me and I found myself reinforcing the questions he raised. My basic points were that running a university was like running a business, but that Stanford sure looked like one of the worst-run businesses I'd ever seen in my 4 decades as a C-level international corporate management consultant, if only for the fact that decisions seemed to be made by people with questionable qualifications for their jobs, and always seemed hidden from the stakeholders. And that the stakeholders included all members of the University community, and not just the mega donors.
A bit later in the session, another classmate's name was drawn, and my jaw dropped when the speaker introduced themself as a former member of the Board of Trustees. They proceeded to explain that 1) MTL could have only acted as a consensus manager, and that even had he wanted to simply "fire the a-holes" (their words), he could not do so unilaterally. And 2) that "every University runs this way." (Again, their words.)
I have to assume that this member of the BOT was telling the truth. If so, that means that, in effect, that the University President is a figurehead with very little power, and that, when you think about it, he/she doesn't have people who report and answer to him/her, but just the opposite -- he/she reports to them. Wow.
And what of Drell, as Provost? IIRC someone here mentioned that she had 26 direct reports? Even if you assume for a minute that she had ironclad control of them, any manager will tell you that 26 direct reports is just a silly organization. FWIW, I saw that kind of organization in a few 3rd world countries, and time and time again it proved to be a morass of inertia.
Hey Jerry Yang: I'll come out of retirement and bring 3 or 4 ex-colleagues with me. We'll fix this for you by Christmas. $12 million, half up front. Don't finalize the deals for the new Prez and Provost until you see our recommendations. Of course, you foot the bill for severance payments, and you write our operating recommendations into all employment contracts. You'll never get a better deal. Offer is good until kickoff on Saturday.
I was at an "unofficial" class reunion event less than 2 weeks ago and there were several "open mic" sessions where we put our names into a hat and were encouraged to speak our minds for 3-4 minutes. The first speaker was a respected attorney, who had been a successful prosecutor in his work years, and he immediately tore into the lack of transparency and accountability surrounding Stanford's actions on a number of fronts -- the MTL fiasco, the axing (and restoration) of 11 sports, the whole process leading up to Katie Meyer's suicide, the Pac12/ACC cloud, etc etc.
My name was drawn next, and I had planned on speaking about something else, but my classmate's words triggered me and I found myself reinforcing the questions he raised. My basic points were that running a university was like running a business, but that Stanford sure looked like one of the worst-run businesses I'd ever seen in my 4 decades as a C-level international corporate management consultant, if only for the fact that decisions seemed to be made by people with questionable qualifications for their jobs, and always seemed hidden from the stakeholders. And that the stakeholders included all members of the University community, and not just the mega donors.
A bit later in the session, another classmate's name was drawn, and my jaw dropped when the speaker introduced themself as a former member of the Board of Trustees. They proceeded to explain that 1) MTL could have only acted as a consensus manager, and that even had he wanted to simply "fire the a-holes" (their words), he could not do so unilaterally. And 2) that "every University runs this way." (Again, their words.)
I have to assume that this member of the BOT was telling the truth. If so, that means that, in effect, that the University President is a figurehead with very little power, and that, when you think about it, he/she doesn't have people who report and answer to him/her, but just the opposite -- he/she reports to them. Wow.
And what of Drell, as Provost? IIRC someone here mentioned that she had 26 direct reports? Even if you assume for a minute that she had ironclad control of them, any manager will tell you that 26 direct reports is just a silly organization. FWIW, I saw that kind of organization in a few 3rd world countries, and time and time again it proved to be a morass of inertia.
Hey Jerry Yang: I'll come out of retirement and bring 3 or 4 ex-colleagues with me. We'll fix this for you by Christmas. $12 million, half up front. Don't finalize the deals for the new Prez and Provost until you see our recommendations. Of course, you foot the bill for severance payments, and you write our operating recommendations into all employment contracts. You'll never get a better deal. Offer is good until kickoff on Saturday.
