On decision-making at the top - Printable Version

On decision-making at the top - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: On decision-making at the top (/thread-24450.html)

Pages: 1 2

On decision-making at the top - qwerty49 - 09-25-2023

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.

RE: On decision-making at the top - Spiny_Norman - 09-25-2023

Hear, hear, Qwerty. I'll second your words and those of your classmates. Stanford has systemically over several administrations been removing student-run organizations and it burns my bottom that they continue to drastically change the Stanford culture without having to answer for their decisions. I have my own examples - the destruction of the Toyon eating clubs, the scandalous removal of self-operating Suites Dining and awarding the food service contract to a company run by the brother-in-law of the person who made the decision. Stanford's bureaucratic state has squeezed the life and the sense of fun out of the student body. It's disappointing to learn that leadership seems to be powerless to stop it.

RE: On decision-making at the top - GK3 - 09-26-2023

(09-25-2023, 10:46 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Hear, hear, Qwerty. I'll second your words and those of your classmates. Stanford has systemically over several administrations been removing student-run organizations and it burns my bottom that they continue to drastically change the Stanford culture without having to answer for their decisions. I have my own examples - the destruction of the Toyon eating clubs, the scandalous removal of self-operating Suites Dining and awarding the food service contract to a company run by the brother-in-law of the person who made the decision. Stanford's bureaucratic state has squeezed the life and the sense of fun out of the student body. It's disappointing to learn that leadership seems to be powerless to stop it.

Your last sentence says it all, and fits in with feed back from current younger generation now at Stanford. I don't buy the fact that it isn't fixable, they just don't want to fix it My years at Stanford, long, long ago, were fun, a lot of fun. We were allowed to do some pretty crazy things, grow up, get a great education and leave looking back on what remain 4 of the most fun years of my life. The younger generation just returned from a quarter overseas in Spain, she said that was fun, really fun. So they haven't killed the fun everywhere.

RE: On decision-making at the top - OutsiderFan - 09-26-2023

(09-25-2023, 09:25 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: .... in effect, ....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.

So, whenever we hear about "the university Presidents" as it relates to decision-making in college sports, that's a misnomer, and it really is just the BoT for each school that makes decisions?

Who appoints the BoT, exactly? Other BoT members? Who the F is actually in charge if the President isn't?

Losing a lot of respect for Stanford as an institution over the last few years. It's really no wonder it is coming off as a poorly managed operation with this disastrous org structure, and football has been impacted in a very significant way.

RE: On decision-making at the top - 82lsju - 09-26-2023

(09-26-2023, 07:24 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Who appoints the BoT, exactly? Other BoT members? Who the F is actually in charge if the President isn't?

their are currently 32 trustees

eight are elected through a alumni nomination process run by the SAA, the most recent group from this process joins on Oct 1, 2023 is listed here. These trustees appear to serve six year terms

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/08/04/stanford-board-trustees-elects-four-new-members/

I don't know how the SAA picks the names they put forward to be board members but they solicit nominations from alums (at least I get the periodic emails about nominating people)

The University President is also on the board, not sure how the others are selected (and looking at recent new members they appear to serve five year terms (not sure if they can serve more than one term))

There is a Committee on Trusteeship which appears to serve as a nominating committee probably similar to nominating committees at public companies

https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/committees/

Quote:Committee on Trusteeship

The committee is responsible for nominations of Trustees and Board Officers and other matters relevant to trusteeship. The committee shall submit to the Board each year nominations for officers for the ensuing year. The committee shall set up the process to bring forward the nomination of new Chairs of the Board.

The committee shall from time to time review a list of persons who may possess the necessary qualifications to serve as Trustees and shall make nominations to the Board as vacancies occur in positions filled by election by the Board in accordance with the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees. The committee is also responsible for reviewing and recommending to the full Board nominees for affiliated Boards of Directors.

The committee shall have general supervision of all matters arising under the Rules Governing Election of ACTN-Nominated Trustees and shall advise the Chair and the Board with respect to all questions connected therewith.

The current list of trustees is here

https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/board-members/

RE: On decision-making at the top - OutsiderFan - 09-26-2023

I see one of the BoT is Gene Sykes, now head of the USOC.

The Olympics are losing interest - and money - just like Stanford Football is. Wonder how he feels about that and if he has plans to improve both?

RE: On decision-making at the top - BobK - 09-26-2023

The Olympics are losing interest? Really?
No they aren’t

RE: On decision-making at the top - 82lsju - 09-26-2023

(09-26-2023, 09:14 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I see one of the BoT is Gene Sykes, now head of the USOC.

The Olympics are losing interest - and money - just like Stanford Football is. Wonder how he feels about that and if he has plans to improve both?

the host cities often lose money (although some use funny accounting to say they don't), there seem to be fewer places interested in hosting due to the host city cost, I think "The Olympics" are doing just fine financially.

RE: On decision-making at the top - Maple Leaf - 09-26-2023

Stanford Scandals Stain Silicon Valley's Favorite University (msn.com)

RE: On decision-making at the top - GK3 - 09-26-2023

(09-26-2023, 07:59 AM)82lsju Wrote:
(09-26-2023, 07:24 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Who appoints the BoT, exactly? Other BoT members? Who the F is actually in charge if the President isn't?

their are currently 32 trustees

eight are elected through a alumni nomination process run by the SAA, the most recent group from this process joins on Oct 1, 2023 is listed here. These trustees appear to serve six year terms

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/08/04/stanford-board-trustees-elects-four-new-members/

I don't know how the SAA picks the names they put forward to be board members but they solicit nominations from alums (at least I get the periodic emails about nominating people)

The University President is also on the board, not sure how the others are selected (and looking at recent new members they appear to serve five year terms (not sure if they can serve more than one term))

There is a Committee on Trusteeship which appears to serve as a nominating committee probably similar to nominating committees at public companies

https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/committees/

Quote:Committee on Trusteeship

The committee is responsible for nominations of Trustees and Board Officers and other matters relevant to trusteeship. The committee shall submit to the Board each year nominations for officers for the ensuing year. The committee shall set up the process to bring forward the nomination of new Chairs of the Board.

The committee shall from time to time review a list of persons who may possess the necessary qualifications to serve as Trustees and shall make nominations to the Board as vacancies occur in positions filled by election by the Board in accordance with the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees. The committee is also responsible for reviewing and recommending to the full Board nominees for affiliated Boards of Directors.

The committee shall have general supervision of all matters arising under the Rules Governing Election of ACTN-Nominated Trustees and shall advise the Chair and the Board with respect to all questions connected therewith.

The current list of trustees is here

https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/board-members/

I think the board should have at least two former varsity athletes on the board. Preferably from either football, women's basketball, or men's basketball. I am sure we can find at last two individuals who proven their abilities outside of athletics who could server. As things stand no one is carrying the flag.

RE: On decision-making at the top - 82lsju - 09-26-2023

(09-26-2023, 11:30 AM)GK3 Wrote:
(09-26-2023, 07:59 AM)82lsju Wrote:
(09-26-2023, 07:24 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Who appoints the BoT, exactly? Other BoT members? Who the F is actually in charge if the President isn't?

their are currently 32 trustees

eight are elected through a alumni nomination process run by the SAA, the most recent group from this process joins on Oct 1, 2023 is listed here. These trustees appear to serve six year terms

https://news.stanford.edu/report/2023/08/04/stanford-board-trustees-elects-four-new-members/

I don't know how the SAA picks the names they put forward to be board members but they solicit nominations from alums (at least I get the periodic emails about nominating people)

The University President is also on the board, not sure how the others are selected (and looking at recent new members they appear to serve five year terms (not sure if they can serve more than one term))

There is a Committee on Trusteeship which appears to serve as a nominating committee probably similar to nominating committees at public companies

https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/committees/

Quote:Committee on Trusteeship

The committee is responsible for nominations of Trustees and Board Officers and other matters relevant to trusteeship. The committee shall submit to the Board each year nominations for officers for the ensuing year. The committee shall set up the process to bring forward the nomination of new Chairs of the Board.

The committee shall from time to time review a list of persons who may possess the necessary qualifications to serve as Trustees and shall make nominations to the Board as vacancies occur in positions filled by election by the Board in accordance with the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees. The committee is also responsible for reviewing and recommending to the full Board nominees for affiliated Boards of Directors.

The committee shall have general supervision of all matters arising under the Rules Governing Election of ACTN-Nominated Trustees and shall advise the Chair and the Board with respect to all questions connected therewith.

The current list of trustees is here

https://boardoftrustees.stanford.edu/board-members/

I think the board should have at least two former varsity athletes on the board. Preferably from either football, women's basketball, or men's basketball. I am sure we can find at last two individuals who proven their abilities outside of athletics who could server. As things stand no one is carrying the flag.

Amy Brooks who joins the BoT on Oct 1 was a walk-on basketball player

RE: On decision-making at the top - Spiny_Norman - 09-26-2023

I would love for Qwerty to be able to do a consulting gig for Stanford so that we would have a better idea of how decisions are made, how responsibility is delegated (or taken), who is accountable. A big RACI matrix. Based on what I have heard from Howard Wolf and others, the BoT deals with big picture issues - finances, strategic direction, executive oversight. Ratifying implementation of strategic planning actions like the residential neighborhoods for undergrads. I infer that the president has a similar scope plus some figurehead responsibilities. it seems to me that most of the campus management activities are delegated to people under the Office of the Provost - Res Ed, Athletics, Student Affairs, the academic schools, etc.

Here are the 30(!) deans and administrators who report to the Provost - https://provost.stanford.edu/about-the-office/

Since the Provost cannot possibly manage that scope of responsibility with the oversight needed, the various deans and administrators have their own little fiefdoms. Even so, when things go wrong (as they have), no one seems to be held accountable for bad outcomes.

RE: On decision-making at the top - fullmetal - 09-26-2023

qwerty49 for president!

The IOC is facing financial woes. Increased production costs (security, transportation, size of Village, venue prep) haven't been balanced by any corresponding increase in revenue. The best they can do is broadcast rights (sounds familiar) and sponsorships, but iirc, the IOC has been losing corporate sponsorships recently, whether through one-off circumstances or otherwise. Furthermore, they've had to start selling out to the altar of popularity, hence adding new "X-Games-ish" events like breakdancing, surfing, skateboarding, and sport climbing and removing baseball/softball (lightweight rowing events to be removed after Paris).

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/04/19/why-cities-no-longer-clamor-to-host-the-olympic-games/
https://www.corpwatch.org/article/corporate-sponsors-quietly-back-away-tokyo-olympics
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/09/olympic-athletes-love-mcdonalds-but-its-role-in-pyeongchang-will-be-the-smallest-in-decades/

IIRC, the IOC also sponsors the Youth Olympic Games and other various regional/continental events. Don't ask me if I think those are necessary elements of the IOC core mission. Don't ask me if any of the new sports adhere to the Olympic motto "Faster, higher, stronger."

Anyway, back to the main point, I think a lot of these BoT decisions need to be made to strengthen student life/experience and keep the university strong. Not the brand, but the entity. A lot of administrators in charge have been more concerned with the brand and procedure rather than the university itself, which is comprised of *people* -- the students, the faculty, the alumni, and even the small-but-faithful supporting community who are none of the above. Focus on the people the right way, and the brand will shine brightly.

As to the fiefdoms, that is a well-known, cancerous attitude that infects many corporations. It is beneath decision-makers at Stanford to hold personal interests above those of the university as a whole, and that kind of poor leadership comes from above. Root out that evil.

RE: On decision-making at the top - gailtate - 09-26-2023

BoT: Heavy on lawyers and financiers, Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Influential movers/shakers with a lot time, money and connections (one-degree of separation from everybody in the universe who's somebody). Not unlike most boards in significant endeavors.

RE: On decision-making at the top - fullmetal - 09-26-2023

Does BoT membership have an expected annual contribution number (written or otherwise)?

RE: On decision-making at the top - 82lsju - 09-26-2023

(09-26-2023, 01:18 PM)fullmetal Wrote: Does BoT membership have an expected annual contribution number (written or otherwise)?

the board member who is a classmate of mine appears to make large donations based on our most recent reunion donor honor roll.

RE: On decision-making at the top - Goose - 09-26-2023

IMO the president of the university has as much power as they take. The whole organization is so messed up that there aren't many checks and balances. If MTL was a true "leader", he could indeed have "fired the a-holes" and dared the BoT to come after him. If the president has the respect of the majority of the university community, they can lead and take unilateral actions. It was done in the past.. MTL didn't ever have that respect or have a desire to lead. It may be that is what got him the job.

RE: On decision-making at the top - qwerty49 - 09-26-2023

(09-26-2023, 12:42 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: I would love for Qwerty to be able to do a consulting gig for Stanford so that we would have a better idea of how decisions are made, how responsibility is delegated (or taken), who is accountable. A big RACI matrix. Based on what I have heard from Howard Wolf and others, the BoT deals with big picture issues - finances, strategic direction, executive oversight. Ratifying implementation of strategic planning actions like the residential neighborhoods for undergrads. I infer that the president has a similar scope plus some figurehead responsibilities. it seems to me that most of the campus management activities are delegated to people under the Office of the Provost - Res Ed, Athletics, Student Affairs, the academic schools, etc.

Here are the 30(!) deans and administrators who report to the Provost - https://provost.stanford.edu/about-the-office/

Since the Provost cannot possibly manage that scope of responsibility with the oversight needed, the various deans and administrators have their own little fiefdoms. Even so, when things go wrong (as they have), no one seems to be held accountable for bad outcomes.

Ha ha yes Spiny a giant RACI matrix is exactly what’s needed. The real question is, assuming you start at the top (BOT? Donors? The endowment?), how far down do you go, to maximize relevance and usefulness?

I hadn’t really thought through what a specific battle plan would look like, but here are a couple of thoughts:

Frame the program as continuous improvement, or what the Japanese call Kaizen. This sets up a culture that hopefully prevents this from being a one-time thing. I get the feeling that Kaizen is pretty un-techie and is usually part of the middle-aged corporate universe, but let’s face it - Silicon Valley is definitely showing some signs of middle age. This also can establish some academic grounds for faculty and student participation and input.

At least one, if not several, cross-functional teams looking at various streams. This is the tricky part. What are the streams? Are they traditional “boxes” like Research? Academics? Student affairs? Athletics? Plant and facility operations? Community and alumni relations? Or are they functional like Finance/resource allocation? Marketing/Branding/Licensing? HR? Or some other way to parse the universe? I honesty haven’t given that any thought, but I do know that “the way we’re always done things” and “because everyone else does it this way” are just as often wrong as right.

Ideally some Stanford people are seconded to the team(s). These need to be people in the trenches (stakeholders!) and yes, should definitely include a cross-section of both undergrad students. Get a faculty advisor on each team and offer units of credit for a full-time commitment over a quarter. Staff members should be seconded as much as reality allows. Suffice to say that in any organization there’s an element of “bloat” that can be redirected to a worthy cause. There would be a lot of fact-finding (interviews, mapping etc) involved.

But enough of my blabbering. The elephant in the room will always be the internal politics and that is the main value of bringing in objective outsiders.

But important to have real stakeholders and not just outside consultants involved because you need ownership to make things happen. The consultants drive the process but do not generate magic answers. (That’s the secret sauce that firms like McKinsey don’t like to admit, especially when they invoice you for, say, $100-150 million for a project like this, with yearly “tuneups” for, say, about $15-20m.)

RE: On decision-making at the top - needle - 09-26-2023

Stanford has gotten so big, with so many wide-ranging ventures, that no single person could possible have a good grasp of what's going on. This is basically true across higher ed, yet universities cling to a management structure (President-Provost) best suited for a different, smaller era.

That said, the president at Stanford and counterparts at virtually all universities are graded by Those Who Matter mostly on fundraising. For some, MTL is simply all that because he was at the top when Stanford bagged the $1.1 billion Doerr grant.

My views may be overly simplistic, but I truly believe this explains a lot about why universities have the type of leaders that they do.

RE: On decision-making at the top - BostonCard - 09-26-2023

(09-25-2023, 09:25 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: 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.

Running a university is not like running a business, nor should it be, in that its core mission is not to produce a positive return on investment for shareholders. That is not to say that certain aspects of running the university cannot be more efficient, and some of that efficiency can take lessons from businesses, but let's face it, even most businesses are not run all that efficiently, and it turns out that a lot of the most lucrative businesses aren't doing it by being more efficient than others but rather by setting up an deep moat and extracting economic rents.

Academia can best be thought of as a confederation of small businesses, each run by a tenured faculty member. Those faculty members are generally at the apex of their field and accept lesser salaries in exchange for lifetime employment. Since a large share sustain themselves on grants, the university possesses neither carrots (money) nor sticks (threat of severance) that they can use to induce faculty members to do what the university wants; add to that the fact that many faculty members have an ego that comes from being at the top of their field, that they have a large degree of self governance (aka the faculty senate) and it is no wonder that the University President has limited ability to "run" the university like a business.

Finally, unlike a business, where it is easy to identify the primary stakeholders (shareholders), a University has multiple stakeholders with many different priorities (most of whom, and please don't take this the wrong way, don't prioritize athletics). There are students, of course, but also faculty, alums, donors, the government, and patients. Patients, you ask? Stanford might be described as a healthcare system with a university side gig. Last year, 61% of operating revenues came from healthcare services, compared to only 5% that came from student income, 12% that came from the endowment, and another 12% that came from grants, mostly from the US government; 58% of operating expenses went to Stanford Healthcare and Lucile Packard Children's Hospital (they are reported separately), compared to 42% which went to the University. Athletics, by the way, is a rounding error lumped together with housing and dining services, the alumni association, and "other activities" under "Auxiliary activities", which, combined, makes up about 4% of the University's operating expenses. "Stanford's budget during the 2021-2022 academic year was $7.2 billion, while athletics expenses totaled just over $157 million that year — about 2% of the university's budget." (link).

I hate to break it to you guys, but while athletics might have a very strong emotional appeal to the self-selected members of this board, it is mentioned exactly once in the most recent annual financial report (under the definition of "auxiliary services"). If the University were a business, athletics would be someone's legacy passion program that at most has a few vocal champions but contributes little to the bottom line, is at best a weak strategic fit, and is ripe for elimination at the next strategic reorganization. It is only because Stanford is not run like a business that the Athletics department lives on.

BC