Long-Term Memory Loss - USM Forum -- Message Board

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

Long-Term Memory Loss

Magnolia · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:
Former administrators who were removed from positions of authority return to those positions after a years-long hiatus and are expected to act differently.

The new president is expected to draw an administrative team from the same old barrel and cobble together a white knight cabinet.

What are you talking about? From what I see she is trying to quickly cobble together an interim team while national searches begin to fill top level admin posts. Maybe you know something different.

ram · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:

Individuals about whom nothign positive has EVER been written about are now labeled as deserving of freedom from humiliation.

I guess I can live with that. I could even accept the general notion that ALL people should be free from humiliation.

One of the things I observed during the previous administration is that humilation usually degrades the "humiliator" almost as much as it does the one being humiliated. The irony is that the former seldom notices while the latter never fails to.

I trust your new president agrees in principal, even if you do not.

Cossack · Status: Offline

I guess I can live with that. I could even accept the general notion that ALL people should be free from humiliation.
The arguments against revealing information about why an administrator has been removed from office have focused on the individual. The arguments for revealing information about why an administrator has been removed from office focuses on providing information to others about expectations of administrators and as a deterrent to bad behavior on the part of administrators. The latter provides information to administrators and faculty of the expectations of the President when one takes on the administrative responsibility. In the present situation, where it will be impossible to replace all of the bad administrators quickly, it is even more important that a message be sent that you cannot hide your bad deeds. While not ideal, it will ameliorate some of the bad behaviorI wonder if those who want such things to be secret also recommend not publishing information about people who commit crimes because it will embarrass them.

ram · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:

I guess I can live with that. I could even accept the general notion that ALL people should be free from humiliation.
...I wonder if those who want such things to be secret also recommend not publishing information about people who commit crimes because it will embarrass them.

Speaking only for myself, I don't want "such things to be secret." That said, I do approve the exercise of discretion and restraint. At least in the instant case of DT, there was nothing secret about it; it just hasn't been publicized to the extent some would seem to wish.

Reasonable punishment and disclosure are okay with me. The intentional infliction of "humiliation" as an objective in and of itself seems excessive.

Okay, let's not limit our focus to the individual. What message does this humiliation send to others at USM? Sure, we hope it would intimidate the bad people, whoever they may be. Would it intimidate into silence someone that simply lacked the backbone of a Gary Stringer or Frank Glamser? What message would it send to the Hattiesburg community? What message would it send to academia?

I'm afraid anybody a block beyond Hardy or 49 would assume you just traded one nutcase tyrant for another.

-- Edited by ram at 00:28, 2007-07-14

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

I think two issues are being ignored by those who say that "humiliation" is "unnecessary."

1. I'm not advocating that Saunders sit in the LAB and scheme ways to humiliate individuals. What I am advocating is that Saunders make decisions that are in the best interest of USM; if the outcome of the decisions involves humiliating someone who has abused faculty and/or public trust, then that's just too bad. There's no reason to harm the university's future even slightly just so a bureaucrat can save face. If you're not supporting the university's mission through teaching, research, and service, then you should be canned publicly.

2. Also ignored is the deterrent effect such a policy would have on those who are comfortable in their administrative role and/or those who do not produce in the arenas of teaching, research, and service. If a few long-time slackers were removed from their positions and placed on a very, very short leash with respect to teaching, research, and service, then fewer faculty and administrators would see their old behavior as a way to go.

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

I also want to make a separate statement regarding the types of individuals who are now the poster children for mercy.

These people, though they have "fallen from grace" administratively-speaking, would do the very same things were they returned to positions of authority tomorrow. Shelby would do the same stuff, because that's who he is. Dana would do the same stuff, because that's who she is. There are non-Thameses who are the same.

For at least several years, the participants on this meassage board operated under banners such as "Fire Shelby" and "No Quarter!" It seems that those days are being forgotten, and new mantras adopted: "Forgive Them" and "Full Quarter for All."

These are not nice people, they are not good people, and they wouldn't give you the chance to breathe if they had their foot on your throat. George Washington's Strategic Advisor warned about all of this three or four years ago, and some never heed the warning.

If you allow these individuals to continue to operate at USM -- even in diminished status -- the question becomes when, not if, we will repeat the SFT Error.

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

It seems to me that Cossack and Dr. VanNostren have blown the actual situation way out of proportion to reality for their personal agenda. First, Dana Thames is relieved of her position. Then when it's pointed out that the USM P.R. didn't provide a News Release on this, claims of "secrecy" and "nontransparent management" were brought up.

After it is pointed out that it was not secret, and perhaps the employer may have not published the change in a press release to avoid embarrassment of the fired employee. We get this exaggerated into a fear that the President may not do what is good for the university for fear of humiliating an administrator.

I suggest we all take a deep breath. smile

-- Edited by LeftASAP at 09:24, 2007-07-14

LVN · Status: Offline

Thank you, Left. I agree.

Cossack · Status: Offline

It seems to me that Cossack and Dr. VanNostren have blown the actual situation way out of proportion to reality for their personal agenda.
I do not know if Dr. VanNostren has a personal agenda, but in reading his/her posts I think not. Since I have never interacted with the person that was fired, I have no personal knowledge of her behavior. I have approached this issue from an organizational management point of view. I have tried to make the point that both employees and managers (administrators) seek and use information as a guide to behavior. They also seek information to explain to themselves why events happen. Pick up any text book on managment and you will find that the flow of information is important to having a well managed environment. It applies to businesses, churches, universities, etc. If factual information is not available or is hidden, people in the organization practice what is known as attribution theory. In essence, they come up with a reason that the event happened, which may not be accurate. Accurate information provides guidance for other employees, in the case in hand, to other administrators who engage in similar behavior as the Chair that was fired.
Specifically, I want to make it clear that this is not about the individual who was fired or an individual who might be fired tomorrow. Providing accurate information as to why an administrator stepped down is important to the organization. Many of my critics have reduced this to a personal issue of not humiliating someone. Some think it kinder and more dignified to treat all those who step down the same. Thus, the person who has served the university well, but wishes to leave the position is treated the same as someone who has abused the position. Without accurate information, there will be suspicion that the person who served well did something wrong because everyone who leaves a position officially leaves for the same reason.

As an aside, I find it interesting that the posters that claim I have a personal agenda feel comfortable making that negative accusation about me, but wish to spare the person removed from her position some embarrassment. It is possible to a have different point of view on an issue and still be as objective as your critic.

LeftASAP · Status: Offline

Cossack,
I do not object to your Management Theory. I have no expertise to do so. I also do not know what "management information" was sent to other administrators explaining this move. I just refuse to speculate with no information. The only thing we knew was the USM P.R. didn't publish a News Release. Nothing was posted about the internal management information flow.

You said, "Many of my critics have reduced this to a personal issue of not humiliating someone." But all I have seen are suggestions speculating why an employer didn't publish in the local paper that they changed the work assignment of an employee. I personally have no interest in whether or not the person removed is embarrassed.

P.S. Having a personal agenda is not negative or positive in my opinion. It is either true or not.

-- Edited by LeftASAP at 15:52, 2007-07-14

ram · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:
Many of my critics have reduced this to a personal issue of not humiliating someone. Some think it kinder and more dignified to treat all those who step down the same. (emphasis added). Thus, the person who has served the university well, but wishes to leave the position (emphasis added) is treated the same as someone who has abused the position.

Lots of non-sequitor up there Cossack. I can't recall anyone saying that people who are fired should be "treated the same" as people who voluntarily resign. There are ways to distinguish between the two modes of departure without trying to humiliate or belittle anyone.

Did you know that banks actually make an effort to keep it quiet when an employee is fired for embezzlement? I suspect that is not so much to spare the feelings of the departing employee as it is to preserve the internal and external image of the employer institution.

I'm not disputing the management theory you espouse, but I will say it is not practiced by my employer nor any of which I am aware. Folks who are promoted may receive public praise, but never with a great deal of specificity. Usually it's just general fluff such as, "Jill has done such great job getting production up, so now she's moving to another area to take on new challenges." If Jill gets the boot, demoted or just moved laterally, there will certainly never, ever be any sort of public communication to the effect of "Jill botched a project one too many times, so she'll be working out of the basement now." That'd just be inviting a lawsuit, I suspect.

As an employee, even if I screw up royally, I will be reprimanded privately. If my supervisors think it necessary, there may be training seminars galore to assure that the mistake not be made by others, but there will never be a public reference to who made the initial mistake that cause the curative training sessions.

My employer, at least, buys the management theory of Vincent Thomas Lombardi: "Praise in public; criticize in private." How's that for a blatant appeal to authority?

Dr VanNostren · Status: Offline

ram wrote:

Lots of non-sequitor up there Cossack. I can't recall anyone saying that people who are fired should be "treated the same" as people who voluntarily resign. There are ways to distinguish between the two modes of departure without trying to humiliate or belittle anyone.

Did you know that banks actually make an effort to keep it quiet when an employee is fired for embezzlement? I suspect that is not so much to spare the feelings of the departing employee as it is to preserve the internal and external image of the employer institution.

I'm not disputing the management theory you espouse, but I will say it is not practiced by my employer nor any of which I am aware. Folks who are promoted may receive public praise, but never with a great deal of specificity. Usually it's just general fluff such as, "Jill has done such great job getting production up, so now she's moving to another area to take on new challenges." If Jill gets the boot, demoted or just moved laterally, there will certainly never, ever be any sort of public communication to the effect of "Jill botched a project one too many times, so she'll be working out of the basement now." That'd just be inviting a lawsuit, I suspect.

As an employee, even if I screw up royally, I will be reprimanded privately. If my supervisors think it necessary, there may be training seminars galore to assure that the mistake not be made by others, but there will never be a public reference to who made the initial mistake that cause the curative training sessions.

My employer, at least, buys the management theory of Vincent Thomas Lombardi: "Praise in public; criticize in private." How's that for a blatant appeal to authority?

Wrong, ram. When you let abusive administrative parties return to the faculty without making an example of them, you allow them the opportunity to say -- in the future -- "I wasn't fired. I resigned of my own free will." That's why you get administrators who recycle themselves back into their old positions after a central administration change.

As for how your employer does things, I will say that your employer probably went to the same B.S. "school of management" that so many politicized managers attend. If you want to see quality management, look to the Japanese. When a Japanese manager brings disgrace upon himself, he gets a demotion from "where the action is" to a "basement office," and everybody knows it. Mismanagement is a disgrace that is not tolerated or covered up. Of course, the Japanese DO require that their workers actually work; Japanese managers aren't too interested in providing boondoggles for every good old boy from Tokyo, since boondoggles don't add value to the organization.

Finally, Vince Lombardi coached in an era that saw superstars and regualars making the same kind of money -- there was no incentive incompatibility issue in Lombardi's day. If you didn't play with effort, you got cut, and everybody knew why. I'd like to see just how far Lombardi could make it if he had Terrell Owens on his team. I'd guess he'd change his tune.

Moderator · Status: Offline

Dr. VanNostren, only your entertainment value has kept me from banning you. I suggest you forgo insulting people's employers, for starters.

Cossack · Status: Offline

Dr. VanNostren, only your entertainment value has kept me from banning you. I suggest you forgo insulting people's employers, for starters.

How can an accurate description be insulting? Are the natives getting restless because a few posters do not agree with them? I was not aware that the object of this Board is to have consensus on issues.

Invictus · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:

Dr. VanNostren, only your entertainment value has kept me from banning you. I suggest you forgo insulting people's employers, for starters.

How can an accurate description be insulting? Are the natives getting restless because a few posters do not agree with them? I was not aware that the object of this Board is to have consensus on issues.

How do you know Dr VN's description was accurate? It is quite possible that ram's employer attended a "B.S. school of management" called the University of Southern Mississippi & studied in your own department!

That's why it's not a good idea to insult the employers of folks who post on an anonymous message board! wink

-- Edited by Invictus at 08:11, 2007-07-16

Cossack · Status: Offline

How do you know Dr VN's description was accurate? It is quite possible that ram's employer attended a "B.S. school of management" called the University of Southern Mississippi & studied in your own department!

Graduating from a university does not innoculate one from having fuzzy thinking. Nor does it guarantee that the graduate will think. Opinions are based on both knowledge and emotion. Opinions based on knowledge usually are based on how things are while opinons based on emotion most often described what the speaker thinks they should be.

Moderator · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren has been insulting to others, but this latest is close to the line. Let's not forget two things: Dr. VN pretty much revealed his or her true identity a while back, and this IS a private board. I get to decide when my patience is exhausted and it's getting close.

ram · Status: Offline

Dr VanNostren wrote:
Wrong, ram. When you let abusive administrative parties return to the faculty without making an example of them, you allow them the opportunity to say -- in the future -- "I wasn't fired. I resigned of my own free will."

As for how your employer does things, I will say that your employer probably went to the same B.S. "school of management" that so many politicized managers attend. If you want to see quality management, look to the Japanese. ...

Finally, Vince Lombardi coached in an era ...

Hey, Moderator, thanks; but no offense taken at this end.

Dr.VN, you are absolutely right. Without a PR release spelling out the administrator's incompetence or malfeasance, "everybody" may know "the truth" but it won't be a matter of public record. So if a bunch of senators, car dealers, a dumbass IHL board member, former mayor, and other power brokers choose to exercise their muscle, what "everybody knows" won't matter anyway.

If, on the other hand, the demoted administrator's shortcomings are publicly exposed, there is less likelihood that he or she will ever be an administrator again. Okay, that's the upside.

Now, what's the downside of publically disclosing all that abuse, those incompetencies and that malfeasance? The demoted one won't be an administrator again. That's good. Might lose certain benefits here in Hattiesburg. Might even have trouble getting work elsewhere. All good, right? The problem is those allegations just make it easier for the fired or demoted administrator when she files her defamation lawsuit. The weird thing about defamation is that the one accused of defaming (in this case that would be the University) has the burden of proving that the alleged defamatory statements were true. The burden is not on the accuser, it's on the defendant. Sure, "the truth is an absolute bar to liabilty" but we won't know what the truth is until the end of the lawsuit, and that's right before the legal bills come due. (That's the legal downside. There is another, public relations downside that has already been discussed. As a reminder, in the vernacular: it'd be real tacky.)

On to your second point. No doubt Japanese management is vastly superior to ours, but I think I'll stick around the old U.S. of A. for now. You may feel free to do otherwise, if you wish. (Seriously, can't you give me a better, domestic example of a company or university where this "let's-air-the-dirty-laundry-in-public" managment style is really practiced?)

Regarding Lombardi, I like what he said then, and I still think he could handle T.O. or any of the other NFL prima donnas without breaking a sweat. But you are perfectly free to believe otherwise. Since Vince is dead, I'll just have to defer to your certainty.

ram · Status: Offline

Cossack wrote:
Graduating from a university does not innoculate one from having fuzzy thinking. Nor does it guarantee that the graduate will think. Opinions are based on both knowledge and emotion. Opinions based on knowledge usually are based on how things are while opinons based on emotion most often described what the speaker thinks they should be.

Cossack, I'm a little fuzzy about whether you think I, my employer, or both of us suffer from "fuzzy thinking." Doesn't matter; I think I think fuzzily, too.

I agree with your statement about opinions being based on both knowlege and emotion, but your last sentence is right out of Star Trek. I can just hear Spock saying to Bones, "Doctor, accurate opinions are based on logic, not emotion."

I stand in utter awe of anyone who knows "how things are." Best I can do is see how things appear to be. To paraphrase Blake, I think I see through --not with -- my eyes.

Let's see: you simply assert that your opinion is based on knowledge (how things are) and dismiss any other as based on emotion (how they should be). Perhaps those who are calling for public retribution (i.e.,vengeance) have some emotional needs of their own, some vision of how they think things should be.

That would be easy to understand.

-- Edited by ram at 05:59, 2007-07-17