CL, 2/1/06: MSU's [and USM's] search is like growing of mushrooms - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Feb 1, 2006

CL, 2/1/06: MSU's [and USM's] search is like growing of mushrooms

Date: Feb 1, 2006

"kept in the dark and regularly dosed with high-grade manure...."

For the good ol' days, Mr. Wonderful...

Date: Feb 1, 2006

I have an alternate take on the closed search at MSU. I think some of this may have been said before, but I have an addition or two to make.

A university president is, first and foremost, an executive officer, meaning that he or she executes written policies and procedures that are in place. As such, what is really needed is an individual who can apply such policies and procedures with an even hand. Why, then, does there need to be faculty input into this facet of the process? Thomas Meredith has been charged by the IHL with conducting the search and, ostensibly, he can identify a good administrator for MSU.

A secondary function of a university president is fundraising and lobbying. MSU needs a president who can connect with the MSU alumni base and the state, regional, national, and international support system. Again, what faculty input is needed here? Meredith should be able to identify a candidate who is experienced in this area as well.

A third function of a university president is as a representative of the university, so that when people see him or her they think of that university in a positive light. Meredith also should be able to employ a search firm to investigate character and background of any potential candidates.

A fourth function of a university president is as a member of the faculty, which means that the individual must have proper qualifications. If the candidate a true academic, then he or she will have a vita commensurate with that standing. Again, the review process emanating from the commissioner's office should screen undesirables out.

Now, why exactly is faculty input needed? MSU's faculty [and, by the writing of that Faculty Senate letter USM's faculty as well] is taking the approach that "we're getting screwed." How do you know that? What has Meredith done to this point to show bias, incompetence, malice, or other undesirable traits in hiring? There is an automatic negative reaction to any change or process that doesn't involve endless meetings, talks about feelings, goalsetting sessions, or opportunities to nix a candidate based on his or her intangible qualities: personality, air, elan, whatever. I would bet that most faculty griping about a university president don't know a good president when they see one, they just think they know a bad one when they see it.

MSU is a totally different situation than USM. MSU hasn't had the malicious administration that USM has had. To jump on the bandwagon and say that the MSU process is flawed is premature. Perhaps Meredith would have delivered a quality candidate who would have been a good president for MSU. We'll never know, because now we're about to become mired in a discussion of the minutae of the candidate's academic vita ("She only has 22 quality publications. That would be ample for full professor, but is it good enough to be president?"), the candidate's personal life ("He's stated publicly that he disliked science while in school. I think we ought to rule him out."), or other meaningless trivia.

USM's uneasiness is understandable. However, like most day-to-day activities in academics and the world, when you wake up every day expecting to get screwed, it will probably not be too long before your prophecy is fulfilled.

Date: Feb 1, 2006

Self-Fulfilling Prophet wrote: Now, why exactly is faculty input needed?

Because faculty members are stakeholders and many have administrative and other types of experience that would be useful in such a search. You seem to confuse letting faculty members have input with "letting faculty members run the show." Two entirely different things, my friend.

Truth

Date: Feb 1, 2006

Now, why exactly is faculty input needed?

Self-Fulfilling Prophet asks a reasonable question and there is a reasonable answer that can be laid out.

The word “need” has multiple meanings ranging from phrases such as "humans need oxygen to sustain life" to "I need other people to give me money so that I will be happy." Faculty input into the process falls into the area of efficiency, not need. Much of the effort of faculty that is directed toward improving the university and providing quality education is discretionary. That is, faculty can perform over and above the minimum standard to keep their jobs if they choose. In that regard, faculty act no differently than workers in other occupations. The success of any organization depends upon the degree to which individuals provide discretionary effort. A business that gets only the minimum effort from employees is highly likely to go out of business. One only has to look at the many incentives businesses provide to encourage employees to exert discretionary effort to gauge its importance.

Excluding faculty from the search process for a President reduces the commitment of faculty to the University. They care less, so they contribute less, but perform sufficiently to remain at the university. Anyone who pays to send his or her child to that university will find that their child gets less than if they attended a university that is more inclusive.

The comparison between business and a university, while partially applicable, is limited. In business, tasks and responsibilities are clearly and often narrowly defined so that less discretionary effort is necessary. In contrast, a preponderance of the activities conducted daily by faculty depends upon the discretionary effort of faculty. When that effort is not forth coming, the education process is degraded.

Thus, it is not absolutely necessary that the faculty of Mississippi State University participate in the selection of the new president. However, if faculty are not involved, it will be to the detriment of Mississippi State University. If you do not care about the quality of Mississippi’s state universities, or you specifically do not care about MSU, then following through with the process of excluding faculty should not bother you.

There is more that can be said about this issue, and hopefully others can contribute. However, it is time for me to go provide some discretionary effort for USM

Date: Feb 1, 2006

Two responses here.

First to Truth. Sorry chick, but there is NO faculty expertise at a given campus that isn't available elsewhere. MSU faculty doesn't have a monopoly on anything, including ideas, standards, reading comprehension, detective ability, friends at other schools, etcetera. A seasoned presidential candidate can be investigated by search firms, private detectives, consultants, accountants, fact checkers, boot lickers, Indian Agents, Mexican bandits, and Methodists and the outcome will be equal to or superior to that produced by faculty.

Second to Cossack. That is a very good point and one that I cannot argue successfully against. Let me think a while...

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Self-Fulfilling Prophet wrote:

Two responses here. First to Truth. Sorry chick, but there is NO faculty expertise at a given campus that isn't available elsewhere. MSU faculty doesn't have a monopoly on anything, including ideas, standards, reading comprehension, detective ability, friends at other schools, etcetera. A seasoned presidential candidate can be investigated by search firms, private detectives, consultants, accountants, fact checkers, boot lickers, Indian Agents, Mexican bandits, and Methodists and the outcome will be equal to or superior to that produced by faculty. Second to Cossack. That is a very good point and one that I cannot argue successfully against. Let me think a while...

The most important reason faculty should be included is simply that if the new prez turns out to be a bumb...the faculty is near at hand to blame. With some of the recent presidential selections I would have everybody and his brother in the search process, plenty of folks to blame

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Self-Fulfilling Prophet wrote:

Two responses here. First to Truth. Sorry chick, but there is NO faculty expertise at a given campus that isn't available elsewhere. MSU faculty doesn't have a monopoly on anything, including ideas, standards, reading comprehension, detective ability, friends at other schools, etcetera. A seasoned presidential candidate can be investigated by search firms, private detectives, consultants, accountants, fact checkers, boot lickers, Indian Agents, Mexican bandits, and Methodists and the outcome will be equal to or superior to that produced by faculty.

_________________________________________________________________

Prophet--

This isn't my fight, but sometimes silence is construed as agreement; Lord help me, I can't let this pass.

"Sorry, chick"!? . . . That comment doesn't warrant the recordation of response that boils up in my traditional Southern male mind. One does not have to be politically correct to remain civil.

Your substantive comment is flawed also. In essence, Truth said the faculty (1) are more likely to possess information specific to the circumstance and the institution that is actually under consideration, and (2) that such specific information could be incorporated into the search process along with information from other sources in order to more efficiently reach a good result.

Your response about a "monopoly" is disingenuous: of course, no one has a "monopoly" on expertise. But presumably, the faculty at any given institution has a greater understanding about the circumstances peculiar to that institution than does a general population of "search firms, private detectives, consultants, accountants, fact checkers, boot lickers, Indian Agents, Mexican bandits, and Methodists." (But it is a cute list and I am happy to cut-and-paste.) If only in the name of efficiency, one would ignore at their own peril, the most concentrated (not the exclusive) information pool available.

I understand you to assert that if a presidential search were conducted by (a) the faculty, or (b) any random group, the random group would choose a better president. Hey, I'm not going to say you are absolutely wrong. We all know about the blind pig and the acorn. But I do believe that the probability is that the informed population who have the most at risk are the best qualified to participate in the selection of their own leadership.

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Either Meredith is not in charge and never will be or he is in charge and just doesn't "get it." Either way what a dud! Bend over and grab your ankles; another Tiny Thames fiasco is in the making.

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Thanks for the backup, ram. Yes, SFP willfully misconstrued my statement, but such is life. Perhaps SFP=SFT?

As to the "chick" comment....trust me, I've been called much worse. Rolls right off my back...

Truth

Date: Feb 2, 2006

Truth and ram,

Why don't you just yell louder than I do? You can start typing in all caps, even. There's no info that faculty members have that cannot be easily duplicated.

Date: Feb 2, 2006

There's no info that faculty members have that cannot be easily duplicated.

The above statement is true only if the cost of gathering information is zero. Unfortunately, information costs are seldom zero and that is the case with this search. Faculty members each have a network of colleagues at other institutions and can ascertain information about a candidate that would be difficult to acquire in other ways. For instance, some setting presidents or vice presidents (provosts) are anti-athletics, some dislike business schools, and some do not value the liberal arts. Still others value the graduate programs over the undergraduate programs. This information does not show up on a resume and references for the candidates seldom volunteer such information. Some may even refer to females as "chicks" which would hack off the female members of the College Board and embarrass the university.

Another aspect of information is that information flows in both directions. Hence, the parameters of the search provide information to the public and to the candidates for the position. As surprising as it might seem, some very desirable candidates may be turned off by a search that is not open. It may lead them to question the level of trust and cooperation between the universities and College Board. A Board that wishes to keep faculty in the dark may also use the same tactics with University Presidents.

One other aspect of what is transpiring between MSU and the Board is the signal it sends to the academic community across the country. There is no way you can spin this situation that does not paint the State of Mississippi in a bad light. Many Mississippians may not care about that aspect, but it matters. Universities compete for research funding on a national level, and MSU in particular generates millions of dollars through Federal Grants due to the Ag and Science focus. Ole Miss and USM also compete heavily for many Federal (and Private Foundations) grants. A food fight over secret hiring practices is not helpful. to that process.

One final issue, what harm is there in having faculty participate in the selection process?

Date: Feb 2, 2006

This is an interesting thread. But it reminds me that perception runs both ways too. Many USM faculty see everyone above them in the education system as dysfunctional. Maybe that viewpoint flows both ways also. If I view a faculty as dysfunctional I am not sure I want them involved in the process. If Fleming was the faculty choice and they allowed him to be dismissed then the same faculty was seen (for right or wrong) fighting Thames for four years, I am not sure that maybe there's not some basis for questioning.

Date: Feb 3, 2006

Most of the faculty fought for Fleming--little good it did them. Yes, they fussed at him, but for the most part, we didn't like or support the way he was treated. Go back and look at the newspaper articles/faculty senate minutes from that time.

Faculty absolutely DO NOT routinely think everything in the administrative chain is dysfunctional. But anyone who thinks the administrative chain in this state (the IHL) and USM is not dysfunctional is delusional.