The story, “The best disinfectant,” highlights how we frame what we see around us.

The story is a quick read, with a little food for thought. Comments and sharing are always welcome.

Note: These posts regularly form the basis for roundtable conversations, facilitation, and group presentations. For more information, please contact me

In this post:

 

Story: The Best Disinfectant

I recently read the article, “Professors: St. Norbert a ‘ghost town’ after layoffs, resignations, cutbacks” from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I was drawn to the headline because my daughter, Jessica, is an alumnus. The article resonated with me as an alumni of, the now closed, Cardinal Stritch University. As I read I wondered if St. Norbert is moving toward a self-inflicted negatively reinforcing loop.

Like many colleges and universities, St. Norbert is facing challenges. The college has made changes to course offerings and reduced the number of faculty it employs. As I read Nadia Scharf’s article I became aware of the communication pattern St. Norbert has employed in sharing information with students, faculty and the public. According to the article, faculty layoffs have been routinely communicated prior to, or during, breaks in the academic calendar. This limits the amount of face-to-face communications that take place in response to such announcements. A parallel pattern of communication with the public appears to be largely through press releases rather than direct communication. At one point in the article, Scharf states, “St. Norbert College did not respond to requests for comment or an interview, pointing a reporter to a July 31 news release.” More accurately, St. Norbert responded by pointing to a news release. In both situations, the college has created a communication barrier between the college’s administration, the students, faculty, and public. Barriers such as the ones created by the St. Norbert administration is an invitation for people to act upon conclusions that draw from incomplete, and possibly incorrect, information.

In reading Scharf’s article, I recognized that I was applying an information processing model known as “The Ladder of Inference.” It is a tool developed by organizational behavioralists Chris Argyris and Donald Schön to describe how people make decisions. In brief: people make observations, decide what is important enough to pay attention to, interpret what is important (to them), draw conclusions from the interpretations, and act on those conclusions.

Applying the ladder of inference to the information available through Scharf’s article might look like:

• St. Norbert college is making cutbacks to faculty and programs
• Announcements of these cutbacks are made in ways that limit communication among those affected
• The St. Norbert administration do not appear open to questions regarding their decisions
• It seems likely further cutbacks are to be expected

Climbing this ladder leads me to question the viability of the College. If my daughter were on the other side of her college experience, I would want this questionable viability to be a part of her thinking as she pursued college plans. Note: my daughter, and her parents are in agreement that she received a fine educational experience at St. Norbert College.

Another perspective on what appears to be happening at St. Norbert college comes through the wisdom of Brene Brown. Brown asks the question, “What if people are doing the best they can?” In my experience on Boards of Directors I have participated in decisions addressing situations ranging from changes in corporate structure, to possible mergers, to the replacement of executives. The responsibilities of Board Directors is to ensure the executive team manages the day-to-day operations as well as anticipating a five to 10 year planning horizon. This is not always easy but it may sometimes look like it is.

It is no secret that these are dynamic times for colleges and universities. Forces such as the Covid-19 pandemic, on-line learning, artificial intelligence, and national politics have up-ended traditional models of institutions of higher education. It is not hard to imagine that the administrators of St. Norbert, along with the guidance of the college’s Board of Trustees, gathered information from a variety of sources and examined various scenarios before making hard decisions. It is possible that a group of students, faculty, and members of the public would draw similar conclusions when faced with the information considered by the administrators of the college.

Scharf’s article invites us to climb the ladder of inference. The article focuses on the impact of the decisions made by the administration of St. Norbert College. Applying the facts of the article to the ladder could lead to the conclusion that the administrators are withholding information from the students, faculty, and public. Climbing the ladder through the lens of best intentions could lead to the conclusion that hard decisions have been made in light of hard times. Both of these conclusions involve speculation. A third scenario, combining the lack of transparency and the best of intentions leads me to wonder why the St. Norbert administrators have not found a capable facilitator who can shepherd communication among the various stakeholders. It is no secret that these are dynamic times nor is it a secret that sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.

Get these posts in your inbox

You can get these posts in your inbox. Click here to join my mailing list.

For more information