Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2008/08/11/problematizing_the_presidential_search.php
Monday, August 11, 2008
If there is a single, essential principle that Dartmouth must follow in choosing its next president, it is this: The first step to recovery is recognizing the problem.
For background, consider the recent history of Dartmouth’s governance saga. For four years, vocal alumni gained a great deal of popular support by fighting to correct a number of failures of leadership. They talked about bureaucratic bloat and incompetence, duplication of responsibility by armies of deans, intellectual stagnation and the flight of top-notch scholars, and a host of other issues. Recently, the group suffered a resounding defeat against the forces of the status quo.
It is in this environment that Dartmouth must choose its next leader. It would be all too easy for the victors of the alumni debate, who control the presidential search committee, to turn inwards and isolate—to forget the debate ever happened. If their “unity” rhetoric is any indication, that is exactly what they intend to do.
This would be an extraordinary mistake. Remember: The first step to recovery is recognizing the problem.
Recognizing the problem, though, itself presents a problem. It is understandably difficult for many people affiliated with Dartmouth to consider what is wrong with the College—it is just so great as it is. Students in particular have a strong emotional connection to the place, founded in fond memories and formative experiences. Professors, as well as being preoccupied with their academic work, tend to be less emotionally connected, and so less personally interested. Many alumni drown in nostalgia, incredulous that Dartmouth could be anything less than perfect. Administrators, who would be responsible for problems, have a strong personal interest in denying they exist.
The great challenge for the presidential search committee, then, is to come to terms with Dartmouth’s problems. This means examining the claims of Dartmouth’s alumni critics honestly and objectively, by subjecting them to vigorous debate. It means admitting that Dartmouth is far from perfect, and articulating clearly the ways in which it should improve. With this great challenge, though, comes great opportunity. Having articulated Dartmouth’s weaknesses, the search committee will be in an excellent position to find candidates specifically suited to Dartmouth—candidates with proven ability to solve problems like Dartmouth’s.
Notice that this is the polar opposite of the approach that Trustee Al Mulley, as chairman of the committee, plans to take. Mr. Mulley intends to craft a “leadership statement,” by which he means a piece of fluff listing the characteristics and values that candidates must possess. By its nature, this leadership statement will necessarily be blustery and vague. It will aim to draw candidates who are a certain “type of leader,” rather than a certain type of proven problem solver. Any lofty “vision” the next president expresses will be irrelevant if he or she cannot solve Dartmouth’s present problems.
As an example, consider the issue of bureaucratic bloat. Everyone but the bureaucrats themselves recognizes the insanity of Dartmouth’s level of bloat. Under the incumbent College President, the bureaucracy has consistently grown faster than the faculty. Deans have duplicative responsibilities and students are frequently given the run-around for the simplest of questions. Even the editorial board of the Daily D, loath to criticize the administration on anything, recently wrote that “Dartmouth finds itself in a period of sleepy stagnancy.”
What is the best way to find someone who can tackle this problem? Let us compare the two approaches. One option is to release a leadership statement requiring that each candidate be a “strong, focused leader.” That could mean pretty much anything, and candidates would vary widely in their experience bringing sprawling bureaucracies under control. The other option is to recognize Dartmouth’s bureaucratic bloat as a specific aspect of the College that needs improvement, and to recruit candidates accordingly. This method would yield individuals with targeted experience relevant to Dartmouth.
The importance of finding a competent College President to replace our illustrious incumbent cannot be overstated. With the sole exception of promoting construction, the incumbent has merely treaded water for the past decade. He has allowed perennial problems to fester, and administrative innovation to come to a grinding halt. If we search well, Dartmouth’s next president will lead her to recovery. But to do that, we must first locate room for improvement. If we look honestly, there is plenty to be found.