Regent Sahai: 'Maybe we dropped the ball'

[mstp1992]

Academia isn't that complicated. That's an excuse not a reason. The guy ran strategy for an organization exponentially more complicated than the uiowa. I'm sure he can grasp the nuances of the job.

That remains to be seen. The others, however, already grasp the nuances of the job. There would be no 'learning curve' to manage.

Don't be too naive, institutes of higher learning are much more complex than just a professor teaching a course in history. There are issues simply regarding human behavior that don't exist in the world of corporate strategy and reorganization.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

That remains to be seen. The others, however, already grasp the nuances of the job. There would be no 'learning curve' to manage.

Don't be too naive, institutes of higher learning are much more complex than just a professor teaching a course in history. There are issues simply regarding human behavior that don't exist in the world of corporate strategy and reorganization.

Do you really believe that after his role at IBM he won't be able to be successful at iowa?

What's sad about this is the real message you are sending here is he won't be accepted because he doesn't think the right way. He's not one of our group. He's an outsider.

 

[mstp1992]

Do you really believe that after his role at IBM he won't be able to be successful at iowa?

What's sad about this is the real message you are sending here is he won't be accepted because he doesn't think the right way. He's not one of our group. He's an outsider.

I just said it remains to be seen if he'll be successful. I hope like hell he is, because it's to the benefit of me and the entire university.

I also intimated that predicting success of the other 3 candidates would have been easier given their background. Would you not predict an accomplished former IBM executive would be successful in running the operations of let's say a company like US Cellular or Sysco? Would you not also have a harder time predicting success of a former university president with no corporate background running those same companies?

I know there are some who will never accept Harreld because he's an outsider; that is truly sad. However, most of us accept that he's the president and not going anywhere (probably a higher percentage on the west side of the river than the east side) so we might as well work with him as best we can (although, he still hasn't responded to my Facebook friend request ).

What most of our complaints have been about are with the BoR directly. They made it clear they wanted no input from the university community regarding their selection, and in fact purposely chose someone they knew would not be a popular choice after bringing in 3 candidates who would have been extremely popular selections. That, to me and many others, has given the appearance this selection was made out of spite to the University of Iowa faculty and community. Don't let him fool you, Rastetter is a vengeful person and an extension of Branstad who is just as vengeful.

What I, and a lot of others on campus, fear is that this hire was not done to improve academics at the university, but simply as a fiscally-related hire.

What Harreld must do from the get-go is establish himself that he is not going to be a pawn of Rastetter. He has to indicate his only duties are to the betterment of the University of Iowa whether that's simpatico with Rastetter or not.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

I also intimated that predicting success of the other 3 candidates would have been easier given their background. Would you not predict an accomplished former IBM executive would be successful in running the operations of let's say a company like US Cellular or Sysco? Would you not also have a harder time predicting success of a former university president with no corporate background running those same companies?

"Easier" in transition - maybe. But in no way does the fact they have more academic-related backgrounds ensure they would be more successful. If anything, given the overwhelming evidence we are entering a transition phase in academia - their backgrounds would make them more likely to fail.

And yes - absolutely yes - I would say he'd be successful at US Cellular or a Sysco. He's already demonstrated he can move from different types of organizations. And he's demonstrated it at such a level that professors at Stanford and Harvard have devoted a series of business cases/writings/research discussing what he did and his type of leadership.

At almost any other place this would have been considered an out of the park home run hire. But somehow it's been turned into an embarrassment for the institution. And you and the faculty and others place ALL the blame on the BoR -- but that is extremely convenient. Was the process flawed? Sure. Could they have done it a different way? Of course. But that doesn't mean the spectacle that has ensued is all on them. What has transpired looks like a giant temper tantrum to many casual observers - and that part isn't on the BoR.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

And by the way - mstp1992 - why is a fiscally-related hire a bad thing? If they brought in a person who is skilled at increasing revenues - something that can take some of the pressure off of the students and taxpayers - how is this a bad thing?

His background is in preserving/increasing research & development. He's not a corporate slasher. Quite the opposite - his "ambidextrous" leadership style is one that focuses on keeping the current product healthy while working to increase future products/revenue.

 

[JRHawk2003]

It is obvious from the good docs remarks that some regents did not want to go this way, but fell in to support it. Well, he just basically admitted some regents strongly did not like the hire. So now we know that Harreld is favored by only the Rastetter-Pella corporatist arm of the regents.

I really almost wish the UI would leave the state structure and go private and form a board of trustees.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Your right LWade! Because the process for "them" was all the same.....,,.It was "the winner" who received special considerations. That is the whole point of the faculty's angst. The process was nothing more than a "set up"!

Perhaps the complaining faculty should just resign in protest.

 

[mstp1992]

"Easier" in transition - maybe. But in no way does the fact they have more academic-related backgrounds ensure they would be more successful. If anything, given the overwhelming evidence we are entering a transition phase in academia - their backgrounds would make them more likely to fail.

And yes - absolutely yes - I would say he'd be successful at US Cellular or a Sysco. He's already demonstrated he can move from different types of organizations. And he's demonstrated it at such a level that professors at Stanford and Harvard have devoted a series of business cases/writings/research discussing what he did and his type of leadership.

At almost any other place this would have been considered an out of the park home run hire. But somehow it's been turned into an embarrassment for the institution. And you and the faculty and others place ALL the blame on the BoR -- but that is extremely convenient. Was the process flawed? Sure. Could they have done it a different way? Of course. But that doesn't mean the spectacle that has ensued is all on them. What has transpired looks like a giant temper tantrum to many casual observers - and that part isn't on the BoR.

I'm in complete agreement that Harreld would be extremely successful at virtually any corporate position.

Also, I did not say Harreld would not be successful. I said I would not be as quick to predict success at Iowa as I would the other academic candidates.

You did not address my other scenario in which I suggested it would be difficult to predict success for a university president with no corporate background to manage operations of a large corporation.

 

[mstp1992]

And by the way - mstp1992 - why is a fiscally-related hire a bad thing? If they brought in a person who is skilled at increasing revenues - something that can take some of the pressure off of the students and taxpayers - how is this a bad thing?

His background is in preserving/increasing research & development. He's not a corporate slasher. Quite the opposite - his "ambidextrous" leadership style is one that focuses on keeping the current product healthy while working to increase future products/revenue.

Where is the guarantee of improvements in the realm of academics?

Did IBM sustain the success of Harreld's strategies following his leaving in 2008? Some have suggested in the long term his strategies were not that successful, but I'm not savvy enough in the world of economics to argue one way or the other.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Where is the guarantee of improvements in the realm of academics?

Did IBM sustain the success of Harreld's strategies following his leaving in 2008? Some have suggested in the long term his strategies were not that successful, but I'm not savvy enough in the world of economics to argue one way or the other.

What is this second part even supposed to mean? Strategies, like any plan, become stale. If you don't constantly hone them then they'll become out of date and lose alignment with the current state of affairs. So is there a specific point of contention regarding what he did at IBM? For me to address a specific question - please give me a reference to actually address the criticism you are mentioning.

 

[mstp1992]

At almost any other place this would have been considered an out of the park home run hire. But somehow it's been turned into an embarrassment for the institution. And you and the faculty and others place ALL the blame on the BoR -- but that is extremely convenient. Was the process flawed? Sure. Could they have done it a different way? Of course. But that doesn't mean the spectacle that has ensued is all on them. What has transpired looks like a giant temper tantrum to many casual observers - and that part isn't on the BoR.

Maybe any for-profit company, but not at any university would this be considered an out of the park home run hire. If he had been hired in a similar manner (lack of transparency by state Regents) at Illinois or Michigan State or Nebraska, etc, you would have seen the same types of protests. This feeling is not unique to Iowa, and it's precisely why so many schools and a national organization have spoken up and voiced their collective displeasure over the process. The volume of protests may have been increased in Iowa due to the poor overall relationship the BoR has with the University of Iowa community. They have made it clear for several years that they favor Iowa State and UNI. You only have to look at proposed state-funding models to understand there is a bias toward the other two schools (and lo and behold, Harreld expressed support for the model; not a great way to ingratiate yourself with your new colleagues). There are more than a few people who believe some of the reasons behind this hire was NOT in order to improve the academic environment at the University of Iowa, but for financial reasons only. If that adversely impacts the academics, that's just part of the cost-benefit that went into hiring Harreld.

 

[mstp1992]

What is this second part even supposed to mean? Strategies, like any plan, become stale. If you don't constantly hone them then they'll become out of date and lose alignment with the current state of affairs. So is there a specific point of contention regarding what he did at IBM? For me to address a specific question - please give me a reference to actually address the criticism you are mentioning.

That was just something I read. Like I said, it came from someone who suggested Harreld may not have improved IBM's status as much as some others have suggested. I don't understand enough of it to adequately comment, so I probably shouldn't have said anything anyway.

However, and this is something others outside of academia frequently fail to grasp, is that his resume was so full of errors that those alone would have excluded him from employment in a number of lesser positions on campus. Failure to adequately cite co-authors is a fatal flaw when it comes to applying for a job at any school from junior college on up. Call it persnickety or whatnot, but that's something ANYBODY applying for a position at a school of higher learning should know.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

I'm in complete agreement that Harreld would be extremely successful at virtually any corporate position.

Also, I did not say Harreld would not be successful. I said I would not be as quick to predict success at Iowa as I would the other academic candidates.

You did not address my other scenario in which I suggested it would be difficult to predict success for a university president with no corporate background to manage operations of a large corporation.

The U of Iowa isn't some sort of mysterious organization that only members of a secret club can understand. It's just not that complicated. Are there certain nuances and/or backgrounds that can help a person be success in academia - sure. Are they that difficult to learn? Of course not. And that knowledge/background is clearly secondary to the skills that are inherent in a great leader. I'd be confident in a person who has a history of demonstrated successful leadership - even if that person isn't necessarily experienced in my organization's mission.

The reality is the U of Iowa is more a business/research entity than an academic institution these days. Is this the right model for the U of Iowa? I don't know - but I can read the revenues and budget and see where the money comes from and where it goes and tell you that the academic aspects shouldn't dominate choices for the entire institution. The U is going to continue to move toward building revenue streams and finding efficiencies. It has to to continue to be competitive as an institution.

As for your university president question - I would argue it's infinitely easier for a person with Harreld's background to step into the leadership role at the U of Iowa than it is for a lifetime academic administrator to step into a leadership role at IBM. IBM is infinitely larger, dispersed, varied and complex. Certain leadership skills/abilities transcend, though. And a great leader, regardless of background, may be able to transition from a small organization like the U of Iowa to an IBM with minimal disruption - even with the much longer learning curve.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Maybe any for-profit company, but not at any university would this be considered an out of the park home run hire. If he had been hired in a similar manner (lack of transparency by state Regents) at Illinois or Michigan State or Nebraska, etc, you would have seen the same types of protests. This feeling is not unique to Iowa, and it's precisely why so many schools and a national organization have spoken up and voiced their collective displeasure over the process. The volume of protests may have been increased in Iowa due to the poor overall relationship the BoR has with the University of Iowa community. They have made it clear for several years that they favor Iowa State and UNI. You only have to look at proposed state-funding models to understand there is a bias toward the other two schools (and lo and behold, Harreld expressed support for the model; not a great way to ingratiate yourself with your new colleagues). There are more than a few people who believe some of the reasons behind this hire was NOT in order to improve the academic environment at the University of Iowa, but for financial reasons only. If that adversely impacts the academics, that's just part of the cost-benefit that went into hiring Harreld.

I don't believe the BoR favors UNI and ISU. I believe they are trying to avoid the scenario we see in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, etc, where this is only one dominant state institution and the others are little sisters - largely irrelevant on a national stage. The state of Iowa is very impressive in that it has two national public universities - and a highly ranked regional university. For a small state - that is a point of pride and should be supported due to the benefits it brings.

 

[JRHawk2003]

Wisconsin's system is totally different than ours. They basically have one university with branch campuses. They have a system Chancellor. I think Minnesota's is much the same. We have three distinct universities. You can argue that not having one be dominate simply means two underfunded institutions.

Harreld was never CEO or COO. What leadership has he really demonstrated? He is good at corporate speak, we know that much. You can't even tell who wrote what in his articles as they are all co-authored.

 

[mstp1992]

I don't believe the BoR favors UNI and ISU. I believe they are trying to avoid the scenario we see in Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, etc, where this is only one dominant state institution and the others are little sisters - largely irrelevant on a national stage. The state of Iowa is very impressive in that it has two national public universities - and a highly ranked regional university. For a small state - that is a point of pride and should be supported due to the benefits it brings.

I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this point. It's been clear to many of us that the BoR has been making decisions that don't necessarily seem to be in the best interest of the University or Iowa. Harreld just seems to be the icing on the cake, although to be honest with you I probably won't experience much disruption in my day-to-day activities. I'm mostly NIH funded with a small percentage of time spent in clinic, and teaching/mentoring.

The first thing Harreld has to do is make it obvious he's not just a puppet of the BoR. He must go up against them even in small matters from the start to ensure that his priorities are for the University of Iowa and not Branstad and Rastetter. His initial comments about supporting the BoR's flawed state-funding model did not get him off on the right foot, so addressing that would be a good start.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Wisconsin's system is totally different than ours. They basically have one university with branch campuses. They have a system Chancellor. I think Minnesota's is much the same. We have three distinct universities. You can argue that not having one be dominate simply means two underfunded institutions.
.

So? How does this defeat the point I made that we have two nationally recognized public universities and they do not? It's irrelevant the system they have. What's relevant is the reality is we have two and it makes sense to try to protect that status.

 

[mstp1992]

So? How does this defeat the point I made that we have two nationally recognized public universities and they do not? It's irrelevant the system they have. What's relevant is the reality is we have two and it makes sense to try to protect that status.

But, they wish to protect the status of both ISU and UNI at the expense of Iowa.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

But, they wish to protect the status of both ISU and UNI at the expense of Iowa.

How much money was going to be funneled from Iowa to ISU and UNI based on current enrollment ratios? And was the u of Iowa without recourse?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Harreld was never CEO or COO. What leadership has he really demonstrated? He is good at corporate speak, we know that much. You can't even tell who wrote what in his articles as they are all co-authored.

Do you realize the articles/studies are about his strategy/success? Who gives a crap if they are co-authored? I assume you'd be complaining about the fact no academics were involved if he wrote them himself.

 

[mstp1992]

How much money was going to be funneled from Iowa to ISU and UNI based on current enrollment ratios? And was the u of Iowa without recourse?

Based on this article: "Regents last year pushed for a new funding model that would tie 60 percent of university funding to resident enrollment, a change that would have netted Iowa State $23 million and UNI $24 million, but cost Iowa $46 million."

 

[mstp1992]

Do you realize the articles/studies are about his strategy/success? Who gives a crap if they are co-authored? I assume you'd be complaining about the fact no academics were involved if he wrote them himself.

You see, you just proved that you don't understand it. Errors on your resume/CV when applying for a job at an institution of higher learning is generally regarded as a fatal flaw; it generally excludes you automatically for the position. When it comes to properly listing your publications it's imperative all authors are listed and in the properly listed order as published. That's academia 101. His errors were egregious enough he would've been excluded for consideration as an entry level research assistant.

 

[mstp1992]

How much money was going to be funneled from Iowa to ISU and UNI based on current enrollment ratios? And was the u of Iowa without recourse?

Here's the article I saw yesterday (well, blog on LinkedIn) about Harreld and his time at IBM. I don't understand it enough to properly comment, though.

 

[JRHawk2003]

I'm not complaining about his co-authoring them. I am merely saying that its hard to tell what it is he actually wrote. A lot of his career seems that way to me; difficult to ascertain.

You and others are making the claim that he has provided leadership. There really is little evidence of that.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Based on this article: "Regents last year pushed for a new funding model that would tie 60 percent of university funding to resident enrollment, a change that would have netted Iowa State $23 million and UNI $24 million, but cost Iowa $46 million."

I can't tell from reading the article - is that supposed to be per year? And by the way - why did Sally Mason endorse the plan?

 

[mstp1992]

How much money was going to be funneled from Iowa to ISU and UNI based on current enrollment ratios? And was the u of Iowa without recourse?

There are further implications to the BoR and Harreld that could have immediate impacts on both academics and research. For some time now it's been known Iowa and the BoR have had an adversarial relationship. Sally Mason didn't help things much, either. Because of this we've had difficulty in recruiting top notch faculty, those who are well-funded and with a history of high level scholarship. Many have gone elsewhere even within the midwest and several have cited the bad relationship with the BoR as being a major reason. You can imagine how difficult it is to recruit now with Harreld as president. Many faculty don't want to come here because they don't believe Harreld will be an advocate for the University. Rightly or wrongly, that's a common perception for those in the field.

 

[mstp1992]

I can't tell from reading the article - is that supposed to be per year? And by the way - why did Sally Mason endorse the plan?

I believe it was for a year, but that seems high to me. I thought I had read elsewhere that it was on the order of $13 million net loss for Iowa.

Why? Mason didn't know what she was doing.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

You see, you just proved that you don't understand it. Errors on your resume/CV when applying for a job at an institution of higher learning is generally regarded as a fatal flaw; it generally excludes you automatically for the position. When it comes to properly listing your publications it's imperative all authors are listed and in the properly listed order as published. That's academia 101. His errors were egregious enough he would've been excluded for consideration as an entry level research assistant.

How is this in any way tied to what I said??

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

There are further implications to the BoR and Harreld that could have immediate impacts on both academics and research. For some time now it's been known Iowa and the BoR have had an adversarial relationship. Sally Mason didn't help things much, either. Because of this we've had difficulty in recruiting top notch faculty, those who are well-funded and with a history of high level scholarship. Many have gone elsewhere even within the midwest and several have cited the bad relationship with the BoR as being a major reason. You can imagine how difficult it is to recruit now with Harreld as president. Many faculty don't want to come here because they don't believe Harreld will be an advocate for the University. Rightly or wrongly, that's a common perception for those in the field.

I'm struggling to understand how you can say these faculty left because of a bad relationship with the BoR. How on earth could the BoR be directly responsible for the individual jobs of these faculty members? Or for recruited faculty not taking jobs with the U of Iowa?

This almost sounds like paranoia. Like the evil boogeyman is getting blamed for everything that goes wrong.

 

[IACub]

"We may have dropped the ball. And kicked it around a little bit. Then hid the ball in a closet. And pretended there wasn't a ball when people asked about it."

Direct quote.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

I believe it was for a year, but that seems high to me. I thought I had read elsewhere that it was on the order of $13 million net loss for Iowa.

Why? Mason didn't know what she was doing.

What? A career academic didn't save the day?? Sorry - couldn't resist.

 

[mstp1992]

How is this in any way tied to what I said??

Maybe we're talking about 2 different things.
A couple of us have raised issues with errors on his CV, specifically with respect to publications he listed. The inaccurate citations make it impossible to determine if he was 1st author, last (generally the 'senior' author), or someone who contributed but not integral to the project.

You seemed to suggest this was no big deal. I'm telling you it's a huge deal in academia, and generally excludes you from consideration.

 

[mstp1992]

What? A career academic didn't save the day?? Sorry - couldn't resist.

Truth be told, her head and heart have not been fully on the job for some time. I think she was burned out and not up for any more confrontations.

 

[mstp1992]

I'm struggling to understand how you can say these faculty left because of a bad relationship with the BoR. How on earth could the BoR be directly responsible for the individual jobs of these faculty members? Or for recruited faculty not taking jobs with the U of Iowa?

This almost sounds like paranoia. Like the evil boogeyman is getting blamed for everything that goes wrong.

How many faculty have you recruited?

How many have told you the reputation of the BoR-Iowa relationship was a contributing factor in their decision to go elsewhere?

While it isn't likely these were the primary reasons, if it's even part of the equation then it's a problem.

 

[joelbc1]

Perhaps the complaining faculty should just resign in protest.

Is that what you would do, 86? If so.....do your have this type of behavior in your resume? It's not that easy 86 and you (probably more than most) understand this.

 

[joelbc1]

I wish Hillary could show as much courage as that regent just did about her eff ups.

I do too, unIOwa...However, you can see how many here regard such courage. It's a waste of time.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

How many faculty have you recruited?

How many have told you the reputation of the BoR-Iowa relationship was a contributing factor in their decision to go elsewhere?

While it isn't likely these were the primary reasons, if it's even part of the equation then it's a problem.

Obviously I haven't recruited any. But I have no idea why/how a faculty member would blame not taking a job on the reputation of the BoR. It's similar to saying I don't want to work for Google because I've heard bad things about their Board of Directors. It's ludicrous in my mind someone would use that as an excuse.

 

[joelbc1]

Obviously I haven't recruited any. But I have no idea why/how a faculty member would blame not taking a job on the reputation of the BoR. It's similar to saying I don't want to work for Google because I've heard bad things about their Board of Directors. It's ludicrous in my mind someone would use that as an excuse.

If you have a board of directors who seemingly opposes free thought and new ideas and new ways of thinking and you are a creative person....would you apply to work for this organization?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Maybe we're talking about 2 different things.
A couple of us have raised issues with errors on his CV, specifically with respect to publications he listed. The inaccurate citations make it impossible to determine if he was 1st author, last (generally the 'senior' author), or someone who contributed but not integral to the project.

You seemed to suggest this was no big deal. I'm telling you it's a huge deal in academia, and generally excludes you from consideration.

An inaccurate resume is generally a big deal in any arena. The content that specifically is concentrated on - and to what degree - obviously changes depending on the audience. But to beat up on a non-academic (<= the real issue) for not listing papers how academics demand they be cited is an error on his part - but to most people it seems to be a silly qualm. Academics generally need to understand citations as part of their core function -- organizational leaders do not. So if there was no intent to deceive - then get over it. Again - shame on him for not getting the proper help necessary to ensure proper citation -- but it still seems like an excuse to attack him and not a real reason to disqualify him.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

If you have a board of directors who seemingly opposes free thought and new ideas and new ways of thinking and you are a creative person....would you apply to work for this organization?

Given there is no such BoD or BoR in existence - I'm not sure why we even need to address this.