Lessons from Failed University Leadership: How Lack of Consistency Destroys

(Two note: 1- this is a draft article but I'm posting for timeliness; and 2- I will explain the ACLU reference in the top image. Allow me to build and bridge to that point.)

The rules of effective leadership communication are simple: mission and vision, clarity and consistency. Failing to adhere to the last rule, can undermine even the clearest of missions. We are witnessing this phenomenon unfold as universities fail to learn (ironically) from history's painful lessons on leadership.?

Mission and Vision - Mission statements should be simple, clear, and backed by an equally straightforward strategy. For example, Netflix's mission is to entertain the world, achieved through helping people easily discover and consume the entertaining content they want. University presidents, however, seem unclear on whether their mission is to foster higher learning through study, research, and critical thinking, or to promote single-minded advocacy that takes precedence over rules, respect, open debate, and the ability of others to learn. Any high-functioning organization has one core mission and strategy to execute it.

Mission and vision is simple. Executing with clarity and consistency is where things get complicated and, in the case of universities or governments, dangerous.?

Clarity and consistency? - Confusion arises from a lack of clarity in enforcing the mission. If you're the CEO (or president), are you clear on what is and isn't allowed within the organization? If you're a meat company, then vegan employees calling for an end to meat production may not be a good fit. As a leader, it's your job to make that clear so prospective employees know if it's a fit. If you don't, current employees may see it as permission to push for changing the company's mission. When a university president fails to immediately address students and professors occupying campus without permission or allows support for groups advocating violence against certain ethnicities, it's a lack of clarity that becomes a license for further transgressions.?

It’s not just the words, there’s a tone to clarity, The University of Florida's Ben Sasse struck a clear balance in affirming protesters' right to free speech and assembly while also making clear that free speech has rules: "This is not complicated: The University of Florida is not a daycare, and we do not treat protesters like children - they knew the rules, they broke the rules, and they'll face the consequences." Sasse might be a bit more direct, but the same clarity can be had with a different tone: “The University of XYA is a place of higher learning where we treat our students as maturing adjusts - we’ve made the rules clear,” etc.? Had all leaders taken a similarly clear stance from the start, protests could have continued without hate and violence. To that point, it’s consistent that is the most important lesson or, reminder as none of this is new.?

Consistency - Like clarity, when an organization's leaders fail to consistently apply rules and standards, it sends a message of permission to those exempt from enforcement and prejudice to others. There's a simple rule to follow: swap out the cause, group, or other variables and ask if you would still apply the mission in the same way. If not, either the leader or the mission is wrong. If you're a meat company allowing vegan employees to publicly call for no more meat, either you have a leadership problem or your mission may be shifting toward a plant-based model. We see this on the political side in a recent example is J.D. Vance condemning pro-Palestinian protesters on college campuses while stumbling when asked about the January 6th Capitol rioters - watch here . If you're a university and don't act swiftly when Hamas is supported on campus the way you might against support for a group advocating violence against another group, then your mission is not about a safe environment for critical thinking in pursuit of higher education - it's something far more dangerous.

The lessons on consistency are also lessons on the perils of double standards. Double standards, regardless of intent, are a license for the groups exempt from enforcement to do more. We are seeing this play out in the most hateful and dangerous ways. A double standard is the antithesis of free speech and critical thinking. But most importantly, a double standard is dangerous. The history of attacks on Jewish communities often, if not always, starts with separate standards being applied to how they are treated.

It's why Jewish lawyers at the ACLU defended the rights of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, IL in 1977. They saw the mission of protecting free speech meant a mission of no double standards as that ensured free speech would lead to freedom and safety. They recognized the lack of consistent enforcement of free speech as a key cause of hatred's rise in Germany, as documented by the ACLU: "Didn't Weimar Germany's tolerance for free speech allow Hitler to achieve power? No. The Weimar government did not uphold free speech. When Hitler and the Nazis violently interfered with the speech of their opponents, the Weimar government took no effective action to protect speech and restrain violence. Even murder of political opponents by the Nazis—where the murderers were known—went unpunished or virtually unpunished." (Original ACLU document here - screen shot from the top is from this document).

Leadership failures rooted in inconsistent principle enforcement pave the way for problems to fester and become massive failures. This is true for companies and universities, and it's scary, sad, and disappointing for those of us on the wrong side of these failures.