Are We Sabotaging Ourselves in Higher Education?

One evening, I was talking to a retired army officer. I shared war stories of my 36 years in higher education and he shared his stories of, well, war. His stories were more interesting than mine. We are both history buffs and he told me some interesting ways the military conducts non-combat strategies to support warfare operations. He brought up the Simple Sabotage Manual. I was intrigued.

In 1944, General William J. Donovan was director of the Office of Strategic Services. The OSS was the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency and, during his tenure there, General Donovan created an initially classified booklet outlining the art of simple sabotage which, “more than malicious mischief . . . should always consist of acts whose results will be detrimental to the materials and manpower of the enemy.”

The manual was secretively given to resistance members as well as those everyday citizens who stayed in their home county and were forced to work for the axis powers. The manual described direct and indirect methods of sabotage to soften the enemy’s underbelly so that combat actions would be more effective.

While the direct methods of sabotage involved slashing tires, pouring metal shavings into gear works, and destroying buildings, it was the indirect methods that piqued my interest. Many of these methods sounded like normal protocol for state-run agencies including higher education. Let us look light-heartedly at some examples:

• “Insist on doing everything through ‘channels.’ Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions … See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.” I realize that higher education is governed by policy and transparency. However, remember Aesop’s Fable of the flies getting stuck by the honey they so desired? Too much of a good thing may be getting us in sticky situations.
• “When possible, refer all matters to committees for ‘further study and consideration.’ Attempt to make the committees as large as possible – never less than five.” I’m reminded of the time I was asked to be a member of the Committee on University Committees. Seriously? Maybe we need to form a committee to look into cutting out committees.
• “Haggle over precise wordings or communications, minutes, resolutions.” A colleague of mine shared his experience of participating in a policy meeting with high-level faculty and administrators where it took 45 minutes to decide if a parenthetical phrase should be enclosed with parentheses.
• “Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.” Ole Robert turns over in his grave daily as his Rules are often thrown out in meetings. When something passes, maybe we should let it be!
• “Be worried about the propriety of any decision – raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.” Here is the buck. Thou shalt let it pass.
• “Demand written orders.” We have become paranoid in higher ed. I remember someone telling me that he wanted tasks and requests to be sent via email followed by a paper memo to his immediate supervisor and the director. Oops…I hear another tree falling.
• “Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw.” I remember the tale of supervisor who insisted that the spring report had to be physically aligned with the fall report, even though both reports were accurate. This supervisor actually placed one report on top of another and held it up to the light to demonstrate that the updated report had shifted slightly to the right. The poor worker tried all day to remedy the situation. Finally, he was told that the printer was probably off a little from the thousands of copies made after the fall report was originally produced. The worker then printed out both fall and spring reports together and they aligned perfectly. This example sounds like an exaggerated exception. It is not.
• “Multiply paperwork.” I just can’t add anything to this.
• “Start duplicate files.” How many of us believe that our duplicate files are important and should be archived? When you also realize that multiple departments keep these same duplicate files, the problem exponentially increases. I remember, as a child, trying to save my sand castle from the incoming tide. This metaphor is thought-provoking.

There are more of these methods in the manual. It makes for interesting reading. I guess one could say, however, that all of this could apply to places outside state-run agencies. Take the federal government, for example. It was the military branch of the feds that created the manual and, safe to say, Washington D. C. been following these methods internally to a greater extent than colleges and universities could ever do. But who am I to poke holes. I’m guilty of many of these measures myself. It’s become the nature of our business.

Higher education is a unique, multi-faceted organization that is traditionally open to diverse ideas from diverse people. We are more open than most government agencies and we pride ourselves on transparency, collegiality, and the fostering of new knowledge. When you add governmental regulations and accountability to the mix, colleges and universities become a complex ship to run. Good policies and regulations can help plot a path of smooth sailing. Deciding what is good, though, is tricky.

I’m reminded of an episode of the Andy Griffith show when Barney became acting sheriff. When Andy returned from this trip, he saw that Barney had jailed two men. One man accused the other of letting his chickens run loose while the other accused the first man of building a fence that blocked the sunlight from his feathered fowl. Barney was pouring over law books and told Andy that the case may go to the Supreme Court. Andy quietly suggested the fence could be made of wire, allowing the chickens to be restrained while allowing sunlight to come through. Both men left shaking hands. Isn’t common sense cool?

According to historian Will Durant, “The essential cause of the Roman conquest of Greece was the disintegration of Greek civilization from within.” Maybe we in higher education should remove the dust of our past and open the windows of fresh ideas in order to make our work and our lives a little healthier. Maybe by balancing the laws and policies that govern higher education with a little more common sense, we can come to some sort of a happy medium and not be overtaken by more governmental bureaucracy.

It is clear that the Romans didn’t learn from Greece’s mistakes. In one of his many letters to Atticus about the wonders of Rome, philosopher Cicero said “Man is his worst enemy.”?Befittingly, his words were written right before the fall of Rome. I wonder if Cicero ever belonged to any committees?