[lbo-talk] Yale

Wojtek Sokolowski sokol at jhu.edu
Mon Aug 1 07:56:53 PDT 2005


Jim:
> I know that methodological individualism and the like are popular
> these days, but one thing missed by that kind of analysis is that an
> amorphous band of various interest groups and agendas (or an amalgam
> of large numbers of competitive and status-conscious egotists) can
> mostly unite around certain principles (the "Yale Image" or whatever).
> Since this image can raise the status and even pay of many of the
> participants, this kind of unity can persist. The Image can promote
> morale and help solve internecine conflicts. It's sort of like a
> "corporate rate culture, except that of course a "Yale Image" would
> include the notion that "we're better than those nasty corporations --
> that get their hands dirty -- and they need our higher standards."
> Of course, it doesn't always happen. One of the jobs of a University
> President is to try to preserve (or create) unity.

No disagreement here. Actually, the garbage can theory of organizational behavior explicitly acknowledges the role of dominant principles, ideologies, myths etc. - but argues that they often serve as ex post facto justification of whatever course of action was decided by the current set of power brokers. Thus, corporate managerial decisions - which for the most part serve the interest of the upper management and a select group of high stakeholders - are justified in terms of the dominant ideology of market and profitability.

That is, of course not to say, that the "bottom line" is not the key consideration, but the definition what the bottom line (i.e. how much profit over what time period and at what cost) as well as the best ways of achieving are subject to interpretations and cognitive distortions. A cognitive distortion is a an inclusion ox exclusion of a factor (e.g. environmental effects, labor safety or satisfaction, etc.) from the frame defining the parameters of decision making.

Likewise - "university image" is certainly the overarching principle and myth that ultimately serves to justify the decisions of stakeholders - but what elements constitute that image and how to achieve them is subject to interpretation and cognitive framing. For example, the existence of various parties representing minority or unpopular points of view can be framed as "diversity" and "intellectual debate" that contributes to the "good image" or conversely - as "discord," bickering," and lack of "patriotism" that inhibit learning and thus the "good image." Ditto for administrative control that limits freedom of expression and diversity of views.

Wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list