THE PRINCIPIA BOARD OF TRUSTEES

REPORT TO RESOLUTION COMMITTEE BY JAMES REEVES

July 3, 2007

To the Resolution Committee and the Principia Community,

Please accept this memorandum as my report concerning my assessment and conclusion of phase 1 of the work I had been asked to perform for Principia through the Resolution Committee.

The Resolution Committee was initiated in early 2007 to lead efforts to bring resolution or reconciliation to the Principia community.  Events that occurred in late 2006 and early 2007 led the Trustees to suggest a process for reconciliation, including formation of a Resolution Committee.  The Committee consists of two elected representatives from various constituency groups including the students, the college faculty, the college staff, the St. Louis campus faculty, the business office, the St. Louis campus staff, and the Trustees. 

In order to move toward a process of reconciliation, the Committee initially pursued a mediation process.  However, the committee was concerned that “mediation” may not be an appropriate process for the community because there remained too many factual disputes.  I was chosen to work with the Committee on a process of organizational assessment.  The organizational assessment was to serve as a basis for discussion among the members of the Resolution Committee in order to develop recommendations for moving the community toward reconciliation. 

Thus, my function, and the purpose of this report, is to provide the Resolution Committee information upon which it can perform its function as a recommending body.  I advised the Committee that my function would only involve dispute resolution services, not fact-finding for the purpose of supporting or justifying a pre-determined result.  Before I agreed to participate in the process, I verified that my function was to provide an assessment that would serve as a springboard to resolution, rather than provide factual information that would lead to further debate, argument, or division in the community.  I received assurances that my function was one leading toward resolution.

This report contains conclusions and opinions, as well as factual information that I have assembled through my interviews and document reviews over the course of about six weeks.  As I warned the Resolution Committee very early in the process, there will be those on the Committee and within the community who will disagree with my conclusions and findings.  There will be issues that are not addressed in the report, and there will be conclusions or factual interpretations that many will see differently.  I simply provide the findings to the community as one who is not emotionally attached to the community, from the viewpoint of “an outsider.”  My focus, however, is always toward resolution. 

This report is a third draft.  In order to meet timeframes agreed upon by the Resolution Committee and me, I had provided the Committee with a report that set out factual findings and conclusions, but with little context to support the findings.  At the time, the plan was to meet with the Committee and provide the Committee with a more complete context during our discussions.  Those meetings occurred.  However, the Committee decided that the report itself was to be published to the community, which raised concerns.  My initial draft of the report contained references to community members by name.  It was necessary to mention names during the Committee’s meetings in order for the Committee to obtain a clear picture of the events described in the report.  Before distributing the report to the community, the Committee shared a draft copy of the report with those community members mentioned in the report and received feedback from those individuals.  In accordance with their feedback, which was helpful and appreciated, I prepared a second draft of the report without references to those individuals in the report.  This third draft includes even more context, by way of facts, discussion, and background, so that the community members who were not present at the Committee’s discussions over the last several weeks can better understand the conclusions reached.

It is important to point out that in preparing the report and its various drafts, my conclusions have not changed.  I have received input from the Committee members regarding typographical errors, or items of oversight on my part.  However, the substance of the report and my conclusions have not changed.  

My work with the Resolution Committee consisted of an organizational assessment described in my contract as follows:

The organizational assessment will include an overall assessment of The Principia Corporation, including a review of cultural issues, working relationships, and other issues to be determined.  The assessment will also include a factual analysis addressing specific questions posed by Principia concerning the circumstances surrounding the departure of the College President, and the circumstances surrounding the performance and compensation of Principia’s Chief Executive Officer. 

Early in the process, the Resolution Committee provided a list of 150 questions, or issues, that were generated by the various constituencies in the community.  I reviewed the list and referred to it frequently throughout the process.  The list was significant to me in several respects.  First, it provided an overview of the nature of the concerns that were in the community that may have given rise to the current crisis the community is facing.  Second, it provided clues as to the level of division and distrust that existed in the community at the time the list was prepared.  Third, the list was telling in that it included questions or concerns about events that occurred some years ago, indicating lingering concerns that may have been building over time.  I made it clear to the Resolution Committee that in the time available for my assessment, I would not be able to answer all of the questions raised in the “issues list,” but that the list was a good reference and provided important information as I conducted my work. 

Similarly, in the course of my work, I was asked by Committee members and members of the community to investigate specific instances or events.  I considered whether each request was consistent with my assignment – to provide an organizational assessment that would provide a springboard toward resolution.  I looked into the events to the extent needed to add information to the assessment.  In other words, I did not investigate every event or incident to determine “who was right and who was wrong.”  Rather, my role was to examine events and incidents to glean information about The Principia’s operation, its culture, and how the current conflict might be resolved.     

Methodology

I conducted the organizational assessment through interviews and document reviews.  Since April 23, 2007, I have interviewed 54 people and reviewed approximately 1500 pages of documents.  I also met with the College Faculty Senate, the College Staff Senate, the St. Louis faculty, the business office staff, and the St. Louis staff. 

The interviews I conducted averaged 2-4 hours in length. I interviewed people from all of the constituency groups, former and current Trustees, former employees, alumni, current and former administrative personnel, as well as Stuart Jenkins, and George Moffett.  Members of the Resolution Committee provided names for potential interviewees.  I also received suggestions for interviewees from those whom I interviewed, and from my review of documents.  Every effort was made to talk with the people suggested, but not all those who were identified were interviewed due to time constraints. 

Confidentiality was of concern as the process progressed.  On one hand, the Committee wanted to provide a process that was transparent and open.  On the other hand, the Committee recognized that some members of the community would not be comfortable participating in the process if their names were revealed.  Accordingly, the Committee and I agreed that interviewees would be informed that information gathered through the interviews would not be attributed to any particular person.  Because of the confidentiality issues, portions of this report will be vague in its identification (or lack of identification) of particular people.  The vague references are not an effort to hide information, but are necessary to uphold the Committee’s obligations to those who participated in the process.   

When speaking with respondents, or interviewees, I conducted most of my interviews in person (less than a handful were conducted by phone), and used the following structure:

            A. Background information concerning the respondent;

            B. An overview of the respondent’s experience with Principia;

            C. Areas in which the respondent had pertinent information;

            D. Their knowledge concerning the core issues;

            E. Other issues that the respondent wanted to address during the interview.

I received documents from many sources, including Stuart Jenkins, George Moffett, the Trustees, and from many of those whom I interviewed.  The documents included minutes of meetings for the last three years of the College Faculty Senate and the College Faculty Council; the minutes of meetings of the Board of Trustees for the last three years; the CEO’s weekly reports to the Board of Trustees for the last three years; documents from George Moffett; documents from many interviewees, including their memos and correspondence on various issues; documents from the business office pertaining to tax issues and human resource issues; human resource procedure manuals; resource manuals regarding AQIP; letters in support of George Moffett and Stuart Jenkins; files regarding specific human resource issues ¹; hundreds of emails by and between former and current Trustees for the last three years; and hundreds of pages of other documents pertaining to a variety of issues.

Summary of Findings

The Committee had asked that I look into particular issues and make factual determinations regarding those issues.  This portion of the report provides a summary of findings of those key issues.  The report includes a broader discussion of these issues in later sections.

Specific Factual Findings

• Regarding the circumstances surrounding the departure of the College President, George Moffett:
• George resigned² and was not fired
• Although there was long-term planning to support the President in his position to compensate for weak management skills, there was no long-term plan to terminate him.  On the contrary, discussions centered around positioning the President to capitalize on his strengths.
• With regard to whether George was treated fairly, it would appear that the Trustees could have handled the situation much differently during the November, 2006 Trustees’ meeting.  The Trustees had a window of opportunity to perhaps change the tone of the conversation with George, but failed to do so.  From my interviews, respondents expressed regret that the Trustees had not met with George as a full board, heard his concerns, and perhaps been able to have a more productive dialogue about potential roles that George could play and remain on the college campus.  Allowing George to meet only with a four-person delegation of Trustees who simply accepted George's resignation was not productive.  The Trustees did not take advantage of an opportunity to talk with George and perhaps increase the possibility of having George remain on the campus.  Whether the opportunity would have been productive or not, we do not know.   However, the opportunity was missed.

• Regarding the circumstances surrounding the CEO’s salary increase:
• I found no conclusive indication that the CEO requested the salary increase, directly or indirectly.
• After the Board approved the salary increase, there was continuing debate among Board members about the basis for the amount of the increase.  Yet, public statements from the CEO and the Trustees indicated that the increase was based on proper benchmarks.
• The Trustees ultimately acknowledged that the benchmarking process was flawed, but not until public statements had been made defending the amount of the increase and the process used to calculate the increase.
• The Board’s offering the increase to the CEO, and the CEO’s acceptance of the increase showed a lack of awareness of the potential negative impact on the Principia community, given budget constraints, standard 3% salary increase for employees, and given that the salaries for segments of the Principia community had not been re-benchmarked before the CEO was given his increase.
• The Trustees’ resolution approving the salary increase, which contained a statement that “This information is confidential until it is published in the Chronicle of Higher Education about 18 months from now” gave the perception of secrecy of the process, exacerbating the community’s negative reaction to the disclosure of the increase.  While it is the policy of Principia to keep salary information confidential, simply abiding by the already-existing policy (without the additional admonition for confidentiality), or announcing the increase with transparency and openness at the time it was approved would have eliminated many of the community’s suspicions.   

Organizational Findings

Some organizational themes developed early in the process and were reinforced throughout. 

• Transparency vs. Confidentiality – Throughout my interviews and my review of meeting minutes of various groups, there was a clear desire for more transparency in decision-making.  Communications, even those not involving personnel matters, are often confidential.³  Transparency would seem to be consistent with policy 16 requiring that activities at Principia be as democratic as possible.  Yet, confidentiality seems to be the norm.  In order for there to be democratic processes, there must be transparency. Confidentiality gives rise to speculation, rumor, suspicion and distrust.

• Lack of formal processes, especially involving personnel matters, has given rise to suspicion, fear, and distrust.  While there are processes in place to terminate a person, or counsel a person to improve performance, there are no evaluation processes in place across the organization.   Terminations, then, seem random and arbitrary, giving rise to fear and insecurity.⁴

• Lack of vision/strategic planning – Although through the years there has been discussion about strategic planning at various levels in the organization, and some action taken in that regard, Principia does not have a formal process for strategic planning.  Without a plan, it is difficult to rally members of the organization to follow in a common direction.  Worse, actions that are taken by administration (such as personnel decisions) seem without context, and appear to be random and arbitrary.  A shared organizational vision and plan moves everyone in a common direction and can be translated into action plans for subparts of the organization.  

• Communication – Concerns about communication arose in two contexts:  A lack of communication at all levels of the organization, especially when facing problems (conflict avoidance), and communication handled “off line” and not through normal communication channels.  Both situations create problems.  Failing to communicate to correct problems (for example, to coach an under performing employee) allows the problem to fester and remain, or perhaps get worse.   “Off line” communication gives rise to suspicion and distrust.

• Weak leadership vs. micromanagement – Concerns about “micromanagement” were frequently raised in the interviews.  In this case, Stuart Jenkins was managing two heads of the campuses (the Head of School and the College President) whom he perceived to be weak managers.  In some situations, Stuart took an active role at the level of his subordinates, particularly in personnel matters⁵, creating role confusion, suspicion, and creating the perception that he was undermining the position of the head of the campus.

The Current Conflict and Scope of the Report

The current conflict erupted in January, 2007 when the college newspaper, The Pilot, reported that two members of the Board of Trustees resigned because of their concerns about a 47% salary increase given to the CEO in April, 2006.  Disclosure of the salary increase, as well as allegations that the increase had been “hidden” from the community sent the community into an uproar.  Moreover, when The Pilot was published, the community was still reacting to the announcement that the very popular and respected College President, George Moffett, was leaving.  There were allegations that the CEO and the Board of Trustees had forced the President’s resignation or had fired him. 

Many in the community called for the resignation of the CEO, and the college faculty voted no confidence in the CEO by a margin of 71 to 2, with 4 abstentions.  The Board of Trustees sought guidance from various sources and ultimately convened a “resolution committee” in an effort to resolve the issues in the community.  

While the CEO salary issue seems to have triggered the current crisis, it did not cause it.  The purpose of this report is twofold:  To provide a basis of fact regarding the circumstances surrounding two central issues (the CEO’s salary increase and his performance, and the circumstances surrounding the College President’s departure), and to provide an assessment of Principia as an organization to identify underlying causes of the conflict so that they can be addressed and corrected. 

The Principia Organization

To understand the underlying causes of the current crisis, it is essential to examine the culture of Principia and its operation as an organization.  Both provide clues to the causes of its current challenges.

Principia was founded in 1898 by Mary Kimball Morgan and was established to serve the Cause of Christian Science.  The Principia Corporation is a Missouri not-for-profit corporation.  It is an educational institution that operates two campuses.  The St. Louis campus serves children preschool through grade 12, and the Elsah campus is a college.  The corporation is governed by a Board of Trustees.  There is a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) who, until recently, also served as Chairman of the Board.  In February 2007, the Board of Trustees passed a resolution to separate the positions of CEO and Chairman.   Under current bylaws, the CEO must be a member of the Board of Trustees.

 A College President and a Head of School each report to the CEO/ Chairman (hereinafter “CEO”).  Reporting to the head of each campus are deans, faculty, and staff. 

The Principia has some very unique challenges.  First, according to its own policies, the students, faculty and staff at the campuses must be active Christian Scientists.  The policy clearly limits the pool of potential students, staff, and faculty.  Second, the institution serves two campuses with very different constituencies:  the St. Louis students range in age from pre-school through Upper school (high school), while the students on the Elsah campus are college-aged.  Third, the two campuses are fifty miles apart and are located in different states, creating geographic and jurisdictional (legal) challenges. 

With respect to institutional vision or planning, the institution has only recently undertaken a strategic planning process, but much work needs to be done.  Almost all interviewees told me that strategic planning has not been a process that Principia has undertaken.  If efforts have been taken to develop a strategic plan, such efforts have not been well communicated.  In its meeting of February, 2006 the Board of Trustees articulated four “major goals,”⁶ but no plan was established to achieve the goals.    Formal standards, guidelines, and means of evaluating employee performance have not been used until very recently, and only then in particular departments. 

The Policies

Twenty-three policies set out the foundational guides and philosophies of the institution.  See Education at The Principia.   As foundations of the institution, the policies are the espoused values of the institution and are central to an understanding of the culture of The Principia.  The members of the community often cite the policies in discussion of issues and several of the policies are especially applicable to the examination of the issues that the institution is now facing.

Policy 4 requires that all members of the faculty and staff at The Principia shall be active Christian Scientists.  In addition, “[A]s a rule, members of the student body shall be accepted only from homes in which at least one of the parents or the guardian can give evidence of being a sincere Christian Scientist and of being ready to depend on Christian Science for help in time of need.”  As will be noted later, the policy creates challenges for the institution in recruiting students and employees. 

The policies also provide that, “[I]n all of its activities, The Principia shall place emphasis on Principle rather than person.”  See Policy 7.  This policy is key and was discussed by many of the interviewees I spoke with in the assessment process.  Respondents sometimes raised concerns that issues involved in the current disputes were a result of decisions made in violation of this policy – that is, that they were made based on person rather than Principle. 

Policy 13 says, “[T]he Principia shall place emphasis on that which is direct, simple, natural, and honest in all of its activities.”  In addition, Policy 13 encourages self-expression, and states that while “unnecessary formality shall be avoided, correct and dignified procedures which are unrelated to pride or personal position,” may be utilized. 

The policies also provide guidance in the governance of the institution.  Policies 15 and 16 state that “[T]he Principia shall always be conducted as one institution” and that the government of The Principia shall be as “democratic as possible” within the organization.  Further, “leadership at The Principia shall be expressed in obedience to Principle rather than by the exercise of authority or influence on the basis of human will or opinion,” a policy similar to, and consistent with, policy 7, above.

Policy 17 requires that “every post in the institution shall be filled with the most effective individual available.”  Department members are to continue in service only so long as they secure better results.  The policy also provides that the policy shall be administered with “wisdom and sympathetic understanding.”  As will be noted, this policy has been prominent in the issues raised in the current dispute.  Depending on how the policy is interpreted, the policy creates a tension between filling positions in the institution with the most qualified individuals, and removing those who are less qualified or are not effective in their positions, when someone more effective is available.   On one hand, those in leadership and management positions have an obligation to fill positions with the most qualified individuals.  On the other, removing anyone from his or her employment – especially at Principia -- can be particularly traumatic, requiring “sympathetic understanding.” 

General Observations

Because policy 4 requires all faculty, staff, and students to be Christian Scientists, Principia is a very close, well-connected community.  People come to Principia from all over the country so that their children can attend school in a Christian Science environment.  While both of the campuses provide boarding opportunities, often the parents move to the St. Louis area, leaving behind friends and careers.  (This was referred to in the interviews as the “silent migration”).  Historically, those who came to St. Louis and were in need of employment found work on one of the campuses.  Principia not only provided education for the children in the family, but also provided employment.  Employing parents of students helped Principia meet the challenge of filling posts on the campuses with Christian Scientists, a relatively small employment pool.  It is not unusual for both spouses to be employed by Principia, or both adults in the family have in-laws, cousins, sisters, brothers, or other relatives working on one of the campuses as well.  Moreover, Principia sometimes provides housing for its employees on or near the campuses.

Employment at Principia has historically been very stable.  Many of the respondents told me that it is not unusual to work at Principia for decades.  Several people reported that one would have to do something illegal or commit an act involving moral turpitude to lose one’s job.  Formal employment evaluations were not done (and, for the most part, are still not done), and some respondents suggested that the lack of formal employment procedures was to comply with policy 13’s direction to avoid formality.  Other respondents suggested that the lack of standards, guidelines, and employment reviews served two purposes: First, it provided protection for employees who were reliant on Principia for their employment (if one doesn’t evaluate poor performance, one can’t lose their job because of it).  Second, it allowed community members to avoid confrontation and conflict.  Evaluating poor performance is difficult and uncomfortable, and the discomfort can be avoided if evaluations are simply not done.

The people in the Principia community have worked together, played together, lived together, and educated their children together, for several generations.⁷  Alumni stay in very close touch with the school, and with electronic communication, it is not unusual for someone on the Elsah campus to hear news about the St. Louis campus via someone who lives in California or Florida, even before they hear it from St. Louis.  

While the community is well connected throughout the country, several respondents report that there seems to be a lack of direct communication on the campuses, especially when confronting problems.  Although policy 13 would suggest that simple, direct communication would be the norm on the campuses, many people report that that is not the case.  Some respondents described Principia as “dysfunctionally polite” – failing to raise issues that need to be discussed for fear of offending or entering into conflict.  People do make use of “the Matthew Code,” that is, communicating directly with one with whom there is a question or issue.  However, direct communication does not always take place, leaving a void of information that is often filled with rumor and speculation. 

Confidentiality and secrecy are prominent features at Principia, according to respondents and my own observations.⁸  On one hand, it is understandable that, in such a closely connected community as Principia, confidentiality is important.  News travels very fast and is not always accurate, even in an environment of transparency.  There are clearly times when confidentiality is essential – in the case of personnel matters, for example.  However, policy 16 suggests that the government of the institution shall be “as democratic as possible,” and matters that are confidential are not open to a democratic process.  Moreover, and perhaps more serious, is that confidential information and processes open an invitation for rumor and speculation.  Members of the community then act on information that may or may not be correct or complete.  Operating under a “presumption of openness,” rather than a presumption of confidentiality may help reduce the circulation of rumors and off-line communication, and can help bring the institution more in line with its policy calling for democratic government.

While there have been substantial efforts through the years to put into place formal processes, especially for personnel matters, such processes are not uniform across the organization.⁹  Clear processes for hiring, terminating, and evaluating people are essential to building trust in the organization.  Without the proper, uniform processes, personnel changes appear to be random and arbitrary, leading to fear and distrust.  While policy 13 encourages informality, the current lack of process has contributed to tension in the community and has led to the current crisis.  Clear, predictable, and faithfully followed guidelines and processes, over time, can help rebuild trust in the community. 

Policy 17 also makes clear policies, guidelines, and procedures essential.  The policy requires that the most qualified individuals hold employment posts at Principia.  However, who determines who is the most qualified?  Policy 7 provides that such decisions should be based on Principle, not person.  What criteria are to be used to measure whether an employment decision is based on Principle, and not person?  These are key questions that were often raised by respondents in the interviews.  Concerns were raised that employment decisions in key posts were based on person, not Principle, leading to allegations that personnel decisions lacked integrity.  Clear policies, procedures, and guidelines help gain the community’s confidence that personnel decisions are based on the needs of the institution and the qualifications of the person (a Principled decision), rather than based on the needs or desires of an individual (a decision based on person).

Another cultural issue that respondents raised in the interviews was a perceived change in recent years from an “educational” administrative environment to a “corporate” environment.   Respondents saw the “corporate” environment as insensitive, unfeeling, distrustful, secretive, and ushering in rapid change.  The educational model, on the other hand, was often seen as collaborative, open, and more sensitive to the feelings of people and their connections to the community.   The corporate model might be seen as clashing directly with the norm of “dysfunctional politeness.”

Interviewees, particularly those who had been on the campuses for a long time, said that the environment on the campuses changes as the person holding the office of CEO changes.  According to respondents, there was an emphasis on education in earlier years. As one respondent put it, “In those days, it [Principia]was clearly an educational institution that was supported by the business function.”  Later, as CEO’s came from a more business-focused background, there was a perception the business focus had become more prominent.  Again, as one respondent described it, “I began to feel that rather than a business embracing the school, it was a school embracing the business.”   Dollars, budgets, policies, procedures, guidelines, standards were words that crept into the language at Principia, and it became clear in recent years that a cultural shift was beginning. 

Although the “academics” at Principia seem to resist the “corporate” influence, everyone I interviewed agreed that the business side of education is necessary.  Conflict results when those involved with the educational function, the main mission of the Principia, perceive encroachment of their function by business.  Those in the academic field, respondents told me, are particularly sensitive to the encroachment.  Educators have a high level of education and expertise in their field, and they expect to be recognized and respected.   At Principia in recent years there have been concerns that the business function was influencing decisions involving curriculum, an area thought to be solely in the hands of faculty.

However, the “academic” and “corporate” dichotomy is not the root source of tension.  On a deeper level, the issue relates to the issues of communication, transparency, processes that are established and followed, clear role definitions, and democratic processes.   Giving faculty the autonomy to control curriculum and providing faculty with involvement in key decision-making on the campuses  -- in line with policy 16 – help provide faculty with the acknowledgement of their importance on the campuses, and give less emphasis on the “business” functions.¹⁰  In a culture in which roles are clearly defined, where there is open communication and democratic, transparent processes in use, individuals or groups feel less threatened.  The result is a culture built on trust.

As noted previously, planning is a process that has been discussed for years at Principia and has never, in a formal way, taken place.  Strategic planning is essential for several reasons, and lack of strategic planning has helped to contribute to the current difficulties the institution is facing.  Properly done, strategic planning provides an opportunity for those in the community to participate on multiple levels to create a direction for the organization that everyone will understand and follow.  The plan should include measurable, obtainable goals or objectives that can be formed to meet the needs and circumstances of each department.  The process of planning is as important as producing the plan itself.  The process provides an opportunity for representatives from various sectors of the organization to understand the needs and problems facing other portions of the organization.  Greater understanding is the result, so that, for example, the faculty better understands the decisions the “business people” make, and the needs and concerns of the faculty are better understood by those in the business office.  The process helps break down the “silos” and the “us vs. them” thinking.  Further, the process can be participatory, bringing the strategic planning process and the institution more in line with policy 16, mandating that governance of the institution be “as democratic as possible.”

Further, a plan helps the members of the community better understand the context of actions that are taking place around them.  This is especially critical in personnel decisions, whether someone is transferred or terminated.  Personnel changes are especially difficult in the Principia culture, but are particularly difficult when they seem random and arbitrary.  While a plan does not answer all of the questions that may arise, it is helpful for people to know that a plan is in place and that the actions are taking place in some context.¹¹

The communication at Principia is a topic that many respondents mentioned as a concern.  Respondents said that there seems to be an avoidance of conflict, so that important communication does not take place because of fear or discomfort.¹²  As a result, communication that should take place does not occur.  At other times, communication does take place, but in a round-about, “off line” manner (communications which are, typically, confidential).  Either way, messages are either not received, or are received indirectly.  The communication culture seems to clash with the community’s use of the “Matthew Code” – approaching someone directly and discussing an issue or problem – and policy 13, calling for activities that are direct, simple, natural and honest.  Lack of communication, or indirect communication breeds misunderstanding and conflict, or worse, distrust.           

Discussion of the Departure of the College President, George Moffett

The Resolution Committee requested that I examine the circumstances surrounding the departure of the College President, George Moffett.  This section will examine those issues.  The discussion is based upon information gathered through a review of various documents and interviews of people with first-hand knowledge of the events.   

One of the concerns that the community had raised concerning the departure of the College President was whether Stuart Jenkins had a long-term plan to fire George Moffett.  While it appears that Stuart Jenkins began to think about options for reorganizing the college as early as January 2005, I did not find any evidence that Stuart had planned to remove George from his position at the college.  On the contrary, Stuart’s reorganization plans were designed to strengthen the college administration while capitalizing on George’s strengths. ¹³

In January, 2005, Stuart told the Trustees that he was considering a restructuring at the college that would be “designed around the skills and talents we have in the office of president.”  Stuart said, “George’s great vision, moral clarity, academic integrity and articulation need to be complemented by a post with the power and skill to move George’s initiatives forward in a politically charged academic environment.”  Stuart noted that the relationship between the college faculty and the administration was “intolerable,” but that by working together and having the right skill set in place, a good working relationship can be created.¹⁴  Stuart discussed the restructure idea with George after receiving input from others and George began “dismantling” the (then) current Dean structure faster than the new structure could be put in place.  The initial plan involved creating a Vice President position that would support the President.               

About two weeks later, Stuart reported to the Trustees that he was considering a new Dean of Faculty structure.  He said, “[T]his new structure must include some representation from the faculty.  We must get input that the faculty views as legitimate if we ever hope to build a team at the College that will function effectively.”

As of early February, Stuart was as hopeful as ever of creating a good working relationship between the faculty and administration at the college.  He told the Trustees, “George is reeling a bit from the pace of change. . . .   I believe we need to get a new structure that is balanced and perceived by all parties as inclusive.  George is in no way digging in his heels, just cautious - which is wise!”

By Spring, the dialog between the faculty and the administration at the college was on “an encouraging arc,” according to Stuart.  He said that he was grateful for everyone’s commitment, “including John Williams, the Faculty Council, and of course George.”

In September 2005, Stuart received suggestions that the college needed a two-person team to help support George and effectively manage the college.  The team would not necessarily involve two Deans, but a change in operation that would keep George in a role that would utilize his strongest talents while staying out of the active management of the college while a new Dean developed credibility and relationships with the faculty. 

By the end of 2005, the plan was to bring a strong Dean to the college whose role was to support George and handle the management functions, while George continued as President and inspirational leader of the college.

Ultimately, a new dean was hired.  Some respondents have indicated that the Dean’s role was actually “to move George out.”  However, I do not find objective evidence that that is so.  Rather, it appears that, consistent with plan, the Dean was hired to support George. 

By April 2006, the college was focused on several issues, particularly the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) self-assessment report.  It is also in Spring 2006 that George had his first-ever formal evaluation.  All of the members of the Principia Executive Committee (PEC) evaluated each other based on a format provided by an outside consultant.  George did not do well on the evaluation.  In the end of May, Stuart met with each member of the PEC, including George, to discuss the evaluation results and to form plans for improvement.¹⁵

From my interviews, it appeared that George was feeling a lot of pressure in the Spring and Summer of 2006.  Those who worked closely with him during that period describe him as “frantic,” generating initiative after initiative without follow through, structure, organization, or any kind of coordination.  The Deans were overwhelmed by directives from the President.

Also in the Spring, George prepared the “Blueprint for Excellence” in which George outlined his plans for the college.  Later, in emails, the “Blueprint” was criticized as unmanageable, containing no coordinated plan, lacking focus, and lacking value for planning.  While Stuart received encouragement from various sources to continue to support George, Stuart was also made aware of George’s negatives, identified as:  A poor PEC evaluation; the failure to push the faculty evaluations; a failure to understand the seriousness of the AQIP report; and low college enrollment.¹⁶

When the college received the AQIP report, the focus on George’s management drew a higher level of scrutiny.  One person advising Stuart through the restructuring expressed great concern over the results of the AQIP report.  The report was considered very negative, reflecting several areas in which the college was in need of improvement.  Upon receiving the AQIP report, George’s attention was focused on whether the college’s accreditation was in jeopardy.  The more urgent issue was to develop a plan to take corrective measures to fix the weaknesses illustrated in the report.  So long as measures were taken to correct the weaknesses, the accreditation was not at risk.

In October 2006, the discussions about changing George’s role became more focused.  Moreover, with the backdrop of the AQIP report, Stuart received information that “a dependable college faculty member who said that the frustration level with the lack of administrative leadership was so high that a handful of key middle level players were ready to leave.”

On October 13, 2006, Stuart delivered a multi-page letter to George outlining George’s strengths and weaknesses and inviting conversation about how to manage the college, and more specifically, George’s role on the college campus.  George and Stuart had had conversations leading up to October 13, but Stuart expressed frustration that he was not able to communicate the sense of urgency in the need for performance improvement in a way that George was accepting.  Following delivery of the October 13 letter, Stuart and George discussed potential options for George’s role. 

In his weekly report of October 16, Stuart reported that he continued his meetings with George and said that he felt that things at the college were in a state of management crisis.  George responded that he thought “things have never been better at the college.”  Stuart reported to the Trustees, “I believe that things have never been better AND that we are in a state of management crisis.  Confidence and trust in the president’s office and the dean’s office are at a dangerously low ebb.”  Stuart continued, “It was one of the toughest meetings I have ever had with George.  He was visibly upset and was unable to sit while discussing these issues.  But we were able to break through the communication wall for the first time and we began talking frankly with one another.  I believe I have finally got George’s attention…”

On October 19, in an email to the Trustees, Stuart wrote that he had met with George in a meeting that he described with the words, “humble, heart, genteel, and even emotional.”  It was the first time George ever acknowledged his shortcomings “and in doing so he is clearly struggling with the idea that he might not be College President.”  George expressed an interest in bringing in a Vice President for operational purposes and asked that Stuart consider that option.  In contrast, Stuart asked him to think about staying in the role that builds on his strengths while letting Stuart bring in an operational head at the college.  George said he would think about it. Stuart reported, “George asked that I not make any decisions until after the Trustees’ meeting.  Clearly he is banking a lot on those meetings to be a huge success.  I told him that I had no intention of doing anything before the Trustee meeting.”  Stuart continued, “George needs a lot of support.  He needs to know how valued he is yet he cannot be led to believe he is a great operational manager.  Please help me on this one as it has taken a lot of work to get to this point.”

In an email of October 20, Stuart expressed regret that he was “starting to be college president by action not position.  It is a doggone poor way to operate.”   Talks between Stuart and George continued.  However, progress stalled “as it became clear that George did in fact share the gist of [Stuart’s] letter with ‘several’ colleagues at the college and they in turn apparently shared with others whom they hoped would take up the charge to ‘save George’”…

In a memorandum to the Trustees following up on his letter of October 13 to George, Stuart shared his thoughts about the current state of the college and leadership issues.  Among other things, Stuart wrote, “the AQIP report written by 62 members of the faculty and staff and edited by the president is so damming that most colleges receiving such a report would consider it a major crisis.  This report, in polite language, says that Principia has weak leadership.  Category four is especially discouraging.” 

The memorandum outlined two options for continuing George on campus.  The first option was to appoint George Chancellor of the college which would include responsibilities of fundraising and speech making across the country, selecting and presenting speakers at Principia, handling graduation and dignitary relationships, and writing articles about education and whole man character education.  The second option allowed George to retain the title of president with the following stipulations:  take a sabbatical starting in January 2007 and prepare a course on the Christian Science Movement; also be responsible for the same fundraising and friend making duties as in option one; teach courses at the summer session; and teach the history of Christian Science Movement once a year at the college.  Stuart expressed an interest in option two.  Stuart also expressed concern over the potential negative public relations if George departed. 

On October 30, George sent a memorandum to the Trustees addressing the points raised in Stuart’s letter of October 13.   Stuart’s weekly report to the Trustees said, “I spent the past week, with Phil’s help, working with George trying to sort out leadership and management issues in Elsah.  Although this is not complex, we have yet to reach a resolution.  George’s views of his skills is not consistent with my view of his skills…  I continue to believe that if we could agree with George about where he could best serve the institution and then bring in high quality day-to-day leadership, Principia College would be better positioned.  I hope this does not come down to an either/or choice, because that is not necessary…  George let me know that on Friday that a six-month sabbatical was absolutely unacceptable to him.  While the world views a sabbatical after ten years of service for a College President a respectable perk, George said that he would view it as a ‘firing.’  Thus I am completely willing to drop that part of the proposal.”
           
The Trustees were scheduled to hold their November 2006 meeting.  In preparation, George prepared a November 2, 2006 memorandum entitled “talking points.”  In the memorandum, George said, “with regard to a possible administrative restructuring at the college, I would reiterate that I would take any plan that would reduce the presidency to a figurehead position as my cue to move on.”  At the Trustees’ meeting, the issue of George’s situation pre-empted all other business planned by the Trustees that weekend (ironically, including the issue of Stuart’s salary increase).  George wanted to meet with the Trustees to discuss his performance issues.  The Trustees discussed the situation Friday night and Saturday.  They met with Merlin Lewis (to get a clearer understanding of the impact of the AQIP report), Phil Riley, and Katherine Milner.  Ultimately, rather than meet with George as a full Board, the Trustees decided to appoint a four-Trustee delegation to meet with George.  The four Trustees met very briefly with George (about five minutes) and told George that they would “accept his resignation.”

In December, 2006 and January, 2007, Stuart began to have discussions with several people about ways to restructure the college administration and create a "transition" plan.  On December 8, 2006, Stuart prepared a weekly report to the Trustees which later became known as the "popcorn" memo. (The memo makes no reference to "popcorn," but rather "peanuts.")  In the memo, Stuart discussed possible options for a transition at the college.¹⁷

While there appeared to be concerns about George's weaknesses as a manager as early as 2005, there did not seem to be a systematic movement to "run George off."  With regard to the question of whether George "was fired," "resigned," or "was forced to resign," it appears that George resigned.  From George's subjective viewpoint, George may not have felt that he had options.  However, in his memorandum to the Board of Trustees, he expressed concern that the office of President would become a mere figurehead and that he would take that as his "cue to move on."  In response, the Trustees accepted George's resignation.   Objectively, George had options other than to simply resign or be fired, and accordingly, I do not view George’s departure as a forced resignation or a firing.

With regard to whether George was treated fairly, it would appear that the Trustees could have handled the situation much differently during the November, 2006 Trustees’ meeting.  The Trustees had a window of opportunity to perhaps change the tone of the conversation with George, but failed to do so.  From my interviews, respondents expressed regret that the Trustees had not met with George as a full board, heard his concerns, and perhaps been able to have a more productive dialogue about potential roles that George could play and remain on the college campus.  Allowing George to meet only with a four-person delegation of Trustees who simply accepted George's resignation was not productive.  From George’s viewpoint, the Trustees virtually closed the door to the possibility of having George remain on the campus.  Whether the productive discussions could have occurred had George been given an opportunity to meet with the full Board, we do not know.  However, any opportunities for those discussions to take place were lost. 

Discussion of the CEO Salary Increase

Another issue that the Resolution Committee had requested that I examine was the circumstances surrounding the CEO's salary increase.  The issues surrounding the CEO's salary increase are well documented and since the controversy came to a head in early 2007, many of the documents and statements relating to the issue have been made public. 
One of the initial questions that I was asked to examine was whether Stuart Jenkins had asked for or in any way sought a salary increase.  I could not find any documentation that he had sought the increase.  There had been allegations that Stuart had made comments that he needed to make "real money."  Unfortunately this remains an open question inasmuch as there is equal information on both sides of the issue and I was not able to find objective collateral or documentary evidence to support a conclusion one way or the other.  As noted below, how the Board of Trustees and the CEO managed the salary issue, however, both with respect to its process and the disclosure was not good.  In my view, the result of the incident was that the Board and the CEO suffered eroded trust and credibility within the Principia community. 

The Process

At its regular spring meeting in April 2006, the Board of Trustees considered a motion submitted by one of the Trustees to provide the CEO with a salary increase of "up to $100,000.00."  The exact amount of the salary increase was to be determined by the Committee on Trusteeship, a committee of the Board.  The increase was to be effective on July 1, 2006.  The motion was adopted unanimously. 

On April 29, 2006, the Committee on Trusteeship sent a memorandum to the Board of Trustees that said, "In accordance with the board resolution adopted on April 22, 2006, the committee on trusteeship has implemented an adjustment to the Chairman/CEO salary to $250,000.00 effective July 1, 2006.  This adjustment is in line with the benchmark figure of the CUPA Private Religious sector for a single campus institution with an annual budget of $62 million or greater as adjusted for our dual campus situation."  The memorandum also said, "This information is confidential until it is published in the Chronicle of Higher Education about 18 months from now." 

Shortly after the increase was approved, the Committee on Trusteeship received inquiries regarding the process for determining the amount of the raise, and whether the raise was adequately supported by performance evaluation data.   

Later, in August 2006, several concerns about the raise and the process for determining the raise were brought to the attention of the Trustees.  Concerns included “the affect on employees who feel they have made major financial sacrifices to serve the Cause of Christian Science,” and questioning whether the confidentiality provision in the April 29 memorandum was legally enforceable.  The concerns also revolved around ethical issues.  One respondent reported having a personal conversation with Stuart to discuss the implications of the raise and its potential impact on the Principia community.  The respondent, in the conversation with Stuart, relied on an excerpt from the book Our Underachieving Colleges, which states, "The University reveals its own ethical standards in many ways, including its decency and fairness in dealing with students and employees and its sensitivity in relating to the community in which it resides.  Talk is cheap and undergraduates will be most impressed when they observe university officials making sacrifices for what they believe… in addition to making sure that their practices are ethically defensible, campus officials can take care to explain the reasons for their actions.  By doing so… they increase their moral authority and set a valuable example of moral seriousness for their students."  At least one Trustee requested that the issue of Stuart's salary increase be placed on the Trustees' meeting agenda in November of 2006.  (Because of issues involving George, the issue was not addressed at the Trustees' meeting). 

By the end of November, rumors of the increase were circulating in the community.  One respondent I spoke with said in an email, "As you know [the raise] is something that I privately protested because I did not feel [the Trustees] had a position that was sufficiently morally defensible.  For example, we have yet to see the comparables that justify the increase and based on the CHE comparables [Stuart’s] is at the very high end of average.”  The respondent said, “I'm comfortable with [the] salary because of your huge responsibilities with the college now but I'm not comfortable with how the original decision was made…." 

Later, in December, a member of the college faculty warned Stuart that rumors about the salary increase were circulating.  The faculty member sought guidance from Stuart about how to respond to the rumor.  Stuart provided an email he had prepared which said in part, "Principia gauges all its staff, administrator, and college faculty salaries to the same outside benchmark.  …This new salary is at the median of the benchmark pay for this group." 

On December 31, 2006, a Trustee submitted a letter of resignation to the Board of Trustees, citing issues involving the salary increase.  In the letter, the Trustee cited the process of calculating the increase, the impact the increase would have on the Principia community, and the fact that the Trustees authorized a salary increase of another Principia executive, despite being warned of potential negative reaction to Stuart’s increase.¹⁸

The Board of Trustees issued an apology on February 5, 2007 in a memorandum to the Principia community.  The memorandum stated in part "In adjusting the CEO salary to a new benchmark, we used a flawed process.  We should have given the CEO a raise only after the salaries of all faculty and staff had been re-benchmarked and adjusted…  We should have taken into account the impact it would have on the Principia community… ." 

The process in which the salary increase was calculated was acknowledged as “flawed” by the Board of Trustees.  The process raised concerns among those in the community about credibility of the Trustees and the CEO, and whether the Trustees were out of touch with the community.  However, my interviews reflect that the reason for the community’s strong reaction to the increase went beyond the process.  Several respondents reported that the more important issue was the context in which the increase was given and accepted by the CEO, and the impact on the integrity of the CEO and the Board.

Since approximately 2001, the faculty and staff on both of the campuses had been operating under the "Trim to Grow" budget program which was intended to control expenditures and ultimately control the amount drawn on the endowment each year.  Those within the community expressed concern in interviews that programs were cut and faculty/staff support services (such as the Childcare Center) were closed because of budget constraints.¹⁹   Although the term “Trim to Grow” was officially eliminated, the pressure to control expenses remained.  Many of interview respondents thought that a 47 percent increase for the CEO in light of Trim to Grow was not appropriate. 

Moreover, traditionally, salary increases on the campuses averaged three percent per year, according to all of the respondents with whom I spoke.  An extraordinary increase might range from five percent to nine percent.  Even in those circumstances, such a large increase was usually spread over two to three years.  Many respondents reported they did not work at Principia for the money and many left more lucrative positions to come to Principia.  Respondents reported that they are willing to work for less money and be satisfied with a three percent increase because of the service and work that they are providing to the students at Principia.  Many respondents were disappointed with the CEO and the Trustees.  They see the position of CEO as an inspirational leader who should model the decisions and behavior expected throughout the community.  Several respondents view the salary increase as a failure on the part of the CEO and the Trustees to serve as inspirational leaders.²⁰

Other Management Issues

In addition to the two core issues involving the departure of the College President and the CEO’s salary, the Resolution Committee asked that I assess general issues of the performance of the CEO.  The discussion of this topic is based on the interviews primarily, as well as some observations that I have made based on the interviews.  The discussion is not intended to be a detailed performance appraisal, but is designed to give the Resolution Committee some feedback on the impressions that those in the community have of Stuart’s impact on the Principia organization. 

Some general themes pertaining to management issues emerged early in the process and continued throughout:  Stuart’s handling of personnel issues, concerns about micromanagement, and Stuart’s general conduct and demeanor.  Issues of Stuart’s integrity have also been raised.  Most of those interviewed, however, including many who do not consider themselves “supporters” of Stuart, did not believe that Stuart had done anything that had raised issues of integrity or honesty.²¹  Most, in fact, told me that they believe that Stuart has Principia’s best interests at heart.  I found no clear evidence to disagree with those who believe that Stuart has acted with integrity.

Personnel Issues

I had been asked by members of the Resolution Committee to review personnel actions that had occurred since 2003, and to look at six actions specifically.  I have done so to the extent necessary to draw out patterns that pertain to the organizational assessment and Stuart’s management style.  I have not reviewed each situation to determine whether a firing or resignation was justified, or whether there was some legal violation involved in the action, such as discrimination.

When Stuart first assumed the position of CEO, he solicited input from various stakeholders about ways of improving Principia.  One reoccurring issue that was raised was the need for accountability within the organization, and the need to place the most qualified people available in positions in the institution, as mandated by policy 17. 

Stuart initially focused on personnel issues on the St. Louis campus.  He later turned his focus on the college campus.  I reviewed selected personnel situations on both campuses.  In all of the cases I reviewed, Stuart was involved, directly or indirectly, in the personnel action, although the authority to terminate the employee would have been left to the Head of School or the College President.  In each of the cases, Stuart had identified people who he perceived to be weak performers and had addressed the issues with the head of the campus.  In some cases, the head of campus disagreed with Stuart’s assessment of the employee, or for other reasons was not willing to take action against the employee.  Stuart, then, took a more active role in moving the head of campus to terminate the employee.  Sometimes personnel changes occurred against the wishes of the head of campus.

On one hand, Stuart’s actions can be seen as much-needed, active leadership that had been lacking on the Principia campuses.  While both of the campuses were headed by two extraordinary leaders (Bob Clark in St. Louis and George Moffett in Elsah), neither campus head was a skilled manager.  Stuart saw a need for action and did not see the heads of campus taking the necessary action, so he stepped in. 

On the other hand, Stuart’s involvement in such cases created some difficulties.  First, it undermined the position of the head of the campus, and created ambiguity between the role of CEO and the head of campus.  In addition, by taking such an active role in the terminations and resignations, it created the perception that Stuart had an agenda to remove certain people from the organization in order to replace them with people of his own choosing.  Third, the actions created an atmosphere of fear because the actions seemed random and unjustified.  Employees saw the CEO closely involved in the termination or resignation of some very respected employees.  In a culture in which such terminations had rarely occurred, the terminations and resignations were destabilizing and in many cases, created distrust in the CEO.  One not only had to please one’s own direct supervisor, but also had to please the CEO, with whom one may not have direct contact.  There were allegations that Stuart had instigated the changes without justification, without notice, without “due process,” and in direct conflict with the wishes and opinions of the head of the campus (the Head of School or the College President.)   Stuart was seen as micromanaging personnel decisions that should have been left to the respective leaders of the campuses.

Complicating Stuart’s involvement in the termination of employees was a lack of performance evaluations for those who were terminated or reassigned.  In those cases that I reviewed, there had been no periodic performance appraisals, and the employees expressed concern that the reasons for their termination or reassignment were unclear.  The employees told me they received no information, or received inconsistent information, about the reason for the personnel action.  The documents in the cases I reviewed sometimes reflected clear reasons for the termination, reassignment, or resignation.  In other cases, the reasons for the termination were more vague.  While in some cases, there were discussions about performance prior to termination (sometimes over a period of months), in none of the cases were there standards or expectations for performance or a history of formal evaluations by which to measure the employee’s performance.  Had there been a consistent procedure for employee evaluations in place, employees would have been fully informed of weaknesses in their performance.  The employees would have been requested to acknowledge in writing the discussion about the performance and need for improvement.  There would also be a discussion about a plan for improvement, with measurable benchmarks, and a timeline for improvement.²²

Questions also arose regarding the process of replacing employees who resigned or were terminated.  Interviewees raised questions about the CEO’s involvement in the process and whether the results of some search processes were pre-determined.  On at least one occasion, Stuart was a member of a search committee to fill a position.  Concerns were raised that the CEO’s involvement in the search process was a signal that the CEO had a particular candidate in mind to fill a position and was involved in the search process to see that the candidate got the job.  In at least one other situation, a search committee’s first choice of a candidate to fill a position was overruled without explanation to the search committee.  Members of the search committee, then, are left to speculate about whether the CEO was involved in the process and wanted a particular candidate to fill a job.  Moreover, having regular employee evaluations in place, and transparent and consistent hiring practices helps to measure whether personnel actions are based on Principle rather than person, in accord with policy 17.

It is clear that Stuart crossed a line in overstepping the authority of the heads of the campuses in personnel issues.  By doing so, he undermined the authority of the heads of the campuses, and to some extent, undermined his own credibility in the eyes of members of the community. 

On a related issue, policy 17 requires that “every post shall be filled with the most effective individual available.”  Further, the policy is to be “administered with wisdom and sympathetic understanding.”  Clearly, however, results of the person holding the post are key.  While the policy is to be “administered with wisdom and sympathetic understanding,” the policy also says, “ .  .  . [B]ut it shall be the duty of each department head to continue in service as members of his department only those persons who are prepared to secure better results than any others readily available for the particular posts.”  

The personnel actions I reviewed involved some difficult and challenging actions.  In some of the cases, Stuart was clearly involved.  In others, it is less clear.  The cases involved well-respected members of the Principia community, some of whom had been employed for many years.  All of the cases involved emotional issues that evoked strong reaction from the community.  Given the close ties in the community, all of the actions had a particularly strong impact. 

From an organizational perspective, a lack of clear standards, guidelines, and processes for performance evaluation leave open questions as to whether those who were terminated or reassigned were treated fairly and with “sympathetic understanding.”  Since the actions that I reviewed took place, Principia has implemented “Benevolence Guidelines” to assist those who have been terminated or whose jobs have been eliminated.

General Conduct and Demeanor

As noted above, the culture at Principia has been one of stability, with very deep, close interconnections among those in the community.  In the early 1990’s, Principia began a slow movement toward a more business-like environment.  When Stuart Jenkins assumed the position of CEO in 2003, the slow movement to a more business-like culture accelerated rapidly.  Stuart’s background is that of an entrepreneur who is used to making quick decisions in an environment in which he is working with other business people.  Before coming to Principia, he had no experience managing a large organization, particularly an academic organization.  Many in the Principia community questioned his credentials to manage the institution.

In my interviews, rarely did anyone express concern about what Stuart Jenkins has done for the Principia community.  Many have applauded his ability to raise money and make very difficult, unpopular decisions that, many agree, needed to be made.    Respondents, whether supporters of Stuart or not, gave Stuart high praise for his business sense.²³   Along with his quick action (“He’s a think it, do it kind of guy,” said one interviewee) Stuart can be very charming and is a very inspirational speaker. 

While respondents in interviews seemed less concerned about what Stuart has done, they did express concern about how he has done things.  Virtually all of the respondents report that Stuart has a “brash”, “aggressive” style and several said that he often failed to listen, would interrupt people, and got angry.²⁴  He can be an intimidating figure.  As many expressed in interviews, his style fits in a corporate setting.  Many have expressed concern that his style is not appropriate in an academic setting, where there is an expectation for more collaborative, democratic decision-making.  Some have described him as a “fish out of water.” 

Respondents often mentioned Stuart’s references to “getting the right people on the bus” and “getting the wrong people off the bus,” expressions taken from a book describing characteristics of companies that have transformed themselves from good companies to great ones.²⁵  Unfortunately, none of the organizations discussed in the book are academic institutions.  The author acknowledges that in organizations in which changes occur slowly, such as academic institutions, getting the “wrong people off the bus” takes a long time.²⁶  Such organizations cannot be treated the same way as commercial enterprises.

In his first 12-18 months as CEO, Stuart made few changes.  He took the time to gather information about the institution and its needs.  Many of the comments he heard were demands for greater accountability among the faculty and administration, especially on the St. Louis campus.  Listening and “managing by walking around” were appropriate.  After his first year in office, however, he began to make personnel changes that many deemed were necessary from a management viewpoint, but impacted some of the most respected and inspirational leaders in the community.   The moves were a shock to the previously-stable culture of the institution. 

Change in an organization with an established culture, especially one as deeply-rooted and unique as Principia’s requires caution.  In formulating change strategy in such an organization, one must:  1) Perceive accurately and in depth what is happening in the environment; 2) create enough disconfirming information to motivate the organization to change without creating too much anxiety; 3) provide psychological safety by either providing a vision of how to change and in what direction or by creating a process of visioning that allows the organization itself to find a path;  4) acknowledge uncertainty; 5) embrace errors in the learning process as  inevitable and desirable; and 6) manage all phases of the change process, including especially the management of anxiety as some cultural assumptions are given up and new learning begins.²⁷ 

While there was a need for change at Principia when Stuart became CEO, the rapid changes in an environment that used to be very stable caused a high level of discomfort and anxiety.  In any organization, change must occur over time and must be “psychologically supported” so that the people in the organization can absorb the change and adjust to it.  In this case, relatively rapid changes, especially in the personnel ranks where several very highly respected members of the community were let go or resigned, were destabilizing, both on an individual level and on an organizational level.  Such changes were particularly traumatic in an organization as closely connected as the Principia community.  Moreover, without a shared vision or plan in place, the changes seemed random and arbitrary, creating fear and distrust.

Add to the dramatic changes that have occurred in the last few years, Principia’s culture of secrecy and confidentiality, lack of direct communication, and lack of vision and planning, it is of little wonder that there is fear and distrust in the community. Stuart has tried to “break” the culture of “dysfunctional politeness” with direct, sometimes aggressive, communication and action.  The issue is whether he has failed to provide the vision and “psychological support” needed to move the community through the rapid cultural changes.

Conclusion

The Principia community is clearly divided as evidenced by my interviews and the discussions of the Resolution Committee.  The impact of the current conflict has been felt by students, faculty, administrators, staff, alumni, donors, and (potentially) future students and their families.  The Resolution Committee has recognized the need for some assessment of the situation in order to help bring resolution to the community.   It is tempting to narrowly focus on one or two causes of the conflict and hope that the matter will resolve.  As discussed in this report, however, the organization has many needs that should be addressed through a movement toward a governance structure that promotes openness and transparency, inclusive strategic planning involving broad segments of the organization, and clear communication of policies, procedures, and standards that are in line with Principia’s purpose and policies, and which are consistently and transparently applied. 

                                                                        Respectfully submitted,

                                                                        James W. Reeves