Try UMS consensus building

Last spring, Chancellor Joseph Westphal, Vice Chancellor Elsa Nunez and three members of the University of Maine System Board of Trustees visited the University of Maine at Machias, where they experienced passionate feedback about their draft strategic plan. The barrage included prepared statements, outbursts of frustration and vexation, and even an act of protest in the form of a slogan written in toothpaste on a board member’s car: “There is no ‘N’ in ‘UMM'” (a reference to the draft plan’s recommendation that UMM be merged with UM Fort Kent and UM Presque Isle to form a University of Northern Maine, or “UNM”).

Why did this happen? Clearly, part of the answer lies in the content (or lack of content) of the draft plan, which presents a sketch for a radical restructuring of the UMS without adequate supporting evidence or an implementation plan. An equally important part of the answer lies in the process through which UMS officials have been developing their plan. Their approach has left many UMS stakeholders (administrators, faculty, staff, students and community members) feeling disenfranchised, marginalized, and mistrustful because their input has been minimal, yet they would bear the brunt of all of the plan’s proposed changes.

Ironically, while UMS officials and their consultants were engaged in their planning process, the University of Maine at Machias was involved in one of its own. With the help of three international conflict resolution experts from Harvard University and the Cambridge-based Consensus Building Institute (and with funding from the Libra Foundation), a diverse array of stakeholders from UMM and the Washington County community were engaged in the “Libra Dialogues,” a collaborative effort to address economic and cultural challenges and promote a sustainable future for Washington County.

Among the many insights that came from the Libra Dialogues, two principles are especially relevant. Donna Hicks, deputy director of the Program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Harvard’s Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, introduced the human dignity principle. Hicks argues that functional human relationships of all kinds, including stakeholder relationships, need to be based in dignity. Further, she claims that there are eight human needs that must be fulfilled for dignity to be honored in a relationship: (1) identity; (2) recognition; (3) inclusion; (4) security; (5) autonomy; (6) to be understood; (7) to be responded to; and (8) to be treated fairly.

The UMS strategic planning pro-cess has violated all eight of Hicks’ dignity needs. First, very little effort has been devoted to understanding and acknowledging the unique identities of the system’s universities. For example, UMM’s vibrant environmental, place-based educational mission goes unmentioned in the UMS needs assessment.

Likewise, the planning process has fostered a sense of insecurity (on the chopping block are unnamed academic programs and jobs in jobs-poor rural communities); threatened autonomy (the “UNM” concept eliminates the rural university presidents, whose roles in their communities and in program development are central); misunderstood stakeholder perspectives (the needs assessment included just one visit to each university, resulting in a flawed final report); made stakeholders feel invisible (requests for specific supporting evidence incur dismissive replies); and treated stakeholders unfairly (no proposed cost saving measures are directed at the System Office’s substantial budget).

According to Hicks, a violation of any of these dignity needs causes a person to experience feelings of shame or humiliation. These emotions induce angry, defensive reactions. A tube of toothpaste comes to mind.

David Fairman, managing director of International Dispute Resolution at the Consensus Building Institute in Cambridge, Mass., demonstrated the second principle, the power of consensus. Consensus-building is a method with a proven track record in resolving thorny conflicts and developing sound policy for complex systems, from IBM to USAID. It seeks to

represent all stakeholders, develop mutual understandings, satisfy everyone’s primary interests, and achieve creative and superior solutions.

One of the reasons some decision-makers opt out of consensus building is because of BATNA, or the “Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement.” In other words, when one stakeholder holds enough power to implement their plan, they don’t need to negotiate with anyone. It’s like playing poker. If you’ve got a royal flush, you don’t have to care much about what the other players have. You own the game.

However, unlike poker, consensus building requires players to show most, if not all of their cards to the other players. This transparency makes it possible for everyone to feel safe, trust one another, and create a mutually satisfying solution.

Interestingly, Board Vice Chairman Wickham Skinner has dismissed the consensus-building option, saying “That model works in some situations, but not in all” (BDN, May 25).

For those with enough BATNA to go it alone, this may be true. However, as with a poker hand, your BATNA can change.

In addition to violated dignity, there are other BATNA-morphing casualties of the UMS strategic planning process. Poor comprehension of Maine’s universities – their missions, strengths, and promise – has led to the UNM faux pas: the proposal to merge three culturally and geographically disparate rural universities (two northern and inland; the other eastern and coastal) into one awkward and amorphous administrative entity.

Another casualty is public support for the plan. Petitions rife with signatures have been submitted, statements of opposition voiced, op-ed pieces published, and letters sent from concerned citizens (most recently a large contingent of Washington County residents) to the Board of Trustees, Chancellor Westphal, and Gov. Baldacci. State legislators are preparing to introduce legislation to rein in the plan.

The UMS draft strategic plan derives from a top-down, opaque, low-participation process that has resulted in unintended or underestimated negative consequences. In short, it’s an excellent model for everything you shouldn’t do when developing a plan. Nevertheless, it’s not too late to redeem the process. Now is the time for the UMS strategic planners to reconsider a consensus-building approach. To do so, they must come to a new, much broader table.

Are they willing to make that choice? Ask their BATNA.

Michael Kimball is an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Maine at Machias and joint coordinator for the Libra Dialogues.