2 of 3

Unfortunately, there has been and will likely continue to be considerable debate around the document for at least a couple of reasons.

First, the planning process and the implementation plan were often perceived to be carried forward too fast and without the full "counting the costs" in terms of actual dollars as well as human resources. While one of the frustrations of any leader in higher education is the slow pace of change, at Baylor this seemed to be compounded by an impatience with the complex process the situation dictated. Ronald Heifetz, the author of Leadership Without Easy Answers and Leadership on the Line, recently said, "Part of the job of a leader is to hold people together as they go through the turbulence of change. It is emotional, relational work, not just cognitive. If it is done right, people come out stronger than before … and the faster one goes, the more human casualties one makes."

The second reason for debate was the perceived unwillingness, at times, for refinement and focusing of the vision to come through dialogue and debate. Parties sometimes felt as if implementation was unnecessarily "heavy handed." Somewhere between "change on the fast track" and "the full-court stall" appeared to be an inability to get to a plan for process that kept things moving ahead within a reasonable pace while still providing opportunity for substantive input. What leader does not know the challenge of finding that balance?

Divisions beyond vision
But it wasn't just planning and process that caused the problems at Baylor. While often well intended, the board of regents was frequently divided and could never seem to insure confidentiality in the sensitive and long-term task of caring for people and the institution. The faculty were divided and without a course for managing their own debate. The alumni were divided and often unclear how to make their voice known. The desire and pursuit of being competitive in Division I athletics presented its own set of complex questions still to be answered. And in the midst of all the turmoil, a team cheating scandal and the tragic death of a student-athlete only further complicated an already difficult ethos.

In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, David Nadler offered the definition of culture as "a system of informal, unwritten, yet powerful norms derived from the shared values that influence behavior." From the turmoil within the various constituency groups, the culture, which had long been believed to be one of Baylor's strengths, seemed to gradually unravel. Rather than being a place to which the campus could turn for strength, the conflictual culture became one of the greatest challenges to be overcome.

Anyone who knows Baylor in a more intimate way than 24-hour media cycles can ever allow also knows that there are good people on all sides of the conflict there. There are plenty of ways God has used Baylor in fruitful ways, as is evidenced, in part, by its many outstanding graduates. Though things seem pretty dark at the current time with leadership in question, a campus divided, and no way forward emerging, just such a time is when God works in special ways. What others intend for evil, God works for good, the Bible reminds us. That is as much true for individuals as it is for institutions. Baylor has been an example for Christian higher education in some ways they had planned and in many ways they hadn't. We would all do well to take notice and learn and, as Warren Bryan Martin once remarked, "Let those who must, despair; let all who will, begin again." May Baylor's tribe increase in wisdom as it learns to "begin again" with a vision for going forward that serves it and all of Christian higher learning well into the future.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

February (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49