Assoc. Dean Greene: I just got stopped in the hallway by the president. She wants this year’s faculty/staff retreat to focus on improved governance and HR policies, including the new staff evaluation process.
Dean Blacke: Heaven help us. Does she want them to actually make some decisions or recommendations? That could be a disaster.
Assoc. Dean Greene: Worse than that. She wants us to just “instruct” them so they can think more “institutionally.” Can I quit now?
Dean Blacke: Only after I do.
This is an exaggeration, but we recently faced a challenge along these lines to help our campus think more institutionally. We contemplated a simple review of policies and governance structures, but realized we wouldn’t keep the audience for more than an hour, let alone all day. To avoid this level of tedium, we decided to construct some case studies for discussion in small groups. This started to have some potential, but the ideas we considered seemed so close to real events in recent memory, and the threat of grouchy Monday-morning quarterbacking seemed inevitable. What to do!? We wanted folks to understand that the interplay of governance structures and actual decision making under pressure is complex. If only they had the chance to actually live through a crisis situation.
So, that is what we did—we invented a simulation game for the large group to play. We recognized that electronic communication (e-mail and social media) has become the accelerator of crisis on many campuses, so we chose to structure the game around live e-mail. We divided the group of over a hundred participants into about ten teams, each playing the role of a single individual. And then a game controller, along with another small team, launched a few precipitating events, and the game took off as a chain reaction—with remarkably realistic levels of anxiety and error—and coupled with a generous amount of hilarity.
Teams retreated to assigned classrooms. Each team had a leader armed with a laptop and a team email address, and leaders put incoming and outgoing e-mails on a large screen for all to see. Each team was provided with a “secret” role sheet, containing a little background on their character—what role, what interests drove the individual, a little bit of personality. Additionally, everyone had a roster of other teams, including their email addresses and a sentence or two about each one. Everyone was interested in the welfare of the traditional, residential liberal-arts-oriented Happy Valley College (HVC); there were no “bad actors” or actively deceitful characters. Collectively, each team decided if, and how, to respond to the flow of information—what should be said and to whom. Characters ranged from the President down to a relatively new Assistant Professor, and included key administrators such as the VP for Enrollment and faculty leaders, such as the chair of the faculty senate.
The initial bombshell was launched by the chair of the board of trustees. Following attendance at a national conference, the premise goes, several key members of the board were convinced that online instruction was the future of higher education, despite the differences in academic culture and orientation between the small residential liberal arts HVC and the giant programs highlighted, such as at Arizona State. The board was persuaded that it was essential and achievable for HVC, over the next five years, to make at least half of their majors completely available online, and the chair (played by the game controller, with advice from that group) sent a directive to the president to make it happen. A few other “initial conditions” helped the action get started. At the same time, a team representing a board member and major donor, following the guidance on the role sheet, reached out directly to the dean (CAO) with a more direct suggestion of how to kick the project off. On top of this, a junior faculty member, also instructed by her role sheet, asked the dean about support for developing a blended learning pilot project. From this point on, the game proceeded purely via e-mail: each team communicated directly with whichever other teams it chose to. The game controller was carbon-copied on every e-mail sent.
As the creators of this simulation game, we really had no idea if we had planted enough seeds for the game to take off. Would most everyone sit idle while only a couple characters interacted? Or would HVC just blithely decide to go online without any controversy? Our fears proved unfounded—groups experienced most of the features of a campus stir, and from multiple perspectives. The game setup provided for some shared information as a starting point, but the secret role sheets ensured that each team had information to work with that other teams didn’t know about. Thus, communication was incomplete. People who should have heard about something were told too late, or from the wrong direction. Rumors spread to the extent that few people were sure of what was really afoot, or who had caused the commotion. The dean and president in particular were so busy dealing with e-mails flying at them that they had no time to think strategically; in fact, carefully crafted e-mails were made irrelevant as the campus discussion outpaced them. Non-tenured faculty were brought up short by senior faculty for going over their heads, and decided in response to lay low. And as the game drew to a close, the dean resigned.
As important as the successful achievement of the desired chain reaction, we found that the individual rooms went from skepticism to deep engagement. Folks who initially sat back with their arms crossed gradually moved to the edge of their chairs and were shouting out their suggestions. The groups were constituted randomly, with the stipulation that each group must contain both faculty and staff, and most contained a mix of ranks, genders, and divisions. With only a few exceptions, the group members were representing characters on campus with whom they rarely interacted directly. For example, our writing center director was the team leader for the president character, and an English professor led the team for the VP for Enrollment. For a two-hour simulation, there was remarkable bonding within the groups, in addition to development of sympathy for the roles of their characters in the game and in real life. Periodically the game controller injected new, unpredictable events into the story via e-mail announcements—for example, the publication of a controversial piece in the student newspaper.
After the simulation, the full retreat group came together to unpack what happened, and describe their own perspectives. Only those in the game controller’s group were able to describe the full plot, as only they saw all of the e-mails. Certainly, our goal of fostering better institutional sensibilities was remarkably well fulfilled. (One humanities professor, who had been on the team playing the CIO, stood up at the end and said, with great emotion, “The IT department absolutely had to have a budget increase, and nobody seemed to care!”) Staff, even those in support roles on campus, felt free to express themselves in their groups.
Elements of the Simulation
To set up the game, we created a packet of documents. As noted above, a one-page instruction sheet and a basic overview of the characters (the “roster”) went to each team. Every team, in addition, received a sheet with additional, private information specific to the character they were playing (“role sheets”). Finally, the operator, as well as having access to all the characters’ role sheets and being copied on every email sent, also had a list of events that could be triggered on a discretionary basis (“game-time events”). Examples of each are included below.
The Roster (seen by all players):
President Gray: President of HVC since 2013. Generally known by faculty and staff as an effective fundraiser and a strong leader.
Dean Black: chief academic officer of HVC since 2014; responsible for the academic program of the institution. When appropriate, acts as key liaison between senior administration and faculty. Member of president’s cabinet.
Ms. Ochre (VP, Enrollment): primary goal is to increase the size of the incoming class. Coordinates marketing and branding efforts. Works closely with college communications. Member of president’s cabinet.
Mr. Green (VP, Advancement): primary goal is to secure funding from outside sources. Member of president’s cabinet.
Dr. Umber (Prof. of English, head of faculty senate): one of the more senior members of the faculty (at HVC since 1990). Consistently active in faculty governance; well-known to be slightly suspicious of the actions of trustees and senior administrators. Background is in eighteenth-century literature.
Mr. Rose (Dir. of Instructional Technology): primary responsibility is maintaining, operating, and developing the college’s instructional technology infrastructure, especially its online Learning Management System software (LMS).
Dr. White (Assoc. Prof. and Chair, Physics): new department chair. Background is in astronomy.
Dr. Crimson (Prof. and Chair, Chemistry): long-time department chair. Background is in spectroscopy.
Dr. Violet (Prof. and Chair, Business): long-time chair. Background is in monetary economics and game theory. Often acts as an informal mentor to younger faculty.
Dr. Teal (Asst. Prof. of Physics): young and relatively new faculty member. Many colleagues think of her as a “superstar”; very popular with students. Background is in materials science. Eager to build up HVC’s pre-engineering program and to make it more inclusive and welcoming to women and minorities, facilitated by creative use of instructional technology. Widely supported by other junior faculty, both inside and outside her department.
Mr. Brown (trustee, alumnus, and major donor; optional, only if there are enough people): heads an extremely successful international engineering firm. Recently, has been interested in more direct, hands-on involvement in college operations.
Examples of Role Sheets (only seen by the respective teams):
Dean Black
What everyone else knows about you:
Chief academic officer of HVC since 2014; responsible for the academic program of the institution. When appropriate, acts as key liaison between senior administration and faculty. Member of president’s cabinet.
What everybody else doesn’t know:
You have a strong relationship with Pres. Gray, and you partner well with her on key decisions. You communicate with her frequently. As a member of the president’s cabinet, you must publicly support Pres. Gray and her decisions, though you may disagree in private.
Your key goals:
- Uphold the college’s liberal arts identity. (You decide what this means to you.)
- Protect the integrity of the academic program.
- Support faculty morale and professional development.
- Keep the support of department chairs and faculty leaders, esp. by “keeping them in the loop” on key issues.
Mr. Green (VP, Advancement)
What everyone else knows about you:
Primary goal is to secure funding from outside sources. Member of president’s cabinet.
What everybody else doesn’t know:
You and your staff are actively cultivating Mr. Brown as a prospect. You are strongly in favor of investments that will create tangible growth and build revenue. You have advocated for hiring a consultant to explore new areas of expansion. As a member of the president’s cabinet, you must publicly support Pres. Gray and her decisions, though you may disagree in private.
Your first email:
You will contact President Gray, and copy the other cabinet members, Dean Black and Ms. Ochre (the VP for enrollment). You want to give them a heads-up that you and your staff are working with a potential major gift from the trustee Mr. Brown. Since Mr. Brown is very interested in what’s going on at the college now, the president, dean, and VPs may be hearing from him. You hope the president, dean, and VPs will be supportive of your efforts to work closely with Mr. Brown going forward.
Your key goals:
- Secure a major gift from Mr. Brown.
- Protect the reputation of the college among alumni and the general public.
Dr. Umber (Prof. of English, head of faculty senate)
What everyone else knows about you:
One of the more senior members of the faculty (at HVC since 1990). Consistently active in faculty governance; well-known to be slightly suspicious of the actions of trustees and senior administrators. Active scholar. Background is in eighteenth-century literature.
What everybody else doesn’t know:
You are a proponent of a strong faculty presence in college governance, and you are somewhat frustrated at the lack of engagement by some of your colleagues, especially department chairs. You want to encourage junior faculty to take a more active role in governance.
Your key goals:
- Protect the liberal-arts identity of the college against anything that might detract from it. (You decide what this means to you.)
- Persuade Dr. Teal to take a more active role in college affairs.
- Preserve full faculty control over the curriculum, and prevent any non-faculty players from influencing it.
Dr. Teal (Asst. Prof. of Physics)
What everyone else knows about you:
Young and relatively new faculty member. Many colleagues think of her as a “superstar”; very popular with students. Background is in materials science. Eager to build up HVC’s pre-engineering program and to make it more inclusive and welcoming to women and minorities, facilitated by creative use of instructional technology. Widely liked and supported by other junior faculty, both inside and outside her department.
What everybody else doesn’t know:
You have a strong mentoring relationship with Dr. Violet, who you will want to talk to before you make any big decisions or get involved in any major new projects. You are experimenting with “flipped classroom” strategies.
Your key goals:
- Grow the physics program.
- Network with other faculty and administrators.
Examples of Game-time Events (only seen by the game operator, introduced at operator’s discretion):
Stock market crash. Mr. Brown’s potential donation is no longer in play, and enrollment projections are now uncertain (but probably worse).
HVC loses a key faculty member. Dr. Teal is hired by an R-1 institution’s Industrial Engineering program.
Favorable/unfavorable enrollment news. HVC enrolls an unexpectedly large OR unexpectedly small incoming class.
Public opinion shift toward/against residential liberal arts. The Wall Street Journal publishes an article on “Trends in Higher Education,” which the trustees and senior administrators immediately read and share. The article claims that the value of online higher education has been way overblown and that the traditional liberal arts actually offer a much greater payoff for students in the long term. One source praises one of HVC’s direct competitors by name for maintaining their traditional, residential liberal arts focus in the face of pressure to become more “innovative.” OR: The Wall Street Journal publishes an article on “Trends in Higher Education,” which the trustees and senior administrators immediately read and share. The article claims that higher ed is ready for “a major disruption,” and that only way liberal arts institutions can survive in the twenty-first century is to pivot to “innovative delivery mechanisms,” such as online courses. The author points to declining enrollments at liberal-arts institutions as evidence.
Conclusion
The game was a hot topic of conversation on campus for the week or two following the event. People also offered suggestions for ways to improve the simulation that we will work on for future incarnations. For example: How can one-on-one conversations be interspersed? How do we include a clock for simulation of time passing?
Aside from forming a useful model for retreats, we’re looking for ways to capitalize on the event. With a complete log of the conversations, can we use these to help identify missteps and missed opportunities? What can leaders glean from these transcripts to gain better insights into good communication? How can we use these transcripts, or further simulation games, to help train groups of leaders? Will a series of these games on varying topics that include everyone on campus to help tamp down careless rumor spreading, or rumor belief?
The question of whether these benefits will persist remains to be seen, but at the very least, the pleasure of the game has helped change the reputation of our annual retreat. We fully expect this success will significantly improve attendance at our next “required” all-campus retreat—and that is worth a lot in itself!