Misdirected Goals or why Wendler is failing

Dave can't get it, so I'm going to get into why Wendler is doomed to failure because of the choices he made and because he refuses to change when is initial assumptions don't work. I have included Dave's comments from a previous post in the title link.

Dave asks, if Wendler works very hard and is smart and is a good guy, why do I think he is failing. The easy answer is to just look at the results and you can see for yourself. Dave also quoted a long time SIUC employee that the University is going the wrong way, but I like Wendler anyway (or something like that). Maybe asking that person who is responsible for things going the wrong way or the student decline tells you more, it is the management isn't it? That is why they earn the big bucks.

In my reply to his comment from below I would like to talk about the owner of a hard working hamster who would like the hamster to run to the other side of the room. If the owner puts the hamster in an exercise wheel, that hardworking hamster is likely to spin the wheel until they are near dead. Where they could have run from here to Springfield they will have moved nowhere. You could argue that a lazy hamster might jump off the wheel and find there way to the other side of the room first because they don't waste their time doing worthless wheel work. This is the story of bad management and poor decision making. It doesn't matter how hard you attack the busy work, the question is can you pull back and do the important and not urgent work (go down to the editorial reviews to see the overview, good book). Last time I checked, results counted and effort from the top guy really doesn't.

If you look historically at large building projects at universities it is reasonable to conclude that they get built because of results. It is fairly easy to see that the best programs at SIUC are in bad buildings (certainly hope the planners for the SIUC building boom have read this one) that they can mold to their purposes without interference. But, the state is moving toward a free building for the two best programs at SIU that have the most need. I'm wondering if the new buildings will hurt auto and aviation tech and if the bad buildings are a core part of their organization DNA. Americans love the underdog and the students in bad buildings sure feel like their are fighting "the man".

It is interesting to note the buildings that have been added at SIUC since I was a kid - the law school, the other half of the engineering building, new life science building and that is all I think (don't get into it with me about Trout-Whittman that is a one time lottery win). The law school and engineering building were built by the state because other states were pouring money into those areas and Illinois decided to create more law schools and support engineering as an economic development item.

It is clear that Wendler had a goal when he took the job at SIUC, it was to build buildings. I think this is the problem with his time at SIUC. It could be that if he had arrived on campus 10 years before he could build all the buildings he is dreaming of. There aren't funds at the state level for large capital project because all the states partied on Y2K and dot.com stock winnings and never thought they would end. In Illinois we are doing worse than most states for a number of reasons and are still feeling the hangover from George Ryan's pork barrel handouts. The other problem is that SIU doesn't need more buildings, the enrollment on campus is down 5000 or so students from the highs, and there is plenty of square footage for everything that needs to be done.

If there is enough square footage on campus, why is Wendler pushing this big building boom? Wouldn't it be much cheaper to update the current buildings with wireless internet, big fancy touch internet screens for the teachers, new chairs, lights and coats of paint instead? People smarter than I suggest that you don't get your name on the big brass plaques if you just fix the old buildings. But heck, Wendler is an architect and what they do is design buildings and leave the mess for other people to clean up. You can't blame him for what he is, just that he is failing.

I hope that the next leader of SIUC does a study of the Morris years and learns from that success. All organizations are about the people, the nice buildings are a result of the organization's success. I know of no examples where a nice building made a successful organization. I do know where bad buildings with private offices that have helped made some technology companies great, but that is about the private offices.

As far as Dave's suggestion that SIUC hire me as a consultant, I'm not for hire and they can get most of it for free if they choose. I'm on a number of advisory boards and participating at SIUC at a level that most business people do not. I'll get more into SIUC's broken management later.

Any questions I ask here about SIUC's performance, I ask harder questions about my own actions all the time. It takes real work to look at what you are doing and question it, but once you know that you will fail if you don't change it becomes easier. Watch my little company BoundlessGallery.com I think I finally understand the questions to ask after a couple of long years of struggle.

I hope that each of you ask themselves hard questions too, it is good for the soul.