A Question of Management
In the aftermath of a scandal that drew the attention of Congress, the NCAA, the governor, and the national press, suspended Colorado University football coach Gary Barnett has been reinstated.
Some people see this as vindication for the coach and the program. Many others are disturbed, perplexed, and/or outraged.
As for me, this incident brings to mind another (admittedly unrelated) case of organizational misbehavior.
Consider: Soldiers in Iraq abuse, humiliate, and even rape prisoners. Finger pointing begins, investigations arise, and soldiers go on trial. Meanwhile, a cry goes up for accountability. If public opinion is to be believed, everyone in the chain of command - up to and including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush - should be fired.
Meanwhile, Colorado football players arrange for potential recruits to have access to alcohol, strippers, sex, and drugs in an effort to entice them to join the Golden Buffalo football program. Allegations of rape surface, including one from a former player. Barnett promptly dismisses that player (and by implication, her accusation), saying she was a "terrible" player. He also says that he would "back up" another player accused of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, after several months of investigation, the president of the university announces that nobody is going to lose their jobs. She says that keeping Barnett and his staff at Colorado is "the right thing to do".
One of CU president Betsy Hoffman’s main defenses for the decision was that she "[did] not believe that coaches and administrators at this university knowingly used sex, alcohol and drugs as recruiting tools".
That may be true, and it may not. But even if it is true, the fact remains that when all is said and done, Barnett is responsible for the presence of every one of the involved personnel at the University of Colorado. Every player, every recruit, and every staff member who was supposed to have been a chaperone was brought to Boulder by Barnett and ultimately reports to Barnett.
On the other hand, how many of the soldiers now accused in Iraq were brought into the Army personally by Rumsfeld or Bush? How many have even met Rumsfeld or Bush, or have even seen them in person? Do they report to either of these men? How then can Bush and Rumsfeld be held responsible for their actions?
As I stated above, I know that these are two completely different situations. But a similar principle is involved in both cases, and there is one question in common:
When members of an organization misbehave, how high up the managerial ladder does (or should) the accountability go?
I don't know. But I do know that I won't be watching CU football next season.
Some people see this as vindication for the coach and the program. Many others are disturbed, perplexed, and/or outraged.
As for me, this incident brings to mind another (admittedly unrelated) case of organizational misbehavior.
Consider: Soldiers in Iraq abuse, humiliate, and even rape prisoners. Finger pointing begins, investigations arise, and soldiers go on trial. Meanwhile, a cry goes up for accountability. If public opinion is to be believed, everyone in the chain of command - up to and including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush - should be fired.
Meanwhile, Colorado football players arrange for potential recruits to have access to alcohol, strippers, sex, and drugs in an effort to entice them to join the Golden Buffalo football program. Allegations of rape surface, including one from a former player. Barnett promptly dismisses that player (and by implication, her accusation), saying she was a "terrible" player. He also says that he would "back up" another player accused of wrongdoing. Nevertheless, after several months of investigation, the president of the university announces that nobody is going to lose their jobs. She says that keeping Barnett and his staff at Colorado is "the right thing to do".
One of CU president Betsy Hoffman’s main defenses for the decision was that she "[did] not believe that coaches and administrators at this university knowingly used sex, alcohol and drugs as recruiting tools".
That may be true, and it may not. But even if it is true, the fact remains that when all is said and done, Barnett is responsible for the presence of every one of the involved personnel at the University of Colorado. Every player, every recruit, and every staff member who was supposed to have been a chaperone was brought to Boulder by Barnett and ultimately reports to Barnett.
On the other hand, how many of the soldiers now accused in Iraq were brought into the Army personally by Rumsfeld or Bush? How many have even met Rumsfeld or Bush, or have even seen them in person? Do they report to either of these men? How then can Bush and Rumsfeld be held responsible for their actions?
As I stated above, I know that these are two completely different situations. But a similar principle is involved in both cases, and there is one question in common:
When members of an organization misbehave, how high up the managerial ladder does (or should) the accountability go?
I don't know. But I do know that I won't be watching CU football next season.
posted by Michael at
9:39 PM
|
2 Comments
