felt that the previous chair had ducked the problem – giving George a higher rating than his record deserved. She was tempted to follow suit and avoid a confrontation. But that felt like a compromise of her integrity. Sarah also remembered the dean's admonition that the school was not Lake Wobegon and that he didn't want chairs telling him that “all the professors are above average” – especially those whose records indicated that they were not.
Sarah's musing about her dilemma was interrupted by a knock on the door. George was here for his assessment conference. She had to do her best. We'll eavesdrop on an abridged version of their conversation. As you read, note that the left column shows what they said to one another. The right column shows what Sarah tells us was happening in her mind as the meeting progressed.
Sarah's Meeting with George
| What was said: | Sarah's thoughts and feelings: |
| S: George, thanks very much for coming. I'm glad we have this chance to talk. | Start friendly and positive. |
| G: I hope I'll be glad as well. | I wish I thought that was possible. |
| S: Of course. George, you know I have great respect for you, and I appreciate all you've done for the department over the years. | Play to his ego, and maybe we can have a productive meeting. But I'm not optimistic. |
| G: I'm delighted to hear that. | So far so good? |
| S: Why don't we start with your thoughts on how you've been doing? | Let's ease in, and see if he's realistic about his performance. |
| G: Perhaps I'm being a bit immodest, but I think even you are aware that I've been a stalwart, and, really, a star in this department. I've played a major role over the years in building the image of our department and the school. | Why did I ask? I should have known the answer. But we have to face facts. |
| S: Yes, of course, George. But it's because I have so much respect, I have to be honest. You must realize that your performance has slipped a bit in the last few years. | Try to be as gentle as possible, but tell him the truth. |
| G: (pauses, frowns, then smiles) What makes you feel qualified to make such a judgment? | He's trying to change the subject. Let's stick to the facts. |
| S: This isn't about my personal judgment. It's about the evidence. You don't have any recent publications. Your last was five years ago. Your teaching … | Stay calm. Be objective. Stick to the facts. |
| G: (interrupting) If you look at my output over the years, I'm sure you can easily see that it compares favorably to anyone in the department. I should certainly hope you're not trying to compare my reputation with your own. | If only he were as good as he thinks he is. He's an annoying, arrogant windbag. I need to stay calm. |
| S: (as calmly and amiably as possible) I'd never compare myself to you, George, and, of course you have good reason to be proud of all you've done. But this isn't about your whole career; this is an annual assessment. | He wants to talk about me instead of facing up to his own performance. Try to get back on track. Stay focused. |
| G: (acidly) Perhaps when you've matured a bit more, you'll realize that the only sensible way to look at scholarship is over the long term. | Another put‐down. This is infuriating. |
| S: (her voice rising) I didn't ask to be department chair, but I am. I'm just trying to do my job. | I'm losing it! |
| G: Yes, well, I suppose you're doing your job about as well as you can. | I don't like him, and I hate this job! |
| S: (heatedly) George, it would help if you would open your mind and listen to someone else for a change! The evidence shows that … | I've lost it. |
| G: There's no reason I should tolerate someone shouting and insulting me. I believe this meeting has already gone longer than is productive. (He rises and leaves the office.) | What a disaster! He was totally uncooperative, but he'll blame me and tell all his buddies how unfair I was. |
| S: (watches George leave) | I should do something, but I have no idea what. |
Sarah's intentions were honorable. She had a job to do. She expected it to be difficult, even painful, but it still turned out worse than she feared. She and George both left feeling that the meeting was an unpleasant failure. As the encounter spun out of control, Sarah struggled without success to control the conversation and her own feelings. At the end, she felt angry and helpless. Sarah and George each contributed to the disaster, and each blamed the other. But neither felt responsible for the dismal denouement. Sarah left the meeting feeling worse about George and about herself; the same is likely true of George. More significant, neither party learned anything that might help them do better in conversations like this or with each other in the future.
Skilled Incompetence: Understanding Theories for Action
In Chapter 2, we argued that sensemaking and learning from experience are at the heart of leadership effectiveness. In looking at how Sarah prepared for and conducted her meeting with George, we can see an example of how everyday sensemaking can go awry and lead well‐intentioned administrators into quagmires while preventing them from having any idea how they got bogged down. Sadly, scenes like this are all too common. The Sarahs of the world dig their way into holes, using unproductive strategies that they have come by honestly. The Georges help them shovel. There's a perfect description for this kind of behavior: skilled incompetence, the use of automatic, learned behaviors to produce the opposite of what you intend (Argyris, 1986). Why does this happen? It is not because people set out to fail – almost no one does that. But in interactions with others, people often know what they intend without realizing that they're not doing what they think they are.
To complicate matters, they often have little or no understanding of the impact of their behaviors on others – and they have not developed habits of the mind to make such inquiry a regular part of their professional practice. As a result, they don't see their responsibility for failed interactions, don't see other options, and often don't recognize the need to search for them. The same ineffective behaviors get repeated again and again. It happens to all of us – more than we realize. It is most common in the situations that are the most challenging, and those are often the most important. The result is that academic administrators may handle routine items with aplomb but flounder with the things that really matter. Imagine the consequences of a steady diet of meetings that make things worse for all concerned.
Noted organizational theorists Chris Argyris and Donald Schön offer a framework for understanding this dynamic (Argyris & Schön, 1974, 1996). They argue that individual behavior is controlled by personal “theories for action”: mental models that tacitly inform and guide our choices. Argyris and Schön distinguish between two kinds of personal theory. One is espoused theory: the accounts individuals provide whenever they try to describe their behavior (“Here's what I did …”), explain the reason for it
