Leadership and Communication, Part II

Studying leadership and communication has given me very different lenses through which to view news. Which is why the developing drama with the athletic conference formerly known as the PAC-12 caught my attention. 

My husband and all his siblings attended Washington State University. Though I never attended, growing up where I did, I’ve always considered myself a Cougar. Growing up, the Apple Cup was synonymous with fall. Some of my favorite childhood memories are watching football with my dad, though we didn’t celebrate WSU victories as often as we’d like. Even so, it is devastating to think we may never again enjoy watching Washington State University and University of Washington compete for the Apple Cup trophy. Some may have been aware, but I did not know that 2022 could be the last opportunity to enjoy the famed rivalry. 

As a student of leadership strategies and techniques, though, it is fascinating to consider the complexities of the pending collapse of the PAC-12. Before continuing, I must admit, this topic has not been the focus of much study on my part. These thoughts are based on a story I read (here) rather than any in depth investigation or research on my part. Still, it seems like someone within the PAC-12 must have seen the potential for this outcome. Did somebody speak up and were ignored? Did someone stay silent? If so, why? Whatever the specifics, I think the pending collapse of the Pac12 boils down to failures in leadership, specifically related to communication. 

Why do I say that? Several reasons. First, an effective leader will create an environment that fosters healthy communication. An effective leader will listen to the concerns and questions of subordinates. Admittedly, even in such an environment, people can still struggle with insecurity, or feel like their voice doesn’t matter. People can dismiss their concerns without voicing them. A leader cannot control how people engage, even with a positive environment. Still, a positive culture can create a space where voices are valued and people feel free to share their thoughts, whatever they may be. 

Another reason I say this is an example of failed leadership is because effective leaders recognize the value of collaborative teams. They value diverse voices rather than surrounding themselves with others who think like they do. Whether the leaders of the PAC-12 Conference or the leaders of the university athletic programs all had collaborative teams or not, I don’t know. But at some point, the people making decisions either missed or ignored vulnerabilities that could have prevented schools from abandoning the conference. If the teams involved in the ongoing dialogue that led to this outcome were made up of people from a variety of disciplines with varying strengths and areas of expertise, and if the leaders making the final decisions were willing to listen to all the concerns raised by those interdisciplinary teams, it is possible that this outcome could have been avoided. 

The final reason I see this as a failure of leadership, specifically related to communication, comes in part because of how value is communicated. Several commentators have suggested that the decisions of schools like the University of Washington and the University of Oregon to leave the PAC-12 boils down to money. As I mentioned before, I haven’t done much digging into this whole situation, so I don’t know what the money angle is. Frankly, the specific angle doesn’t matter anyway. What I want to highlight is value rather than money, and I’m not just talking about dollars and cents. By value, I want to suggest that what was valued was the money, and little else. 

At what point the money became the driving force, I don’t know. Whether it was the original barrier to an agreement or the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” doesn’t really matter. What matters is that money, rather than people or relationships, drove decisions. It wasn't necessarily obvious right away, but in time, decisions driven by money or profit or “success” (which invariably leads back to more money and increasing profit) will have negative consequences. 

Maybe that is the ultimate demonstration of failed leadership in this saga. Truly great leaders value people more than anything else. Whether it is the Arbinger Institute’s “outward mindset,” Patrick Lencioni and organizational health, Simon Sinek’s “Just Cause,” or Bob Chapman of Barry-Wehmiller and “the extraordinary power of caring for your people like family,” the measure of true success is how people are treated. If people are considered a means to an end, it affects every aspect of an organization and drives the culture. Whether it was the culture of the PAC-12, the different universities that left, the universities that didn’t, or a combination of all of the above, it doesn’t really matter. In the end, leaders failed. The fans and remaining schools of what used to be the PAC-12 are the ones who are paying the price now, but the cost of valuing money over people will eventually be seen in other spaces as well. The only question is how long it will take.