allowed a small elected decision-making body to make all curricu-
lum decisions, with the fallback possibility of bringing disputed
decisions to the faculty floor. However, the system put the burden
of proof on dissenters, who first had to write a white paper explain-
ing their disagreement, which would have to receive a majority
vote just to be discussed. This was a major step in convincing peo-
ple with good ideas that they might have a chance of succeeding.
Many other steps were taken to reinforce this notion.
For example, funds were set aside to support activities that
enabled the new curriculum to be developed. Participants were
rewarded for playing, and they were given considerable attention
and recognition. Performance appraisals were at least loosely tied to
the college’s new mission and vision. Decision-making bodies held
open meetings where dissenters and proposers of ideas could find a
forum for expression. Both the president and I worked hard to set a
positive, excited tone so that innovators would feel encouraged.
In terms of changing the college’s positioning and creating a
positive climate, this all worked remarkably well.^2 We set a thou-
sand flowers blooming and generated many innovations. Because
the program reforms created a genuinely integrated curriculum, fac-
ulty were forced to collaborate in both course design and delivery.
For many, this was painful, since by training and nature they knew
much more about how to work alone than in teams, but it also cre-
ated new opportunities for connections and information sharing.
(Admittedly, during some of the pitched battles about “the right
way to teach X,” I doubt whether the participants thought of the
discussions as “information sharing.”) Many new relationships were
made among people who had previously not known each other,
and some new research areas and partnerships were formed.
A requirement that M.B.A.s gain international experience
opened up another inadvertent opportunity for connection. In
running courses in other parts of the world, we made it possible for
faculty to go along for their own understanding of international
issues. However, three weeks abroad with three to five almost
random colleagues yielded intense collective experiences and new
relationships that crossed traditional academic boundaries.
LEADERSHIP ANDACCESS TOIDEAS 285