If some deans make inconsistent decisions, it may not be their fault, says a UCLA political scientist studying the arcane world of academic politics. The blame may lie in a sick system. Professor Susanne Lohmann, in a recent lecture here titled "Deans' Death March," described a political maze so multilayered and treacherous that it would take a Bismarck to navigate it. "Academic politics are among the most complex and brutal forms of politics," said Lohmann, who is writing a scholarly book on the subject. "There are factions within factions within factions." And increasingly, she said, many academic leaders are quickly deposed, with the survivors tending more and more to be professionals concerned with keeping their jobs. Lohmann, who directs UCLA's Center for Political Economy, said the central problem in administering today's complex universities is the flow of information-a conclusion that drew strong agreement from a number of UC Davis deans. "The people who hold information needed for decisions are not always the same as the people who make the decisions," Lohmann said. She said processes such as tenure involve so many layers of committees that information gets simplified on the way to the decision-makers-and some information gets lost altogether. Adding more checks and balances sometimes only makes things worse, creating an "informational cascade" that can lead to vote manipulation, herding behavior and poorly-informed decisions. She suggested instead using competing committees that argue the pros and cons of an issue. Such a system, Lohmann said, could lead to the development of better information and ultimately better decisions. Length of tenure decreases At UCLA, Lohmann said, the mean length of time a dean remained on the job dropped from 5.4 years in the 1950s to 4.6 years in the 1980s. However, the range of years served by those deans went up from 8 to 15 over the same period. Lohmann said deans today who survive the initial weeding out tend to last longer than their predecessors did. "You will end up with better deans, essentially." Lohmann noted a trend toward professionalization of deans and other administrators. "The professional dean is the one who is concerned about appearing good to the president," she said. At the same time, university administrators face external pressures to respond to societal needs. By contrast, there is little formal incentive for faculty members to respond to outside forces once they receive tenure, she said. "There is a systematic value conflict between the dean and faculty. Value conflicts have a way of screwing up information flows." Deans, she said, rely on "political support signals" in making such decisions as hiring a faculty recruit. Such signals could include departmental votes, committee votes, outside letters, awards, prizes, grants and publications. "A smart dean recognizes that people manipulate voting," Lohmann said. Careful reading of votes A split vote in a department that's routinely polarized can be interpreted as positive, she said. On the other hand, a close vote in a department notorious for being unanimous can be interpreted as negative. In turn, chancellors or presidents weigh a variety of "fire alarm signals" in deciding whether to reappoint a dean, Lohmann said. Fire alarms could include complaints, demonstrations, departmental rankings, newspaper articles and faculty membership in prestigious academies. Lohmann said the process tends to favor certain types of deans-competent ones, cautious types with a status-quo bias and deans whose values are close to their chancellors. Lohmann said few people in academia recognize the systemic problems that can lead deans to make inconsistent decisions. "People tend to attribute administrative pathologies to people and personalities instead of systems and structures." Lohmann said just as there are no perfect people, there is no such thing as a perfect system. "What makes the UC system so very good could be the same thing that can generate these pathologies: There's a lot of complex and complicated information." UC Davis deans who attended Lohmann's March 15 lecture at the campus Institute of Governmental Affairs said her description of information flows was insightful. "She appreciated the many, many difficulties administrators face in obtaining information and making correct decisions," said social sciences dean Steven M. Sheffrin, whose office co-sponsored Lohmann's talk here. Unlike corporate executives, deans have no profit-loss statements to inform their decisions, Sheffrin said. "The indicators we're using, the information we're using, is very limited." Sheffrin added: "Her notion of advocacy committees as a device to gain more information is intriguing but we would want to think very carefully about all its ramifications." Law school dean Rex Perschbacher said using pro and con committees was a "wonderful idea" but one that would be difficult to implement. "Speaking as an attorney who's used to the adversary process, I'm quite sure we would get much more accurate information." However, Perschbacher said it is hard enough already to fill existing committees let alone create a double set. Peter Rock, dean of mathematical and physical sciences, said he favored going slow in making such a change. "One of the reasons that universities last so long is that they're very, very cautious about how they change doing things. That gives them stability. Governments come and go, but universities usually stay. If you make small changes, then you can pull back. Big changes are traumatic." While Rock said the title of Lohmann's talk helped persuade him to hear her speak, and that he enjoyed her presentation, he said being a dean hardly seems like a death march. "One's supposed to talk about how you can't wait to return to teaching and research. But I love doing the job I'm doing. It's exciting, invigorating. I'm not of the school [of people] who wish they were somewhere else. It's great fun."