Category Archives: Uncategorized

Presidential Commentary by Dr. Brian Johnson  

Presidential Commentary by Dr. Brian Johnson  

http://www.culturalfront.org/2014/10/brian-johnson-tuskegee-university-and.html?spref=fb&m=1

“Mr. Saffold: I send you by bearer a sample of the bread which was given the students yesterday for their dinner. You can easily see that such cooking is not only a great waste but is very injurious to the health of the students. I am sure that we are paying enough now for service in connection with the boarding department to have things in first class condition. I do not think there is any necessity for giving the students so much fat meat as that on this saucer would indicated that they are given.” – “September 28, 1898,” Booker T. Washington

Esteemed author and educator, Parker Palmer, writes the following regarding finding one’s purpose and passion in connection with one’s work: “It is not easy work rejoining soul and role.” And the founding principal and president of Tuskegee (Institute) University, Booker T. Washington thoroughly outlines in this letter to Mr. Gilchrist Stewart the kind of employee he sought to assist him in his work at Tuskegee. Expounding upon his conception of “heart (calling), head (competence) and hands (capable),” Mr. Washington wanted someone to “take hold in a whole souled way,” and “whose soul is deeply in love with his work.”  While Mr. Washington’s passage needs no additional commentary, and one might argue that he offers a 19th century notion of work, we are able to glean two important lessons for the 21st century from his remarks to Mr. Stewart. First, he wanted someone “who gives [work] his thought night and day.” Now, there are a great many employees whose work ends as soon as the bell rings, yet there are some who give constant thought and deliberation to how their work might be improved and made better. To be sure, work-life balance dictates prudence in these matters. Notwithstanding, the student, scholar, professor, staff member and administrator who is constantly turning about in their head how to make things better will likely become the person who surpasses those whose work is done at the close of the class period or the business day. (For this man or woman is working while others are talking or sleeping, and when they become successful, it is only a surprise to those who do not know the supreme value of works as opposed to words.) Second, Mr. Washington wanted someone “who looks so closely after every detail of his work…whom orders will not have to be continually repeated…[and] one who is continually planning for the improvement and perfection of his work.” Herein lies the (3) chief descriptors of any successful man or woman at their craft: 1. They look closely after the details. Contrary to popular opinion, “it does take all of that” to become a man or woman whose work transcends any boundary. Attention to the most minute of details is a characteristic of excellence that is oft-times avoided because it is perceived as additional work 2. They do not need to be told repeatedly what to do. If a supervisor must spend his or her time repeatedly issuing the same instructions and expectations to those within their charge, then they might rightly do the work themselves. On the other hand, if a supervisor can issue a general set of expectations and instructions and never return to the person except when absolutely necessary it enables the supervisor to attend to their own duties and not the duties of others. 3. They are continually planning for improvement and perfection in their work. Note, one will never arrive at perfection which is precisely why an institution and its employees must be in a constant state of “continuous improvement.” It is a poor employee or organization that rests upon past successes or achievement. The best employees and organizations work constantly to achieve and do MORE and MORE. Success-true success-begets more success and, most importantly, continued success. (Success is the 3rd greatest 7-letter word after “purpose” and “passion.”) Every successful man or woman wants to work in a culture of success. And such success is both the tradition and trajectory of Tuskegee (Institute) University.

http://www.tuskegee.edu/Articles/tuskegee_university_president_named_speaker_for_usc_doctoral_hooding_ceremony.aspx

Indeed and of a most sincere truth, “a prophet is not without honor except for his own hometown.” Although the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University), Booker T. Washington, experienced many dark days, many other days were alighted. And such was the day when he was notified that Harvard University would be conferring upon him an honorary degree. To be sure, nearly halfway through his tenure at Tuskegee University-some 15 years into his presidency (1881-1896)-Mr. Washington was appreciated within his university for the strides he had made to build a university. Notwithstanding such appreciation, when one receives commendations from external persons and entities-particularly in the class of Harvard University-it is especially heartening for a leader. For such commendations provide validation and confirmation that excellent and visionary leadership, which is the best leadership, transcends all boundaries.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

It is often difficult to receive objective and impartial facts regarding functions within a vast organization the size of Tuskegee Institute (University). For all too often-feelings, not facts and functions-are the paramount concern for administrators and employees alike who might not reveal or disclose areas of non-strength within the current institutional environment. All the same, its founding principal and president, Booker T. Washington, employed then in the late 19th century, what is now a common practice in higher education. He brought in an external consultant. Now, external consultants are in abundance, and they hover around institutions seeking to secure contracts for their services. Many of these add immediate value while others not so much. Yet, Mr. Washington did not simply want another consultant seeking proverbial “bread” or salary. Instead, he desired someone who would help him to ascertain in no uncertain terms “just whether or not we are doing the best work…” And such a person would need to be both “strong enough” and “heart hard enough” to provide such an examination without regard to intimate associations with employees within an organization. (How can any external examiner impartially and objectively assess an institution’s on the basis of personal relationships, and feelings as opposed to functions?) Here again, it is the function not the feeling when administering organizational change management, and external reviewers are often used for such purposes. For these external men and women help ensure institutional integrity. And “integrity” is the greatest 9-letter word.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

“I would not be doing my duty to the school did I permit the present state of things to exist, especially in view of the fact that I am compelled to be away from the school a large part of the year and I am compelled to perform my work almost wholly through the members of the Executive Council and there must be only such persons as I have my complete confidence in and share my desires as to the policy and work of the institution.” “March 26, 1895,”-Booker T. Washington

Presidential Commentary by Dr. Brian Johnson

Of the many important decisions leaders of large organizations must make, deciding upon one’s senior leadership team is perhaps the most important. For these men and women become extensions of a leader so that he or she might be in many places at once. And this is the founding principal and president of Tuskegee University’s idea when he writes the following: “…I am compelled to be away from the school a large part of the year and I am compelled to perform my work almost wholly through the members of the Executive Council and there must be only such persons as I have my complete confidence in and share my desires as to the policy and work of the institution.” First, Booker T. Washington’s travel often took him away from the home front so that he might represent the interests of the institution both near and abroad. No leader can ever feel comfortable when absent from the organization unless he or she is most certain that affairs will be conducted in a manner that reflects his or her management when they are present. Second, the broadest and widest tents have more than one pole. It is a poor leader who seeks to be the sole source or “pole” of leadership within an organization or unit. (How shall a tent become enlarged with only one pole?) The more poles, the larger the tent, and the selection of many poles enable a leader to expand and “work almost wholly through the members” of his or her “Executive Council.” Third, Mr. Washington suggested, “there must be only such persons as I have my complete confidence in and share my desires as to the policy and work of the institution.” Note, competence is good but character plus competence is better. (Here again, integrity is the greatest 9-letter word.) Men and women who work with integrity will perform their work in view of the organization’s mission and vision, its tradition and trajectory without regard to the presence or absence of the leader. Moreover, these men and women must possess the confidence of the leader. (How can a quarterback call plays in a huddle of teammates only to discover that the teammates are giving the plays to the opponent?) Much rather, teammates are selected on the basis of their commitment to a common goal, and a leader’s selection of teammates suggests much about who he or she has “complete confidence in,” and who “share[s] [his or her] desires.” For it is “the policy and work of the institution”-not the individual leader or team member-that makes for a highly functional and highly successful organization like Tuskegee Institute (University) during the 34-year tenure of Booker T. Washington.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.
7th President, Tuskegee University
#TrustTheTuskegeeTrajectory #TrustTheTuskegeeTradition

Among the many other documented and demonstrated leadership qualities he possessed, Booker T. Washington, founding principal and president of Tuskegee University, was consistent, communicative and collaborative. Apparently, Mr. Washington had offered a suggestion or idea in the direction of “dovetailing the academic work into the industrial.” Mr. Washington’s consistency amongst his constituency-great or small, brother or stranger-enabled him to routinely make request of others for he was without respect of those within his charge. Moreover, great leaders do not only make requests but also offer suggestions about how one might carry out such a request. It was clear that he provided guidance about how Mr. Young might proceed. Besides this, great leaders inspect what they expect. One of the cardinal mistakes leaders can make is to make assignments without any regard to checking the progress of completing such assignments. (This was not the case of Booker T. Washington.) For this man would not permit anyone to remark, “I did not know what you expected of me.” Rather, he committed to writing his expectations, and most importantly he communicated a deadline. Lastly, he was collaborative. What some employees consider “extra work,” other employees consider “opportunity.” When a supervisor gives an employee an opportunity to demonstrate his or her value to the organization, it is an opportunity to take heed to. For it provides a documentable opportunity to “let your light shine.” For lights are not designed to nor ever can be hidden. And Booker T. Washington was such a light during his 34-year long tenure at Tuskegee Institute (University), and he had a great many other lights to come along to assist him.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

There is no clearer statement that ought to mark both the mission and vision, the tradition and trajectory, of any institution of higher learning-especially as evidenced here from the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University)-than one that has its first and foremost focus upon STUDENTS. Student success, student engagement, (parent)-student satisfaction within a university environment is akin to a business’s focus being squarely upon its customers. (Who would offer a different focus for where an institution of higher learning’s resources should be otherwise directed?) Any alternative suggestion flies squarely in the face of the work and function of a university and reveals far more about the individual who offers an alternative suggestion as opposed to the mission and vision of an institution. At many American institutions-except for the most exceptionally endowed ones-the institution’s primary revenue stream derives from the net tuition revenue received from its students. To be sure, faculty research and philanthropic giving also provide additional streams of revenue, but even here these opportunities are largely premised upon the business of educating students in a living-learning environment. For where there are no students, there is no university, and where there is no university there is no purpose. A university’s mission is to educate her students, and Mother Tuskegee is committed to educating her students-the sons and daughters of Booker.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

One can either confront challenging situations with a sense of despondency and despair or with a sense of unbridled hope and optimism, and the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University) chose the latter in the incident of “the loss of the barn.” Without question, the loss of a barn in the late 19th century was a significant financial loss. Mr. Logan, Mr. Washington’s treasurer-a modern-day chief financial officer-had indicated to him in a prior communication that the “insurance” loss was totaled at “fifteen hundred.” All the same, note Mr. Washington’s response to his CFO. First, he empathized with his colleague over the loss. He knew that Mr. Logan was both faithful and loyal to the university, and that had probably taken the loss personally. He recognized this in Mr. Logan but did not dwell upon the darkness; he proceeded to the decision. Second, Mr. Washington took action. Creatively, he turned a negative incident and made it positive. He went to the papers to publicize the loss. One’s supporters-true supporters in both words and works-are often anxious to provide support if they are able to understand what the difficulties are. Lastly, he possessed hope that the loss might be leveraged into gain. He hoped that “there will be gifts to make up the loss.” Here again, the “Wizard of Tuskegee” was not merely a manager of the micro matters confronting the institution. Behind the curtains, indeed, he was a wizard at communications via the media to leverage a negative into a positive, which is the attribute of every successful leader of any successful organization.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

While the term “esoteric” is not entirely pejorative-it can mean that members within a certain profession or group understand and converse sharing many of the same assumptions or terminology-it is sometimes used to denote exclusivity meaning that information and knowledge is understood by a chosen few. In the present passage, the founding principal and president of Tuskegee University speaks to this latter formulation. Here he laments that often education-the act of teaching and learning-resembles the closing off of knowledge from others as opposed to its wide dissemination among many. Mr. Washington’s idea is that such knowledge ought to have relevancy and application for others beyond the sole possessor of this knowledge. Imagine that. The idea of education should not be exclusive to a limited few but should enlighten and have impact upon others in beneficial ways. Thus, not only are the recipients all the better for having received this knowledge but also the giver of this knowledge is made better. For this man or woman has completed the complete cycle of education. First you learn, master and apply for yourself. (It is is a poor teacher whose words do not resemble his or her works.) Then you proceed to teach others. And such an education can be found at many institutions of higher learning including Tuskegee Institute (University).

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

One not only finds lessons in Mr. Washington’s management of a university, his stewardship and cultivation of transformative gifts and donations, his passion as an educator or his affectionate love for his wife and children, one also learns from his life as a student. And here is one lesson that students can learn from the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University): “It was my greatest ambition during the summer to save money enough with which to pay this debt. I felt that this was a debt of honour, and that I could hardly bring myself to the point of even trying to enter school again till it was paid” To be sure, the price of a university education-particularly an education received from an university as eminent as Tuskegee-is costly. Yet, it is equally costly to have no such education. All the same, Mr. Washington knew what all graduates of post-baccalaureate and graduate institutions either know or comes quickly to know: Education costs and paying for your education is a responsibility for all who desires one. We learn the following from his own experiences at Hampton Institute. First, “I owed the institution sixteen dollars that I had not been able to work it out.” Much like a creditor, an institution is not always able to “work it out” for students. When it does so largely though discounting the tuition bill it does so to its own detriment and opens itself to other criticisms from many of the same students as to why the institution is often unable to provide other services. Second, “It was my greatest ambition during the summer to save money enough with which to pay this debt.” He knew that a tuition bill would be there when he returned to school in fall. In spite of his obvious poverty as a formerly enslaved person, he did not expect that he would be able to “work it out”. Rather, he worked and “saved”. Whether an internship, summer research program or any other noteworthy summer endeavor, each student should bear in mind that fall is coming and any unpaid tuition bill will await them. Third, “I felt that this was a debt of honour, and that I could hardly bring myself to the point of even trying to enter school again till it was paid.” Honor is nothing but integrity. Hear again: “Integrity is the greatest 9-Letter word.” Mr. Washington would not allow his words to be inconsistent with his works for he had received an education at the expense of the institution that paid the salaries of the professors who educated him. This was a transaction. He received the education and in turn he owed the institution its money so that it might continue to pay his professors to educate others. Last, he “economized in every way that I could think of.” The founding principal and president did not frivolously spend his summer monies knowing full well he owed on his tuition bill. Rather he “economized.” He counted the cost and did his best to make it right. In the end, Mr. Washington did secure sufficient monies. He did not give up. He was resourceful, and he went on to not only graduate from Hampton Institute but to go on to lead from 1881 to 1915 what remains one of the finest institutions in the nation-Tuskegee University-“the pride of the swift growing south.’

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

An institution that is as large, vast and prosperous as Tuskegee Institute (University) possesses many problems but “the problem of a proper business organization [is] a most important one.” Known in its heyday as the “Tuskegee Machine,” the designation was partly attributed to Booker T. Washington’s highly efficient and organized administrative management of Tuskegee Institute (University). While the “machine” designation was a fair and complimentary designation used to describe such a well-run institution-for it alluded to an emphasis upon function not feelings-the designation, “organization,” as opposed to “machine,” is perhaps a far better one used when describing it as “business.” For a business is made up of people that serve people-thus making an organization a living, breathing organism with interchangeable people-not parts-who are organized to the maximum effectiveness of the enterprise. (This is what makes the principal “problem of a proper business organization a most important one.”) Effective management of a business organization is not the mere management of its monetary resources situated in “accounts” but its people situated in “departments” that together make the overall enterprise “productive.” And productive people are the highest testament of a fully functional and healthy business organization. For proper planning in business aligns the right people for the right positions to accomplish precise purposes for both the individual, as well as the organization.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

Above is the third of three letters sent between the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University), Booker T. Washington, and an employee at the institution, Mr. William Jenkins. In the first communiqué sent to Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Washington sought to “remind [him] again that it is the policy of this institution for its academic teachers to be present in the chapel…”. In the second correspondence, Mr. Jenkins explained to his employer, “If you will give me some place to prepare my lessons instead of my bedroom I shall be only too glad to comply with your order.” (Mr. Jenkins believed that unless the institution provided him with adequate facilities for lesson preparation, he would continue to not comply with policy.) Hence-the third and final piece of correspondence was Mr. Washington’s response above. Now, one must remember that the 19th century was altogether different from the 21st century. Every institution of higher education in the 19th century possessed policies that persons in the 21st century would hardly think appropriate in our contemporary society. Notwithstanding, all 21st century institutions and organizations-at least the most thoroughly efficient and well-organized ones-possess policies designed to help promote the general interest and welfare of the organization, and if one employee habitually-even openly-flaunts his or her failure to comply with policy then this promotes organizational disarray. Among many other considerations, other employees note partiality with respect to the employee, and are discouraged from following policy by the institution’s bad precedent. (If an institution fails to follow and enforce its own policies, it does so to its own detriment and needlessly contributes to institutional discord.) In the end, however, we do not know what choice Mr. Jenkins or Mr. Washington made when the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University) stated thus: “I have stated plain the wish and policy of the school to you, it now remains for you to make a choice.” Yet, when one considers the length and success of Mr. Washington’s 34-year presidency, it is not unimaginable to deduce that Mr. Jenkins either complied with institutional policy or found employment elsewhere.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

Presidential Commentary by Dr. Brian Johnson  

While we do not have in our possession Mrs. Irene Bond’s communication to the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University), it is clear in Mr. Washington’s response to her that she was none too pleased with the present direction of the institution under his leadership. To be crystal clear, no man or woman in leadership will ever be free from detractors-especially when their leadership implements change in areas of institutional culture that have proven beneficial to such detractors while being detrimental to the institution as a whole. All the same, the surprise here is not that Mr. Washington possessed critics within Tuskegee Institute (University) or beyond, the surprise related to Mrs. Bond was as follows:  “[I] am surprised that you even thought of remaining in your present condition of mind.” Whether in the 19th, 20th or 21st century, the very real need for “bread” or salary, often leads individuals to remain in organizations where they would otherwise leave, and such decisions often create a toxic work environment for other employees who not only remain for the bread, but remain because they believe in the institution’s mission and vision-its tradition and trajectory. And Mr. Washington’s “surprise” at a person remaining who thought so harshly of the institution or its leader speaks to the notion of vocational integrity. “Integrity,” involves harmony and union between one’s word and one’s work. When applied to one’s job, career or “vocation,” it means that there is an implicit understanding between employer and employee that the commitment to the institutional cause is something higher than the opinion of a singular individual-including the leader or the employee. Where there is no integrity in leadership or followership, there can be no trust, and where there is no trust, there can be no organizational success. Thus, trusting an institution’s tradition and trusting an institution’s trajectory requires integrity, and “integrity” is the single greatest 9-letter word.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

In the days and weeks following Booker T. Washington’s “Atlanta Exposition Address (1895),” he received several commendations and congratulatory messages from a host of well wishers for this now historic address. In addition to remarks received from Francis James Grimke who was instrumental in the founding of the NAACP, W.E.B. (William Edward Burghardt) Du Bois-his noted rival-remarked, “My Dear Mr. Washington: Let me heartily congratulate you upon your phenomenal success at Atlanta-it was a word fitly spoken.” In deed and in truth, the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University) “had rather a difficult task” in delivering such an address that has profound reverberations, even in this present century. Mr. Washington’s detractors-including many who praised him in private-decried against the address calling it the “Atlanta Compromise” because of its emphasis upon industrial education and developing economic independence for African-Americans as opposed to pressing for social justice during that volatile period. Yet, what many failed to appreciate then about Washington-and fail to appreciate now about men and women in leadership situated similar to Washington-is that such men and women have multiple constituencies and audiences to appeal to. In 1895, in the Deep South, where Mr. Washington had spent 15 years building an institution of higher learning for formerly enslaved African-Americans, he needed to be especially keen, prudent and cautious about enflaming the fires of lynching, unprovoked beatings and murder, and the burning down of his facilities during a dark and infamous period in American history that is all too well documented. (For this man, unlike many of his detractors was in a position of leadership over students whose parents entrusted them to him, and if the institution were burned to the ground with several casualties because he spoke what others thought he should speak, one need only have a rudimentary historical imagination to understand the consequences of this.) On the other hand, he could hardly deny that the racial atrocities and social injustices committed against African-Americans solely based upon their ancestry and skin color could go unnoticed or unspoken on such a prominent platform. Thus, he-like most persons who have ever successfully led or spoken to diverse and multiple constituencies-followed a three-prong approach in his address: 1. “First [he] wanted to be very sure to state the exact truth…” (One will never go awry in speaking a plain statement of facts to audiences without regard to how such facts are received. As J.K. Miller wrote: “It is not the truth that people cannot handle. It is the consequences that stem from that truth.”) 2. Second, “there were some things that I felt should be said to the colored people and some others to the white people;”(It is a poor, paltry and partial speaker or leader indeed who makes one-dimensional arguments and directs messages of truth to one racial, socioeconomic, ethnic or cultural group or another.) The greatest speakers and leaders transcend such categorizations and will inevitably share truth that falls wherever it may. 3. Third, “aside from these considerations [he] wanted to so deport [himself] as not to make such an impression as would prevent a similar opportunity being offered to some other colored man in the south.” (Make no mistake, one’s words and actions in leadership always set precedents for those who come afterward. While one’s conscience and sense of “speaking one’s mind” may lead one to offer a torrent of remarks without regard to one’s constituency, the prudent leader exercises restraint for he or she knows that his words and leadership impacts someone other than himself.) And this final regard is the hallmark of Booker T. Washington’s leadership at the helm of Tuskegee Institute (University). Possessing real and actual responsibility with respect to others deepens one’s commitment and capacity for serving others and lessens one’s commitment and capacity for serving one’s self.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

Presidential Commentary by Dr. Brian Johnson  

It is amazing to continuously read the administrative and management philosophy that Mr. Booker T. Washington demonstrated in his correspondence and writings from 1881-1915-his 34-year long tenure as founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University). For this man’s philosophy was truly without respect for persons and such persons included his very own brother-his younger adopted brother-Mr. James B. Washington.  Washington Baseball Field at Tuskegee University was named after James B. Washington who came to Tuskegee from Hampton Institute in 1890. He is affectionately referred to as the “Father of Athletics at Tuskegee.” Washington, the adopted brother of Booker T. Washington, organized the first Tuskegee baseball team in 1892. In the present communiqué, Mr. Washington’s remonstrations directed towards this employee, his very own brother were premised upon the following: “You have been connected with the office now five or six years, and should know how to perform, at least common duties around the office.”

If an employee has been at an institution for less than a year, one year or possibly two, one may readily concede a person’s relative unfamiliarity about the unit they have been given the charge over or have inherited from a predecessor. (The very best leaders do not rely upon such concessions for they immediately assume the charge over their unit and/or organization without regard to their longevity in the post.) All the same, Mr. James B. Washington had now possessed the charge of the unit he was leading for a full “five or six years,” and the expertise required for leading his unit ought to have been either been acquired by diligent acquisition or pursuit, or he might have relinquished his post and simply acknowledged before his employer-his older brother-Booker T. Washington that he did not possess the requisite talent, skillset or ability to do what the institution needed from him in his present capacity. (If it were a matter of lack of institutional support for what he had needed, he might have communicated this as well.) Notwithstanding, it is not an admission of weakness or non-strength to concede that one cannot do what is expected of him or her. Rather, such admission is the surest sign of both professional maturity and vocational integrity, and might possibly lead such an employee to a better position, within the institution or otherwise, more properly aligned to his or her skill sets and capabilities. We know that Mr. James B. Washington ably served alongside his brother Booker, and well after the passing of the university’s first president. Nevertheless, for the post he held in the capacity described above, Mr. James B. Washington’s efforts did not meet with the expectations of his employer-his older brother, the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University), Booker T. Washington.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

No single individual can ever be fully and thoroughly compensated at the level he or she deserves especially for all the good that one is able to do for students when working in an institution of higher learning. From attending events that celebrate student success in the classroom to cheering students on as they represent the institution’s proud brand and heritage in extracurricular activities, there is not a price that can be put on these interactions. And this was precisely Mr. Washington’s point in his communiqué to one of his teachers at Tuskegee Institute (University). Non-profit work, which includes higher education, is indeed a revenue-generating endeavor but revenue and high salaries are not the principal reasons for the existence of such organizations. The mission of non-profit organizations like Tuskegee University serve humanity in a number of ways, and the work of the university is to provide an education both inside and outside the classroom to equip a student for future employment and life-long living and learning. This is why it is generally “count[ed] a privilege to go into their rooms once in a while and get acquainted with them and help them in a way that will impress them all through their lives. Such work should not be counted a task.” For the man or woman who helps a single student on his or her pathway to full adulthood during such an impressionable period will be rewarded with something greater than mere money. This man or woman will be rewarded with the sense of knowing that his or her work has impacted not only the future of a single student but the lives of many others who will also become impacted through the single life of a single student.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

In an earlier “Washington Digest” or “Daily Word from Washington with Presidential Commentary” appearing just this week, we found the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University), Booker T. Washington, seeking the services of one Mrs. Kaine to come alongside him to assist him with the mission and vision-the trajectory and tradition of Tuskegee Institute (University). And a quote recently taken from Forbes Magazine speaks profoundly to this dynamic of selecting capable leaders: “A leader’s job isn’t to be the smartest person in the room, but to fill the room with the smartest, most creative and most capable people. It’s when the leader gets out of the way that the real magic happens.” Yet, in the present correspondence, Mr. Washington was unable to “get out of the way [so] that the real magic happens.” Having sought out and selected a capable colleague to come in to assist him, Mr. Washington directed this communiqué to an apparent recalcitrant employee who simply refused to “cooperate with [Mrs. Kaine] in the proper spirit in relation to the changes and improvements to be made in [her] department.” It is a poor leader indeed who attempts to fix what is not broken; but, when there are clear and obvious needs for change and improvement-needs that all agree to but either have lacked the courage or competence to implement-and the leader assigns a capable, courageous and competent person to implement such change then it is incumbent upon the employee-no required of this employee-to comply with the dictate and direction. Moreover, when a leader of a large organization has to be engaged in matters already decided upon, it takes him or her from far more pressing matters requiring the attention of the chief executive officer. (This is why the leader selects competent persons to assist him so that he does not have to do both his or her job and the job of others.) And this indeed is where the “magic happens.” For when any leader selects or endorses the leadership of a particular unit, it is his or her strongest “hope [that] the matter will not come to [their] attention again.”

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

Although this historical fact is rarely heralded, the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University), Booker T. Washington, ranks at the very top of all higher education fundraisers in American history. Mr. Washington’s letters and writings are replete with examples of his dealings with men and women who gave both large and small donations to the work of Tuskegee Institute (University). And it appears that Mr. Washington quietly and quickly-and the results indicate that he did so with accompanying quality-came to understand two of the single most important characteristics of those who are deeply engaged in philanthropic activity: stewardship and investment. The first of which is stewardship. No matter how wealthy an individual, organization, corporation or foundation may be, they will not simply give money to another to be wasted. (The individual or organization has not wasted its own monies nor the monies of others to achieve its great success so why should the individual or organization begin doing so now?) The guiding principle of stewardship often leads to the accumulation of great sums of wealth, and the notion that simply because an individual, organization, corporation or foundation has achieved great amounts of wealth will now, in turn, give away such wealth to any and every cause is unfounded. Proper stewardship in accumulation of wealth necessarily required decision-making and care in recognizing the individual or organization’s priorities and interests; thus, the mere giving away of money on the singular basis that the individual or organization has wealth is absurd. Investing is the second characteristic of philanthropic activity. One never seeks to invest in what will inevitably become a failed cause or enterprise. The very idea of investing is to receive a return. Whether this return is in furthering the individual or organization’s own cause being advanced in the investment or merely to have the return satisfaction of seeing the recipient actualize its own success, investment always seeks a return. Moreover, philanthropic investment into an institution is a way to become associated with its brand, cause and/or undertaking. What individual or organization seeks to be associated with a failed brand or cause? Rather, an investment in an institution is generally associated with investing in the documented and demonstrated-or soon to be-success of an institution. (In the latter regard, the earliest investors in new undertakings always receive the greatest return for they saw, believed and invested early on in what would eventually become a successful enterprise. And they did so before others who preferred to “wait and see.”) In sum, stewardship and investment are not only the hallmarks of givers but recipients as well. For if recipients are to every rise to the ranks of givers-indeed it is more blessed to give than receive for it indicates that one has resources to give-then stewardship and investment are individual and organizational traits that they must learn quietly, quickly and with quality. And Mr. Washington established the blueprint for this at Tuskegee Institute (University).

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

The search for new employees to come alongside in service to a mission both broader and larger than any one person was not an unfamiliar undertaking for the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University). Mr. Washington was always looking for talented and competent leaders to assist him in the carrying out of both the mission and vision-the tradition and trajectory of Tuskegee Institute (University) that he became the principal architect of. In a period where the tidiness of departments bore a direct impact upon the institution’s ability to court donors to help support the growth of the institution, Mr. Washington needed someone with Mrs. Alice J. Kaine’s skillsets. First, he needed someone “who understands the science of the household economy in the broadest sense.” Depth and breadth is the greatest 5 and 7-letter word combination. Mr. Washington needed an employee who had more than a passing familiarity or cursory knowledge of household science; he needed someone who can both identify problems and implement the necessary changes needed to bring departments in compliance. Secondly, he desired someone who could be “frank in all her criticisms.” (Hear again, frankness and directness is the surest way to ensure transparency when instituting change where it is needed, and a new employee arriving in an environment where such change is needed can ill-afford to be something other than “frank.”)  Third, she absolutely must have “executive ability.” Try as one might, there is no way to be an effective and efficient administrator or leader without “executive ability.” Whether these talents are inherent or learned through the crucibles of experience, this trait is a combination of many things but is summarily described as effectiveness. (Busyness is not the same as effectiveness. For the true sign of efficiency and effectiveness in leadership is getting deeds done without direction.) And finally, this new employee must be committed to remaining at it “long enough” to see the transformation to its completion. Possessing the appropriate fortitude, endurance and perseverance in seasons of both success and disappointment requires patience. It would be no quick work to turn around “household departments” that have long been stagnant or unattended to. This new employee would need the same patience and long-term service that her future employer had exhibited in his very long and very impressive 34-year long presidency of Tuskegee Institute (University).

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

At the onset of receiving an entering incoming freshmen class into a university, one becomes awed and buoyed by the extraordinary sense of possibility that each student has in his or her future. Whether they were 4.0 student or 2.8 students in high school, the beginning of freshman year matriculation is a unique opportunity in their lives to start anew and afresh. And Mr. Washington, founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University), provides an example of two young boys who possessed the same opportunities, but had very different outcomes 20 years later. It is all too easy to pass off Mr. Washington’s telling as some moralizing tale designed to motivate his students during one of his Sunday evening talks. Yet, we must be inclined to think that either Mr. Washington himself experienced this so-called tale directly-his autobiographical narrative Up from Slavery (1901) suggests as much-or he observed this in the lives of two of his students in his 34-year long tenure at the helm of Tuskegee University. Washington’s telling of such a tale might also raise the ire and suspicion of those who might argue the following:”It is roundly unfair for Mr. Washington to ascribe lacking personal responsibility to the woes of the second boy’s life because he doesn’t know what happened to him.” Notwithstanding any such dismissals, what Mr. Washington seeks to convey in this talk was the sense of a very real distinction between two young men who approached life matters-whether in the classroom or beyond-quite differently. The first young man was likely accused of being too punctual, too exact or just plain too serious. He often heard the now common proverbial expression: “It doesn’t take all of that.” And in spite of all attempts to justify the many failures of the second boy, all such attempts are undergirded with a profound sense of irony. (The very individuals who defend or make excuse for the second lad will also not hire him nor give him any responsibility regarding that, which is their own.) Wholly consistent with his reputation for being frank, honest and giving ‘straight talk,” Mr. Washington would not allow any such misgivings about his impressions of the success-or relative lack thereof-of the two boys described here. For Mr. Washington believed that “it does take all of that” to reach any desirable outcome, and one will be subject to the envy and criticism of others while doing it. Yet, enduring the sort of suffering experienced by the first boy is far better than experiencing the suffering of the second. We all experience one form of suffering or another, and if one learns how to suffer-to truly know how to suffer well in the thing that is good-one will learn how to succeed.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

Highly successful men and women of character, competence and credentials are rarely without suitors for their services. And the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University) was no exception. Mr. W.B. Murdock of Alcorn College approached Mr. Washington hoping that he “could be induced to accept the position of President of Alcorn College.” And what is most remarkable in Mr. Washington’s reply was not his gracious recognition of the “compliment,” but rather his reasons for not acquiescing to the offer and to remain at Tuskegee Institute (University): “[…] I prefer to remain for the reason that I think for some years to come I can do MORE GOOD here than elsewhere…”. Imagine that. A person electing to remain at an institution on the basis of the GOOD he or she might be able to do as opposed to having a larger salary? Perhaps this is an old-fashioned 19th Century notion or perhaps Mr. Washington and men and women of his ilk-unlike many in the present century-were men and women of purpose. And “purpose” is the single greatest 7-letter word.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

The fiscal management of student financial assistance or aid was not beyond the managerial scope of the founding principal and president of Tuskegee Institute (University). For many institutions, net tuition revenue received from students-not the headcount of students visibly present-is the principal driver of an institution’s annual budget. In addition to federal and state aid in the form of grants and loans-and a host of other resources that students may receive including scholarships or personal resources. Institutions provide a number of options to assist students in the form of institutional scholarships, which are often “discounts”, alumni scholarships, donor scholarships and work-study. All the same, a university’s ability to provide on-going and continuous improvements to its technology, infrastructure and services available to students is partially contingent upon the monies these students pay in tuition billing to attend and secure a baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate degree. (Deep discounting or mis-managed discounting of tuition bills often leads to discounting the quality of the student experience at the institution. And this did not occur on the first president of Tuskegee University’s watch.) Mr. Washington requested a full review “over the whole subject of the wages of students” and he recommend[ed] whatever reduction you think should take place.” It is well known that the early Tuskegee Institute students received monies in the form of wages to help pay their tuition bills so that they could remain enrolled. (Even the founding principal and president found work as a janitor at Hampton Institute to remain enrolled.) An institution has both a moral and civic duty to help her students but it also has a fiscal duty to itself. Moreover, this review also included the discounting of “[s]mall boys whose work can be of almost not service need[ed] special attention”. Presumably, there were “small boys” who were receiving “wages” from the institution-or in 21st Century nomenclature, “financial aid”-that did not demonstrate a reciprocal benefit for the institution. Perhaps they could not lift the bales of hay? Perhaps they could not lift the well-known bricks that Tuskegee Institute students were known throughout the region for? All the same, Mr. Washington requested a review of their work to determine whether the aid given to them in wages is the appropriate use of institutional monies. For the milk of Mother Tuskegee is available for all of her children, yet the institutional responsibility to steward her resources while simultaneously replenishing them is what will ensure that the milk continues to flow.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

The Complete Washington Digest or The Daily Word from Washington–including email sign up–can be found here:
http://www.tuskegee.edu/about_us/administration/the_washington_digest.aspx

Among the many priorities Mr. Washington had in relationship to his duties as president of Tuskegee Institute (University), fostering a relationship with his students was high among these. The Sunday evening talks were designed for students to engage the founding principal and president in less formal ways than at official gatherings such as convocations, commencements and formal student body association meetings. Moreover, he used these times to try to instill in them something of the “Tuskegee spirit.” Yet, try as one might-and in spite of the many positive aspects of the institution that are hardly ever touted-there are always areas of on-going concern for students, or “some…rocks ahead” for students within a university living-learning environment. Here, Mr. Washington addresses one of these: residential living. To be sure, this address was for Tuskegee Institute (University) students in the 19th century as opposed to the 21st century. (And it is clear that the 21st century institution has a fiscal duty to ensure the best facilities available to its students.) Notwithstanding, there are simply some matters in residential living that are common to all persons living within a university environment that are entirely unavoidable, and a student must simply “conquer them.” First, the room may not be as “attractive as you desire.” The living-learning environment is by no means the culmination of one’s career. It is a stop en route to a glorious career path that has as its ultimate destination a home purchase consistent with one’s desires and affordability. (This is often dependent upon your academic success as a student.) Second, “roommates” may not be “congenial.” Everyone recalls meeting strangers for the first time and though the initial meeting was uncomfortable, these strangers became life-long friends. (Many of our best, life-long friends are cultivated in the college and university living-learning environment, and had we not endured, we would have missed a valuable relationship that might be instrumental in our future successes.) Third, heating and air challenges are often the case even with respect to one roommate preferring it cold while the other hot. (Universities do their very best to address these situations upon proper reporting to the designated resident advisor, residential hall director, facilities director and Vice President for Student Affairs. It is not the university president who one contacts for these matters until the lines of authority are exhausted.) Lastly, a balanced perspective recognizes that “many of you now live in palaces, compared to the rooms which [previous generations of] students had” and for most universities, “the students who attend this school find that the institution is better fitted every year to take care of them than it was the year previous.” While the “struggle” of residential living within a university environment is oft-times a real and verifiable one, students would do well to remember the following adage: “Obstacles are what you see when you take your eyes off the goal.” And the goal is the successful completion of a baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate degree-preferably a Tuskegee University baccalaureate or post-baccalaureate degree.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

There is nothing more painstaking to endure than one who talks simply for the sake of talking. For such a person rambles until-hopefully-someone picks up upon perhaps a word, a phrase or a sentiment that would justify the many other poorly thought or mis-spoken ideas that the rambler has already proffered. This is entirely unlike the man or woman that the founding principal president of Tuskegee Institute (University) describes when he states the following: “he is the kind of man one likes to listen to because he always says something that goes straight to the point, and after he covers the subject he stops.” And this is the quality of a man or woman of “substance”.  Unlike a rambler, a person of substance stands pat, ready to answer-no substantiate-every word uttered or written. This is not so for the rambler. A rambler excuses every utterance he or she has offered except for the singular one or two statements–out of a great many-that have received approbation from one or two of his or her hearers. (Even in this, the substantiation is grounded in the nodding heads of others as opposed to deeds done or objective and impartial evidence.) Contrarily, going “straight to the point” requires past, present and future knowledge of what can be verified or plausibly deduced-without regard to the approbation of “nodding heads”. For all persons “like to listen to” one whose thoughts and opinions are supported by facts instead of feelings.

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

It is sometimes with great difficulty that a chief executive officer-particularly a newly minted one-institutes change. For oftentimes, such change comes at the expense of substituting-even supplanting–long-standing practices (or culture) with innovation. This is precisely what the founding principal and president, Booker T. Washington, was doing in his communiqué to Mr. Hoffman concerning one of Mr. Washington’s faculty members-Mr. McCall. As Mr. Washington indicated, “of course I could make the change without his consent,” he thought it best not to for this was “a teacher who has been here for some time and who is faithful in doing the best he can.” Clearly, Mr. McCall’s works were well-regarded at Tuskegee Institute to be treated in such a manner to receive such treatment from Mr. Washington. (For Mr. Washington’s letters and correspondence are littered with terminations, replacements and administrative decisions made in the interests of the institution that held no similar regard to others as opposed to what he says about Mr. McCall.) All the same, Mr. Washington was clear in his suggestion that the institution was “pushing more and more our scientific work” and it was necessary for change to be had. And while in this communication Mr. Washington opted instead to employ another-Mr. Hoffman was being requested to come work for Tuskegee as a faculty member in the sciences where he taught in agriculture chemistry and biology from 1894 to 1896-he still exercised excellent management in the course of this decision. First, he evaluated Mr. McCall against his record at the institution and found it satisfactory enough to not demand any change. (Unlike his many other decisions, the decision was made to retain Mr. McCall in view of this assessment of his past record and its impact on the present direction in the sciences.) Second, he discussed it directly with Mr. McCall. (Mr. Washington was no “dark decision-maker”. He made the decision in the light. He dealt directly so there would be no second or third-guessing about his assessment of the matter and the employee.) Third-only after his assessment of Mr. McCall’s station and a discussion-he reached out to another for employ. Here again, Mr. Washington demonstrates that the “wizard of Tuskegee” was neither a mystic, magician nor a miracle-worker. He was simply a manager-all while being magnificent at the macro-during his 34-year long presidency of Tuskegee Institute (University). 

Brian L. Johnson, Ph.D.

When potential donors inquire with an institution concerning its alumni giving participation, the percentage of total alumni giving not the amount of alumni giving is the foremost consideration. Even if a single alumnus gives $1M per year, the following questions are immediately begged: What is the giving and interest level of the thousands of remaining alumni that the institution has graduated? Was this a single aberration? Is alumni giving limited to the eminently successful alumni? or does it extend from small to great-all of whom are recipients of Tuskegee Institute (University) baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate degrees? And interest level goes well beyond public professions of love for one’s alma mater “our nourishing mother,” but the expression of this love in tangible gifts and donations. Mr. Washington, founding principal and president, understood this well when he spoke the following to students who would become future alumni during one of his Sunday evening talks: “We want to show to our friends…how much interest we take in the institution that has given us so nearly all that we possess.” Although the sons and daughters of Booker and Mother Tuskegee are the institution’s most precious value claim to the world-its most precious commodity-the gifts of those interested, including alumni, in the advancement of the institution are what established-and continues to establish-Tuskegee Institute (University’s) reputation as one of the finest campuses and strongest academic destinations in the nation and the world. Friend-raising and fundraising begins at home. And if those who are most intimately familiar with and profess support or love for the institution will not give to it, why would a stranger who is not familiar with and professes no support or love for the institution give to it?  Thus consistent giving whether small or great, regularly (monthly or annually), from 100% of graduated students or as Mr. Washington pronounced, “all of you,” is the clearest indicator of alumni strength.

Generally speaking, the smartest, wealthiest, strongest and most talented among a community of his and her fellows would hardly ever pronounce it. (For he and she already knows it.) And therein lies the “influence” generally found in the “humble and simple ones”-that Washington describes. In one of his earlier writings, Professor Cornel West writes: “To be humble is to be so sure of one’s self and one’s mission that one can forego calling excessive attention to one’s self and status.” Knowing with complete certainty one’s self and status is akin to knowing one’s name. Unless one is patently-even absurdly-insecure, a person would never enter into quarrels about his or her own name. On the other hand, the sense of absolute certainty that accompanies the sense of knowing one’s name and identity reeks of humility, sincerity and simplicity; Such a posture leads to the greatest influence among men and women because arrogance tends to repel and humility tends to invite. And men and women of humility and simplicity always invite others into their ever expanding circles–thus gaining influence that has no boundaries.

http://forthdistrict.com/dr-brian-johnson-president-tuskegee-ferguson-role-intellectuals-black-community-lasting-impact-dubois-booker-t-washington/

The “Tuskegee Machine” was no mere designation describing Booker T. Washington’s and Tuskegee University’s political and economic strength across the nation. Instead, it also referred to the systemic administrative and management philosophy of its founding principal and president, and his insistence upon the effectiveness and efficiency of every function within the organization. And this letter to Mr. Will Eugene Hutt is no exception. First, Mr. Washington-as he does so in all of his writings and speeches-“speaks…plainly.” All too often hearers attribute rudeness to plain speech, frankness and honesty when hearing truths that are unpleasant to the recipient. Second, Mr. Washington did not take the road most often travelled in leadership. Such leadership avoids difficult discussions and makes decisions in the dark. Mr. Washington might have easily hid his concerns-wait him out-and grant this employee no opportunity to correct the deficiencies within his department. What one expects, one must inspect, and it is clear that Mr. Washington was not sitting on the mountain top of “Tuskegee Machine.” Rather, he was a very real participant in the affairs of Tuskegee Institute (University) to make the pointed suggestions he offers to Mr. Hutt. Third, he provides an example of an employee who does not wait to be “push[ed] ahead” or “for somebody to direct and lead” them. To the contrary, Mr. Taylor, another employee in the same rank and class, was value-added to Mr. Washington. He took initiative “constantly making suggestions as to what should be done.” (One could rightly criticize Mr. Washington if he did not point to any employees who fulfilled his expectation but instead he provided an example to Mr. Hutt-one of his peers and colleagues-to demonstrate that the expectations he had for employees could not only be received but also achieved.) Lastly, he reminded Mr. Hutt that he had not exercised his right to remove him but instead was speaking plainly and frankly to encourage him, perhaps even to motivate him. And he did so with the understanding that Mr. Hutt might have never had such expectations, for he completed his correspondence with a parting admonition that “it is going to require hard and constant work on your part, and you will have to apply yourself in a way that you have never done before.” Perhaps Mr. Hutt had never had such a supervisor provide such clear expectations? Perhaps Mr. Hutt’s previous supervisors merely discussed his poor performance with others as opposed to Mr. Hutt directly? Perhaps Mr. Hutt responded and eventually became one of the greatest employees in the annals of Tuskegee Institute (University)? Whatever Mr. Hutt’s response might have been, it is clear that he fully understood Mr. Washington’s expectations of him, which is what real leadership looks like: Transparent, Consistent, Communicative and Collaborative.

Of all the considerations persons fail to consider when they approach the President of Tuskegee Institute (University)-or any leader of a highly visible organization-is perhaps the most obvious of all: “[…] in regard to tales that are floating about in the air. Any man [or woman] who is at all before the public will have any number of stories put into his ears […]”. And Mr. Washington’s assertion is one that all leaders and talebearers would do well to take heed to. For talebearers, such an omission does not injure the public figure, but injures the bearer of the “tales” designed to “put into his ears.” Unknown to many, the role of President or CEO grants access to a great many details that most persons are not-nor ever will be-privy to.  And those who approach a leader with information that he or she is likely already familiar with will generally find that their information is likely-partial at best or faulty at worst. For if a leader allowed himself or herself to be “influenced” by partial or faulty information, it would “impair his [or her] usefulness for work.” And, in the end, it would be the leader-not the talebearer-who would be standing alone to explain why he or she relied on “floating” tales as opposed to facts. 

 

“Miss Bolling: The Faculty has decided to ask you to have the girls’ rooms given a thorough cleaning this week with a view of trying to get rid of the bed bugs that are to be found in all the buildings. It is not to the credit of the school and much to its hurt to have the constant report of bed bugs existing in the rooms. The girls not only talk about the matter but report it to their parents, and it brings disgrace to the institution. The cleanliness of the rooms is in your hands and we hold you responsible for this. Miss Murray says that she has spoken to you about the matter several times and given you a girl to do the work, but it has not been done. I have told Miss Murray to let you have as many girls as you desire. Dr. Dillon will help you in making any mixture to help eradicate the bed bugs. This must be attended to right away. I wish to have the building cleaned this week. The cleaning must be done once a week during the remainder of the term so that we can get rid of this pest. In this connection I wish to say that it will amount to nothing without your remaining constantly with them while they are doing the cleaning.” -Booker T. Washington, “May 3rd, 1892”      

 

Presidential Commentary by Dr. Brian Johnson     

The management and condition of a university’s residential housing and its facilities is as important as the university’s academic programs. This is why faculty and staff members alike play an equally important role in the success of an institution. There are several noteworthy considerations in Mr. Washington’s communiqué to Miss Bolling. First, it did not matter how great the instruction might have been at Tuskegee Institute (University) if the ‘daughters of Booker and Mother Tuskegee’ not only talk[ed] about the matter but report[ed] it to their parents[;] it brings disgrace to the institution.” (The concern and care that an institution shows beyond the classroom is often the most important consideration that parents deliberate upon when deciding to send their children to a university.) Second, it was not Mr. Washington that was to be held chiefly responsible but the person who possessed oversight of the area. (Indeed the university president possesses ultimate responsibility in the governance of a university. However, he or she must rely heavily upon those within his or her charge to ensure that their areas reflect the expectations of the president. Thus, Mr. Washington’s reminder to colleague: “We hold you responsible for this.”) Third and last, Mr. Washington had not only provided additional resources to assist with this problem but was also willing to provide more “to help eradicate the bed bugs.” Moreover, he provided Miss Bolling with first-rate management advice: “…it will amount to nothing without your remaining constantly with them while they are doing the cleaning.” (What you expect, you must inspect. And if one has units that you are being held responsible for then it is not unwise to personally inspect those units so that you are not held accountable for the performance of others.) Let no university employee believe that his or her work does not impact the success of an institution. For the individual’s success will ultimately become the university’s success.