A8 The BulleTin • Tuesday, June 22, 2021
EDITORIALS & OPINIONS
AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER
Heidi Wright
Gerry O’Brien
Richard Coe
Publisher
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
McPherson Douglass
was cleared, but her
post was wrong
T
he investigator’s conclusion was straightforward. Carrie
McPherson Douglass, Bend-La Pine School Board
member, was not found to have done anything wrong.
She did not violate school board
policy, legal standards for campaign
speech or the district’s harassment
policy when she posted personal
information about her opponent,
Maria Lopez-Dauenhauer, on Face-
book during the May campaign for
school board.
That doesn’t mean what McPher-
son Douglass did was right.
On April 15 McPherson Doug-
lass posted on her personal Face-
book page fairly typical political
campaign charges — that her op-
ponent is “uber wealthy” lives in a
$4.2 million house, spent most of
her life in California, is a single-is-
sue candidate who is committed to
fully reopening schools “at all costs”
and has “far-right views.” Then
she did something out of the ordi-
nary: She posted Lopez-Dauenhau-
er’s address, a map showing where
the home is, and a family picture,
including Lopez-Dauenhauer’s
children.
“I do not want any negative com-
ments about her here or anywhere
else,” she did add. “She is a mother
and a Central Oregon community
member and I want all candidates
treated with respect.”
Lopez-Dauenhauer filed a com-
plaint with the school board, saying
McPherson Douglass was doxing,
or revealing personal information
about her to hurt her.
We aren’t going to go into detail
of the legal analysis by the investi-
gator, a lawyer hired by the High
Desert Education Service District.
Briefly, Oregon did not have a dox-
ing law when these actions took
place. School district policy has no
specific policies applicable to board
member’s conduct when they are
campaigning. And laws regarding
political speech give people a lot of
freedom to express themselves.
There’s no question that Lo-
pez-Dauenhauer’s address was pub-
licly available before McPherson
Douglass posted it on Facebook.
It’s in the form candidates must fill
out when running for office, among
other places. But was it necessary
for McPherson Douglass to make it
easier for people to find it, to publi-
cize it? Note that McPherson Dou-
glass got security and a private ad-
dress for her own home to protect
her own family.
Images of Lopez-Dauenhau-
er’s children were also part of Lo-
pez-Dauenhauer’s campaign. Still,
should McPherson Douglass have
used images of her opponent’s fam-
ily as part of an effort to campaign
against her opponent? Using a pic-
ture of Lopez-Dauenhauer would be
one thing. Using an image that in-
cluded her children is another.
The most telling thing is that
McPherson Douglass apologized
for the post. She wrote she regretted
it from the moment she hit publish.
She took the post down. She deserves
credit for recognizing that. And
while we are certain she will con-
tinue to be an excellent school board
member, the post was wrong.
If you want to read the investiga-
tor’s report and conclusions, we had
to make a public records request to
get it. Email us at rcoe@bendbulletin.
com, and we will send you a copy.
Nearman doesn’t deserve
to be back in Legislature
H
e didn’t get the message.
Former state Rep. Mike Ne-
arman apparently wants to
replace himself in the Oregon Legis-
lature after he became the first legis-
lator ever expelled from the Oregon
Legislature.
Nearman helped plan and then let
demonstrators into the locked Cap-
itol during a special session on Dec.
21. His Republican colleagues called
on him to resign. Nearman refused.
Every legislator voted to expel him
except one, Nearman.
Even in the moments before the
vote to expel him, Nearman tried to
warp the narrative, insisting he was
being expelled because he believes
the public should be let into their
Capitol. He was not expelled be-
cause of his beliefs. He was expelled
because his actions allowed demon-
strators — some armed — into the
Capitol.
We can’t imagine he would be re-
appointed to the same seat. A freshly
introduced House Bill 3413 would
make it clear that an expelled legis-
lator could not be reappointed to the
Legislature. Worth passing.
Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor Gerry
O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe.
GUEST COLUMN
Critical thinking and theory are needed now
BY WILLIAM BARRON
T
oday, more than ever we need
to practice critical thinking
and the principles of critical
theory. We are bombarded by parti-
san media, politics and opinions. We
face both sides of the ‘Big Lie’, ‘Stop
the Steal’, and unabashedly biased
‘journalism’ and editorials. Without
a structured, normalized, approach
toward analysis, we are destined to
wallow in unverified, unchallenged
fantasies which can then become the
structure of our society, institutions,
and legal systems.
Critical thinking and theory do
not profess any bias toward outcome,
rather they focus us on a questioning
process and let the outcome evolve
and crystallize more with ever prob-
ing questions. We must never just
accept, but rather presume some-
thing is wrong, something can be im-
proved, and/or be more holistically
truthful. Process and practices which
encourage us to make explicit self-ex-
amination, and which are more con-
cerned with preventing the loss of
truth rather than being afraid of the
resulting outcome are good for indi-
viduals, institutions and societies in
general. Critical thinking and theory
typically has three aspects: 1) pre-
sume something is wrong and iden-
tify what, 2) identify the aspects, or
actors, which can be and/or need to
be changed, and 3) establish norms
for routine criticism and analysis. The
only way to determine if our insti-
tutional knowledge are institutional
myths is to critically challenge, probe
and analyze every aspect, on a contin-
uous basis. If it proves false, then let
facts prevail. If it withstands the scru-
tiny, either the challenge needs to be
changed or the facts are firm. There-
fore, critical thinking and theory are
the antithesis of cancel culture.
As to critical race theory, let’s agree;
racism isn’t biological. We are not
born racists. It is learned. Therefore,
racism must be a normal feature of
our social fabric, woven into our edu-
cation, public policy and legal struc-
ture. If so, then our responsibility as a
society, as members of a civil order, is
to critically ask ourselves, what needs
to be changed in those institutions,
and legal framework to eradicate sys-
tematic racism. Consider how much
fuller and richer our accepted history
would be if it were written includ-
ing all perspectives including those
of race, religion and gender. Imag-
ine how our legal system could be
improved, presuming institutional
racism could be recognized and
removed.
If you are not willing to accept the
pretext of institutional racism, ask
yourself why it took over a hundred
years after the end of the Civil War for
the Civil Rights Act to be passed and
the Supreme Court to recognize the
legitimacy of mixed marriages? Ask
yourself why the Civil Rights Act was
even necessary? Why were Jim Crow
laws passed and brutally enforced?
And why, even today, are voter sup-
pression laws being proposed and
passed by state legislators?
Those amongst us who refuse to
challenge the social norms and sta-
tus quo will forever be the pawns of
those who want to manipulate the
uninformed with disinformation, bi-
ased partisan partial perspectives, and
conspiracy theories. Ironically, those
claiming cancel culture are the ones
who have tried for centuries to cancel
and ignore the historical perspectives
of others. All of us, to some degree,
are racist and sexist; our social cul-
ture made us what we are. Maybe we
should be engaging in critical gender
and critical religion theory as well.
And who am I? I’m an engineer,
trained to question everything, chal-
lenge the status quo and continu-
ally search for a better way to make
things, systems and processes work.
Trained never to accept anything at
face value regardless of who prop-
agated the thought or policy. The
one who practiced the art of critical
thinking and theory as an engineer
and executive in the private and pub-
lic sectors to advance engineering, as
well as corporate and public policy.
#NeverFeartheDream
e
William Barron lives in Bend.
Letters policy
Guest columns
Letters should be limited to one issue, contain no more than 250 words
and include the writer’s phone number and address for verification. We
edit letters for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject poetry,
personal attacks, form letters, letters submitted elsewhere and those ap-
propriate for other sections of The Bulletin. Writers are limited to one let-
ter or guest column every 30 days.
Your submissions should be between 550 and 650 words and must in-
clude the writer’s phone number and address for verification. We edit
submissions for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject those
submitted elsewhere. Locally submitted columns alternate with national
columnists and commentaries. Writers are limited to one letter or guest
column every 30 days. Email: letters@bendbulletin.com
Return-to-Office: A new competitive “strategically hybrid” model
BY NITIN NOHRIA
Bloomberg
H
ow many days each week is
your company asking you to be
back in the office?
That’s become a polarizing question
— and the answer is seen as a marker
of whether the company or employees
come first.
Apple, for instance, says it wants
workers in the office on Mondays,
Wednesdays and Thursdays starting
in September — a plan that sparked
an employee backlash. Citigroup has
also asked employees to be in the of-
fice three days a week. Some compa-
nies, including Goldman Sachs Group
and JP Morgan Chase & Co., hope to
revert to an everyone-on-site model.
Bank of America Corp. wants all vac-
cinated employees in the office in early
September — it will figure out what to
do with the unvaccinated later. Ford
Motor Co., Salesforce.com and Twitter
say they will extend work-from-home
privileges indefinitely.
While plans still vary widely, most
firms are contemplating a hybrid ar-
rangement like Apple’s — a set sched-
ule of companywide remote days and
office days.
But one-size-fits-all policies covering
every employee are a mistake. Leaders
deciding how to organize work should
make more nuanced choices that re-
flect the needs of both employees and
company. It’s more complex than sim-
ply picking one scheme for the whole
firm, yet the payoff for that complexity
will be well worth it.
Think of this model as “strategically
hybrid” — a schedule that reflects the
specific ways individuals and teams
interact to create value. Optimizing
a company in this manner can help
sharpen its competitive position. It
can increase productivity and speed
in some areas, while doubling down
on creativity, collaboration and the full
human experience in others. Taken
together, these choices — precisely be-
cause of their difficulty — will be hard
to replicate and can form the founda-
tions of a durable advantage.
The following questions should
drive these choices:
• Where do we want to prioritize
efficiency, speed and coordination
— recognizing that the answer often
points toward remote work?
• Where do we want to prioritize
creativity, complex problem solving
and spontaneity — which are more
likely to happen in person?
• For culture-building activities,
what is the right mix of in-person and
virtual interactions?
• If employees in different jobs or
roles have their own preferred location
for work, how much flexibility will we
provide? And are we prepared to lose
people if we can’t accommodate their
preferences?
To illustrate what I mean by being
strategically hybrid, consider the re-
turn-to-work choices of two hypothet-
ical firms.
Trendy Store and ClassicClothes.
com are retailers. Each sells casual
clothing primarily to young women.
Trendy Store’s competitive strategy is to
be store-centric and fashion-forward.
ClassicClothes.com’s strategy is to
sell a curated collection of established
brands online.
The different strategies driving the
firms’ return-to-work plans can be
seen department by department.
• Finance. Trendy Store’s finance di-
vision performs routine activities and
its productivity rose while working
remotely. Post COVID-19, these em-
ployees will continue remotely, coming
to the office two days a month for busi-
ness reviews. Because ClassicClothes.
com adjusts prices on its website dy-
namically, its finance group consults
hour-by-hour with the merchandising
department to make pricing decisions.
This team will return to the office to
make that cooperation easier.
• Procurement. Trendy Store’s large
group of fashion-forward designers
will return to the office every day to
collaborate on the tactile, three-dimen-
sional work of designing clothing — a
process that can’t be replicated ade-
quately online. Because ClassicClothes.
com sources its goods from established
brands, its merchandisers can continue
to work remotely.
• Sales/Customer Service. Trendy
Store needs it sales staff to come to the
store to serve customers in-person.
ClassicClothes.com, whose custom-
ers order online, will allow its custom-
er-service team to continue working
remotely.
Note that across every department
and function, each company’s choices
are guided by its overall corporate
strategy. In some cases, these choices
may become even more fine-grained.
Writing in Harvard Business Review,
Lynda Gratton argues that managers
should make return-to-work decisions
not only by function or department,
but also on a person-by-person ba-
sis, factoring in variables such as the
length of an employee’s commute, the
availability of space for a home office,
the strength of the employee’s existing
network within the company and his
or her tenure with the firm.
There are significant potential
downsides to the strategic hybrid ap-
proach. Building a strong, cohesive
corporate culture will be harder in
such a workplace. Organizations must
ensure that their diversity and inclu-
sion goals are not inadvertently set
back in this process. Allowing some
people to continue working from
home and requiring others to return
to the office risks fostering jealousy,
resentment and complaints about fair-
ness. The strategic reasons for those
decisions must be communicated
clearly and firmly.
Becoming strategically hybrid re-
quires recognizing the kinds of in-per-
son collaboration that create value
while balancing the concerns of stake-
holders to enhance the company’s
competitive advantage. Ultimately,
success is a key part of job satisfaction,
and making intelligent trade-offs is the
essence of leadership.
e
Nitin Nohria is a professor and former dean of
Harvard Business School.