deletions | additions       diff --git a/Problems.tex b/Problems.tex  index b483c8d..155a006 100644  --- a/Problems.tex  +++ b/Problems.tex 
...
\end{enumerate}  \subsubsection{Backlash Firestorms When Solution Developed by Small Group is Made Public}  A group of deans comes up with a new set of titles for non-tenure-track appointments. When it is announced, all hell breaks loose; it turns out they have managed to offend just about every subgroup in the category with their solution. A proposal for a new major is incredibly well thought out by three faculty members but it is completely shot down by an odd coalition of faculty members from a completely different division.  A common response to these experiences is to form larger committees, but that just invites all the pathologies of large committees (see section X).  \subsubsection{Email Cascades Among Committee Members}  A committee member sends an email raising an issue about discussion at the last meeting, ccing all. Another committee member responds hastily, and then another. Then a fourth one sees the last email but doesn't look at the previous two and responds to the sender without CCing. The recipient of this email replies to whole group but most members have not seen the previous email. And so it goes, all in the space of two hours. Then later that day one member who was away from her email writes a missive about the process. And so on and so on.  \subsubsection{Mysterious Data Analyses Breed Distrust}  Have you ever seen a chart or table put up on the screen by a committee chair or administrator and said either "that's a bad chart" or "I wonder where that came from" or "hmmmm, that doesn't seem quite right"? But neither the chart itself nor the person showing it can explain where the data came from or who made it.  \subsubsection{Administrative Reports/Analyses that Would Not Stand Up to Normal Scholarly Standards}  The critical thinking about which we so like to sell what we do to the general public is frequently lacking in the documents we produce and conversations we have when we are running our organizations. Why do we not apply anything even remotely close to the same standards of argument, evidence, coherence, and clarity to our thinking about the institution?  \subsubsection{Logistics of Collaboration are Roadblock to Better Results}  An observant wit once noted that "collaboration is an unnatural act." Beyond possibly being unnatural, it is definitely not "free," that is, successful collaboration may produce the net benefit of a better solution, but there is an energy obstacle to get over to reach this favorable state. This energy hump usually thwarts good collaboration and results in either inferior products, expensive processes, or both.