BlogU

  • Ask the Administrator: Nobody Wants to Chair!

    By Dean Dad August 9, 2007 7:31 am

    A savvy correspondent writes:

    My department at a small private liberal arts
    college has a dramatic generational split, with three senior faculty
    who have been around for twenty years or more, and three junior
    faculty who have been tenured in the last three years. We're currently
    in the middle of an argument about who will have to be Chair next
    year, when the current Chair's term runs out.
    The problem is that the senior faculty have a personal feud that has
    gone on long enough that none of the junior people have any idea how
    it started. It's sufficiently bad that they do not speak directly to
    one another if it can be avoided, and five years ago, the current
    Chair was hired in an external search, to bring a little stability to
    the process. The agreed term was six years as chair, which expires
    next year, and somebody else will need to take the job after that.
    All of the senior faculty have been Chair in the past, with varying
    degrees of success, and none of them can be made Chair without one or
    more of the others causing a problem. There have apparently been
    threats to quit if the job goes to the "wrong" person.
    All of the junior faculty have good reasons why they shouldn't have to
    take the job, primarily because of the damage that would be done to
    their research careers, which are in an early but highly productive
    stage. Tenure, promotion, and merit pay decisions are very heavily
    research-driven, and being Chair would dramatically reduce the ability
    of any of the junior people to do research. Plus, there's the danger
    of being drawn into the senior faculty squabbles-- in addition to all
    the usual academic duties, the Chair is often forced to act as a sort
    of referee in new outbreaks of old arguments.
    The situation seems to have reached an impasse, but a new Chair needs
    to be found, and the Dean is pressing for an answer. If you were the
    Dean, what would you do? Smack the senior people around and tell them
    to stop acting like children? Smack the junior people around and order
    one of them to take the job? Bribe one of the junior people with extra
    money or release time (the Chair currently gets a 40% reduction in
    teaching load, which is not enough to be worth the hassle for the
    junior faculty).? Appoint someone from another department as Acting
    Chair for a few years?
    Thanks in advance for any help you and your readers can provide.

    -----------

    Oooh, I like this one. (And the answer, as you'll see, is 'none of the above.')

    This wouldn't happen in exactly this way at my cc, since here, chairs are appointed by deans. In practice, of course, that only happens when a vacancy occurs for natural causes, since removing a chair is considered an abuse of power. The logic eludes me, but there it is.

    Back in the day, when confronted with a situation like this, someone would say “Turn back! It's a trap!”

    Since you apparently go by an election system, I'd take a subtle tack. A good-hearted but naïve dean would try to resolve the situation by sparing the department the difficult choice by making it himself. It would solve the immediate problem, but the new chair would be instantly despised by all as the dean's lackey, and other departments would notice that they could possibly finagle more release time (there would be a sudden epidemic of reluctance to serve, which could only be palliated by increased release time and other perks) by creating crises. Once you fall into crisis management mode, you're prey to all manner of savvy predators. Reward bickering, and you'll get more of it. No, thanks.

    Instead, I'd press the department into a corner. Either you pick a chair by the deadline, or I fold you into another department. If nobody is willing to step up, then clearly the department has ceased to function as a department, and it needs to be reorganized. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! (Meanwhile, by reorganizing, I save most of the cost of release time for one chair, even after giving the 'receiving' chair a compensatory bump. A dean's office win-win!)

    That way, the department has to decide which is more important: its feuds or its autonomy. I'm okay either way. What I won't do is make myself the common enemy. Been there, done that. In a nutshell, my message would be: You can come to any answer you want, but you can't change the subject.

    Admittedly, this approach presses the innocent into a tight cage with the guilty. But such is the nature of department life.

    Early in my admin career, I probably would have fallen into the trap of trying to recruit somebody. But sometimes you have to force the issue. If the kids can't play nicely in the sandbox, I won't hover over them; I'll just take away the sandbox. If they know that, and know that I'm not bluffing, then they have a choice to make.

    As I've mentioned before in the context of victim bullies, tenured faculty sometimes use intransigence as a way to escape both supervision and responsibility. Much of the time, my hands are tied, and they get away with it. In this case, though, no. Step up or step off.

    Wise and worldly readers – what do you think?

    Have a question? Ask the Administrator at ccdean (at) myway (dot) com.

Advertisement

Comments on Ask the Administrator: Nobody Wants to Chair!

  • Posted by Chuck on August 10, 2007 at 12:25pm EDT
  • Look at the language used here: squabbles, bickering, sandbox. You strongly imply that there can be no legitimate disagreement over real issues involved. You imply this must be a matter of personality or ego, not substance. I would find myself intransigent in a department that trivialized concerns and refused to deal with issues. Chairs that similarly duck issues and provide no leadership perpetuate the problem, in my opinion.

  • Committee Chair Comment
  • Posted by Guy Zaczek , instructor on August 13, 2007 at 4:45pm EDT
  • Let us start by taking this theoretical situation into the Real World. Three years ago my dean at the time suffered through the same dilemma in management dynamics. Middle States wanted a plan that would only be accepted by them, if developed through the collegially collective efforts of our college.

    In other words, it needed to be done, no one had the time, fewer had the expertise, and there was a drop dead date when our accreditation body expected it finished. So my dean named two individuals to co-chair this committee with the expertise and nothing else. We held formal meeting were typically few showed up. But we included everyone when we published the minutes.

    When we needed consensus we just dropped into offices, held informal conversations and then e-mailed a statement which they already agreed to and used it to promote our progress.

    When a statement was made by an individual who did not agree with the consensus of the committee most always we agreed with that individual and included the concern into the body of the report. We also stated that the concern was valid and a work around solution was designed that kept us on track but also respected the divergent idea. It showed others how differing opinions needed to be entertained but divergent ideas were not show stoppers (you can do many things to a sand box without taking it away).

    As one of the co-chairs I am proud of the work that we did. Not much time was wasted in board rooms. The quality of the conversations we had one on one outweighed the grandstanding sometimes found in front of an audience. And we did maintain the respect necessary for true collective collegiate decision making.

    My advice is to change the dynamics by changing the talent pool. It may work or it may fail. But the more your committee thinks the idea is crazy, then the more you need to do it.