Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments Edited by Carolyn Allard

TOOLKIT

Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Published by Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint 989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741 www.josseybass.com No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-8789, fax 201-748-6326, www.wiley.com/go/permissions. Jossey-Bass books and products are available through most bookstores. To contact Jossey-Bass directly call our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800-956-7739, outside the U.S. at 317-572-3986, or fax 317-572-4002. Jossey-Bass also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available upon request

Contents Introduction

1

Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation New Challenges in Faculty Recruiting

2

Diversity at the Department Level

7

by N. Douglas Lees and Gautam Vemuri by Lynn M. Maurer, Anthony Q. Cheeseboro, and Patrick Murphy

The Faculty Handbook: A Guide or a Labyrinth?

12

The Chair as Evaluation “Charlatan”

17

by Jon K. Dalager

by Christine M. Licata and N. Douglas Lees

Faculty Mentoring and Development A Collaborative for Mentoring New Faculty

23

Mentoring Tenured Faculty: Rationales and Programs

28

Energizing the Senior Professor

34

Mentoring and Faculty Development

41

by Suzanne W. Soled, Melissa M. Jones, Daniel W. Doerger, Jaesook L. Gilbert, and Sara K. Eisenhardt by Jacquelyn S. Litt, Sheryl A. Tucker, and Jill M. Hermsen by Barbara Oney Garvey by Carol A. Mullen

iii

iv╇╇ Contents

Enhancing Teaching and Building Community Building a Shared Value of Teaching in a Department: What Chairs Can Do

47

Motivating Faculty to Engage in Service-Learning

51

Joyful Chairing: Finding Joy in Committee Work

57

Department Chairs and Work-Life Flexibility for Faculty

61

Engaging Faculty: Departmental Shared Governance That Works

66

by Mary C. Wright by Debra Burke

by Kina S. Mallard and Mark L. Sargent by Kate Quinn

by Mary L. Fisher

Departmental Initiatives Hitting the Ground Running: Making Strategic Changes

72

The Department Advisory Board as an Academic Partner

77

Reframing Departmental Planning

83

Conducting an Annual Fund Campaign

87

by John Paxton

by Dan W. French by Mark Putnam

by Jeffrey L. Buller

Chair Development and Next Steps Administrative Reflection: Focal Points and Considerations for Department Chairs

93

Taking Your Administrative Résumé to the Next Level of Excellence

98

by David A. Birch

by Jeffrey L. Buller

Preparing for Your Departure as Chair by N. Douglas Lees

103

Introduction

Chairing an academic department comes with a multitude of responsibilities in a wide variety of areas. As a new department chair, you immediately confront many of the basics of academic leadership: managing budgets, supporting faculty, resolving conflict, and facilitating change, to name a few of the topics covered in The Essentials for New Department Chairs, the companion to this booklet. This collection is designed to help you navigate the further intricacies of your role. Bringing together in one place for the first time sound advice and proven strategies from experts in the field, these articles from The Department Chair provide practical tips on such topics as post-tenure review, work-life balance for faculty, fundraising, departmental planning, and preparing your administrative résumé. Every selection contains easily accessible strategies and advice that you can put to use immediately. The range of articles covers the important functions of academic departments, and the authors impart the skills and thinking you need to enhance your leadership capabilities. For brand-new department chairs this booklet will provide you with an overview of the complexities of the chair role. For those chairs with a year or two more experience this booklet will provide direction and guidance as you delve more deeply into your responsibilities. Designed to provide a wealth of strategies in five crucial areas— faculty recruitment and evaluation, faculty mentoring and development, enhancing teaching and building community, departmental initiatives, and chair development and next steps—the expert advice and field-tested techniques presented here offer essential insights into this important chair work. This collection will equip you with lessons to draw from and best practices for leading into the future. 1

SECTION ONE

Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

New Challenges in Faculty Recruiting by N. Douglas Lees and Gautam Vemuri Several recent studies have tracked the demographics of faculty members currently serving in our colleges and universities and have found that more than half are over age fifty and nearly 20% are over age sixty. Although the data come from public comprehensive institutions there is no reason to believe that they are not representative of academe as a whole. While tenure and the elimination of a mandatory retirement age for faculty have induced some to stay in their positions longer, most of these individuals will stay on for only a few more years. Though it is difficult to predict the impact of slow salary growth, the recent investment account losses, and the rising cost of health insurance on the decision to retire, it remains that there will be a need to replace a significant proportion of our faculties within the next decade or so. This transition will take place during a fiscally restrictive environment and at a time when new economic development initiatives will increase the competition for the best faculty in key areas. Higher education has been feeling the economic pinch for some time and the recent collapse of investment markets has further decreased state support for public institutions, thereby exacerbating the problem. Private institutions have suffered as a result of the high tuition that some can no longer afford and the drop in endowment income. Within most institutions

2



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

3

another financial factor has been at play for some time and it will make recruiting new faculty more difficult. This is the reality that starting salaries have been rising much more rapidly than continuing salaries, thus creating salary compression and, in some cases, salary inversion. External to colleges and universities, the basic economy of the United States has been transitioning from a manufacturing base to a knowledge base, resulting in states declaring new focal areas for economic development. State dollars will preferentially flow to these areas and public institutions will be expected to be major players in the transition by developing or strengthening academic and research programs in these fields. It is interesting to note that nearly all fifty states have launched new ventures to bolster the health and life sciences due to the availability of federal dollars for research, the aging population, and the attractiveness of the potential for small start-up companies to drive employment expansion. Information technology is another area of interest in some state initiatives. These areas and others will see fierce competition for the best faculty to develop and enhance programs and conduct research that will garner external grant support.

Managing the Transition Department chairs will be involved in many aspects of replacing retiring faculty. Veteran chairs as well as aspiring chairs realize that budgets are tight and there are no guarantees that a replacement position or a new position for a growing program will be forthcoming. They also realize that they will have to meet increasing student demand, keep academic programs viable, maintain service activities and community engagement, and, perhaps, continue progress in personal research. Just how should chairs plan to deal with the conflicting circumstances of diminished resources and increased productivity expectations? One approach to this dilemma is to review faculty and staff demographics to predict departures in the context of the work the unit needs to accomplish now and in the near future. Knowing when personnel can retire does not mean they will, and there are always surprises along the

4

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

way, such as resignations. However, the chair is the best person to know the intentions of department colleagues and to make an educated guess about what needs are on the horizon. Once there is a good grasp of who may leave, when they may leave, and what work they will leave undone, the chair can move to the next step in the planning process. Knowing that cost will be a major limitation when replacing faculty, the chair may want to consider new ways to get the work done that will save resources, such as faculty appointments other than those on the tenure track. The appointment of full-time nontenure-track faculty has been increasing in the past several decades primarily because of cost factors, and there is little doubt this strategy will continue to be used. Examples include lecturers, sometimes called “instructors,” who teach significantly more than their tenure-track colleagues and who are typically paid less. Other more progressive models include clinical rank hires who may do a variety of work and whose positions have promotional ranks available. In addition, the academic specialist may be able to accomplish tasks that straddle the work of faculty and professional staff. Such considerations will require that chairs think about reassigning tasks. For example, two lecturers may free several faculty members to be more research productive, allowing the department to keep its profile high even if a position is lost. Likewise, an academic specialist may pick up a portion of student advising or outreach responsibilities, thus freeing up time for others to invest in different but essential work. Beyond full-time appointments there are part-time (adjunct) faculty and graduate or undergraduate students who, through credit programs or part-time pay, may be able to fulfill some duties as lab or recitation leaders or help with large-class management.

Creating a Staffing Plan All the components of collecting data and reassigning work using new personnel models can now be used to construct a staffing plan that links predicted losses to new, reconfigured positions to meet present or anticipated needs. Because some elements are guesses, the plan should not be a fixed document but one that responds to changing situations and is regularly updated. Making this plan known to the dean demonstrates that



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

5

the chair is organized and has a firm grasp on the department and the work it needs to accomplish. And, of course, the plan does not require new resources and may even save some dollars. Finally, having a plan at hand means the chair is immediately ready with a blueprint for replacement that is justified based on documented department need should a position vacancy or new hiring opportunity arise.

The Chair as Recruiter Consider a chair who has been given permission to hire a tenure-track replacement for a retiring full professor in a highly competitive area. Institutional salaries have risen slowly over the years and the price for new faculty in this area has increased dramatically. Although one might hope that there will be a significant salary savings between what the full professor earned and what the new assistant professor will be paid, the reality will be much less than expected. Furthermore, the chair may learn that salary expectations are such that the new hire will earn about the same as associate professors with ten to fifteen years of service to the institution and more than the salaries of most recently promoted associate professors. The problems of compression and inversion are difficult to solve because to raise everyone’s salary would be prohibitively expensive and to lowball the offer would result in a failure to fill the position. At the least, the chair should speak to the faculty about these salary issues in the hope that they will be understood as necessities to keep the unit and institution viable and competitive. Even with the faculty’s understanding and the dean’s willingness to offer a salary that is above the norm, it still may not be enough to attract a candidate. In addition, other factors in the offer—the start-up package for equipment, supplies, summer salary, and personnel for a bench scientist—and the work conditions—teaching load and service work—may not be competitive with other offers. How can chairs create a climate that will be perceived as better than those with more substantive fiscal offers on the table? There are several factors that a new faculty member may be looking for that can balance the playing field for those whose pockets are not deep.

6

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

One is unit collegiality and willingness to collaborate. This is a desired characteristic for the new generation of faculty. Projecting the fact that within the institution everyone is supportive and collaborative and that competitiveness comes in relationship to those who are external can be an important consideration. Chairs also should use the entire campus community in the recruiting process. This supports the collaborative notion and can identify resources such as facilities and equipment that are available for use, thus decreasing the cost of what has to be purchased from institutional resources. Similarly, some positions may have external constituents who may be supporters or collaborators; make certain the candidate meets them. It is also important for chairs to be upfront about what it takes for a successful journey through the promotion and tenure process. Finally—and the candidate will learn this from conversations with other recent hires—deliver on your commitments. Knowing that the chair is a person of integrity and credibility is a critical factor for new faculty.

Summary Chairs should develop a staffing plan that includes a mix of traditional and alternative faculty and staff hires to meet the current and future needs of the department. This will allow the department to meet its obligations and maintain productivity while keeping costs down. Despite economic restrictions, there has been significant cost escalation in hiring in key disciplines and chairs will have to deal with issues of salary compression and inversion. They will also have to be creative in competing with other institutions that have more resources by convincing a candidate that other factors can outweigh dollar differentials. N. Douglas Lees is associate dean for planning and finance, and Gautam Vemuri is professor of physics, both at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. Email: [email protected], [email protected]. This article is based on a presentation at the 26th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 11–13, 2009, Orlando, Florida.



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

7

Diversity at the Department Level by Lynn M. Maurer, Anthony Q. Cheeseboro, and Patrick Murphy Department chairs benefit if they are fortunate enough to be at a university that has implemented the Inclusive Excellence model, the latest in diversity programs. This model provides ample resources to recruit and retain minorities, offers a network to depend on, and promotes diversity as a central university value. For chairs at universities that do not employ this model, implementing and maintaining diversity can be frustrating, isolating, and marginalizing. Nonetheless, chairs can effect change and promote diversity regardless of the plan within their institution. Here we explore three areas: (1) recruiting and retaining minority faculty, (2) diversityoriented courses in the curriculum, and (3) the value of diversity for assessment and accreditation.

What Is the Inclusive Excellence Model? The Inclusive Excellence model is made up of three existing prominent diversity models: (1) Affirmative Action, (2) the Multicultural Model, and (3) Academic Diversity (Williams & Clowney, 2007). Thus, it is a broad and encompassing model. It is a vertical model because diversity is a core value of the institution and is espoused by the higher administration. It is also horizontal in that communication, planning, and assessment take place across schools, colleges, and units. Cooperation and support may take the form of a diversity council. There are frequent conversations among deans, chairs, and chairs of search committees. As Williams and Clowney maintain, diversity is “communicated relentlessly” (p. 9). Chairs benefit from resources such as a diversity officer and a strategic diversity plan.

8

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

What Steps Can Chairs Take? At institutions at which the Inclusive Excellence model has not been implemented, diversity is usually listed as a value, or there may be a committee or even a diversity officer. When resources are not available, chairs can take the following steps: • Educate yourself on diversity at your university. • Understand the myths and realities about diversity hiring and retention. • Gain inspiration from programs at other universities. • Get the facts on your institution as compared to others. • Steer the department toward setting diversity as a value. • Consistently communicate a commitment to diversity.

Diversity in Recruiting and Retaining Minority Faculty Certain myths exist regarding the hiring of minority faculty: that searches are too competitive, heterosexual white men are disadvantaged, the climate toward minorities has improved, and minority hiring will necessitate high-powered negotiations (Smith, Wolf-Wendel, & Busenberg, 1996). As chairs, we have opportunities to combat these widespread beliefs by speaking about them with the department. We should advertise in minority publications and websites. Pre-interviewing at professional conferences should be carried out by department members who are committed to diversity. When making an offer to a faculty member, the chair may or may not be directly involved. Often the dean—or even a chief diversity officer—makes the offer and carries out the negotiation. Find out what resources and salary the university can provide to help in the hire. And by resources, chairs should not limit their thinking to just salary or access to research support (travel funds or research assistants), as candidates can be attracted to institutions because of quality of life issues (access to culturally diverse cities, community groups, bilingual schools, and/or campus-run child care).



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

9

Retaining minority faculty is often more difficult than the initial recruitment. Chairs can help strengthen the networks of minority faculty by providing one or two formal mentors. Chairs can also protect new minority faculty from having to serve as the “showcase” minority on many committees. Gubitosi-White (1999) identified three institutional norms of higher education that can be stumbling blocks for minorities: rank-based hierarchy, untenured faculty silence, and individualism, which leads to isolation. The chair’s awareness of these difficulties will not guarantee success, but it will increase the possibility of retaining minority faculty.

Diversity in the Curriculum Diversity in the curriculum is a goal that every department needs to seek within the university if diversity is going to have intellectual depth and not be merely an administrative mantra. Diversity is easier to achieve in some disciplines than others. History, sociology, political science, English, and literature all have long-standing subdisciplines that look at issues of race, sex, and gender. In fact, a college of arts that does not offer significant levels of diversity within at least some of its humanities and social sciences virtually does not exist anymore in the United States. Because subdisciplines such as African-American history and women’s literature are so established, it can be easy for a casual observer outside these fields to think these areas totally encompass diversity. Of course, this is not always the case. For example, through the examination of demography, geography can easily incorporate issues of diversity. The other side of diversity is that some disciplines have had a problematic relationship with diversity. This is especially true of anthropology, particularly in relation to the peoples of the developing world whose level of material culture is different from that of the west. Although anthropology has addressed these issues thoroughly over the past fifty years, negative notions of the discipline have often lingered, especially in those communities that felt aggrieved by the work of earlier generations of scholars. Nonetheless, this problem also presents an opportunity for scholars to reintroduce their field to the public.

10

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

The issues that have affected anthropology are similar to some of the problems found in the sciences. However, the advance of genetic science has provided a new way to look at differences that bypass the old language of race, in addition to being a much more effective way of measuring actual meaningful difference and the effect on populations. Chairs in all disciplines should consider the meaning of diversity in their field within its academic and cultural context, constantly striving to engage their faculty in the discussion and development of the curriculum. Cross-disciplinary discussions and roundtables can also be organized with other chairs.

Diversity in Assessment and Accreditation Many accredited programs are required to assess efforts aimed at engendering diversity and creating a climate of inclusiveness. But according to one accrediting council, diversity is the standard “schools have most failed to meet” (Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications, 2003, p. 3). For a program to maintain its accredited status, chairs need to develop integrated written assessment plans based on identifiable indicators and evidence. To begin, chairs can review past records of faculty and staff hiring, as well as promotion and tenure decisions. What are the existing search protocols and promotion practices? How successful have these been? What can be learned from failed searches or early departures of talented faculty? In recognizing and responding to problems revealed by these questions, we can elaborate proactive searches, anticipating the needs of strong candidates instead of terminating unsatisfactory searches. The results have a profound impact on the profile of a department, and, not surprisingly, accrediting bodies are interested in how hiring practices and promotion decisions reflect the unit’s commitment to diversity. Similarly, chairs should examine communication with students before and during their time in a program. Promotional materials are vital for outreach but should be punctuated by campus tours, informational meetings, and visits to local schools. Once students select a program, their experience should include accessible faculty and professional advisors. In addition, for



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

11

many disciplines student success is intimately linked to internships, so the program director should work hard to understand and serve a diverse student population. Keeping records of such roles, efforts, and activities, and assessing their integration, is an important part of establishing the place of diversity in student recruitment, retention, and degree completion. Commitment to diversity and inclusiveness is also reflected in the use of invited speakers. However, although individual instructors may bring in speakers to present on issues related to race, class, gender, and sexuality, these efforts are not always shared with colleagues. Thus, faculty may be creating a diverse and inclusive atmosphere but not communicating the commitment to each other. Chairs need to ensure that efforts are collectively registered so that faculty, students, and staff, as well as accreditors, recognize diversity as a programmatic value. Finally, a unit’s commitment to diversity and inclusiveness is evident in its curriculum; many accrediting councils ask departments to demonstrate diversity as an assessable standard. This commitment can be listed as a learning objective within course syllabi. In addition, departments should keep track of the learning materials and audiovisuals used that underscore the experience of inclusiveness and diversity in the classroom.

Conclusion Chairs can bring the value of diversity to the forefront of their departments, regardless of the institutional model in use at their college or university. In presenting this information to other chairs inside and outside of our institutions, we have found that their ability to implement diversity as a value often varies according to size, location, and type of college and university. Nevertheless, as we have attempted to identify in this article, there are strategies that can be used at the department level flexible enough to help foster diversity in almost any institutional context. Lynn M. Maurer is professor and former chair of the Department of Political Science at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Anthony Q. Cheeseboro is chair of the Department of Historical Studies at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Patrick Murphy is chair of the Department of Broadcasting, Telecommunications, and Mass Media at Temple University. Email: [email protected], [email protected],

12

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments [email protected]. This article is based on a presentation at the 26th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 11–13, 2009, Orlando, Florida.

References Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communications. (2003). Diversity: Best practices. A handbook for journalism and mass communications educators. Lawrence, KS: Author. Gubitosi-White, A. (1999). Toward a warmer climate: The impact of campus culture on underrepresented faculty. Diversity Digest. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Smith, D. G., Wolf-Wendel, L., & Busenberg, B. (1996). Achieving faculty diversity: Debunking the myths. Diversity Digest. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Williams, D. A., & Clowney, C. (2007). Strategic planning for diversity and organizational change. Effective Practices for Academic Leaders, 2(3), 1–16.

The Faculty Handbook: A Guide or a Labyrinth? by Jon K. Dalager As an assistant professor, I, like many of my colleagues, ignored the college’s faculty handbook and focused on class preparation and research. As I began applying for tenure and promotion, I cracked open the handbook and started seeing some inconsistencies and ambiguities. Finally, when I was elected to the faculty committee and charged with the application of the policies and procedures in the faculty handbook, I could vividly see that this was not a complete and well-written guide to college procedures as I had assumed, but rather a confusing, contradictory, and incomplete manual—more of a labyrinth for unsuspecting victims than a guide for conscientious colleagues. And as I examined the faculty handbooks from dozens of other institutions, I realized that our situation was not unique.



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

13

Unfortunately, the faculty handbook varies considerably by institution. I have seen very detailed handbooks and very general handbooks. I have seen handbooks organized alphabetically by policy title or subject matter, and chronologically by date of policy passage. In addition, the faculty handbook may not be the only document that addresses relevant policies and procedures at the department chair’s institution. There may be other policy manuals that apply.

The Department Chair and the Faculty Handbook Why should a department chair be concerned about the contents and internal consistency of the faculty handbook? Not only are many faculty handbooks considered a part of the employment contract with the institution, many recite the duties and responsibilities of the department chair. Among these are recommending faculty for tenure and promotion or recommending termination of employment. Most chairs do not have independent hiring or firing power, but must make recommendations to a provost or academic dean. Nevertheless, department chairs must be especially careful if their decision has an impact on any employee’s “liberty interest,” which exists in anything affecting their employment in a significant way such as in hiring, firing, nonrenewal of an appointment, promotion, and tenure. If a liberty interest is affected then the employee is entitled to due process, which requires that (1) the affected employee receives notice of the charge or decision affecting his or her interest, (2) the employee has a right to be heard on that issue, and (3) an unbiased tribunal will determine the propriety of the decision.

Faculty Handbook Survivor: Two Episodes from a Reality Show The case of the nonexistent grievance committee. During my tenure on the faculty committee, my colleagues and I were presented with a dispute between a department chair and a tenured full professor over a course assignment. The senior professor complained to the provost and,

14

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

after receiving an unsatisfactory response, filed a grievance with the faculty committee. Unfortunately for us, the faculty handbook stated that the petitioner will be “provided with an opportunity to present his/her case to an elected grievance committee. The grievance committee will consist of three members of the faculty who have tenure and who are elected at large. No departmental chair or administrative officer shall serve on the committee.” The problem is that nothing else in the faculty handbook established a grievance committee. It didn’t exist. The provost had to draft a special policy and get the faculty to adopt it so that a grievance committee could hear the grievance. The policy was adopted, the committee was elected, and they heard the grievance. This incident shows two problems with the faculty handbook. First, the description of the department chair’s duties was ambiguous enough to raise some doubt about who assigns the classes, and what happens if the faculty disagrees. The second problem is that the handbook referred to a committee that didn’t exist. At some point in the past, the administration and/or faculty included a policy to allow grievances to be heard, but they did not finish the job. They forgot to create the grievance committee to which they referred. The case of the assistant professor and mandatory tenure review. The inconsistency of terms in the handbook is revealed in another example. A department chair advised an assistant professor in his third year that he had to apply for tenure or would be fired. The chair interpreted the provisions as requiring an applicant to apply for tenure after six years of full-time employment. The assistant professor had worked full-time in a nontenure-track position at another institution for three years. The dilemma for the faculty committee was that the rules state that the promotion and tenure decision must be based only on service while at the college. No matter how promising the assistant professor may be, his record was insufficient to merit tenure. The faculty committee’s choices seem limited. If we adopted the strict interpretation of the department chair, we review the applicant’s two-and-half-year record and deny him tenure, thus



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

15

losing a good colleague. Or, the faculty committee could grant him tenure and set a low threshold for all other applicants, rendering tenure meaningless. The solution was in a parenthetical reference included in the tenure provisions. It referred to the Association of American University Professors’ policy of 1940 that discussed “probationary” service. By interpreting the tenure procedures with the addition of an implied probationary status, then the assistant professor did not need to apply for tenure at that time. Because the candidate had served as a nontenure-track visiting assistant professor at his previous institution, he was not in a probationary position (even though it was full-time) and therefore he did not need to apply for early tenure. The lesson is that the omission of the word probationary in the tenure procedures section may have jeopardized the assistant professor’s chances of tenure and promotion. If not for the reference to and inclusion of the AAUP policy, the faculty committee may have had no choice but to deny the tenure application and lose a good young faculty member.

Faculty Handbook as an Enforceable Contract Courts have varied in their treatment of faculty handbooks. The AAUP has published a guide to state decisions concerning the enforceability of the handbook as a contract. Based on these case excerpts, it appears that courts in the United States have three general positions on the enforceability of faculty handbooks as a part of the employment contract. First, many states find that they are part of the contract and the terms are enforceable. These institutions are obligated to honor the policies and procedures in the handbook and the employees are obligated to pursue internal remedies for their dispute. Although not always clear from the descriptions, many of the state courts find the contract to be “implied” or simply understood by the parties. A second set of state courts has found the handbook to be an enforceable contract because of a specific reference in the employment

16

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

contract or letter of appointment. If the written agreement refers to the policies of the institution or to an employee manual, handbook, or the like, then it is binding on the parties. A final set of courts has adopted a presumption that all employees are “at-will” and such a presumption may be overridden by clear language in a written contract. In other words, a faculty member may not be entitled to tenure even if a faculty handbook provides for it unless the handbook is expressly incorporated into the employment agreement. Because this is a constantly changing area of the law and dependent on state court decisions, as well as state legislation, any questions on a particular state’s legal interpretation of the faculty handbook as an enforceable contract should be directed to your institution’s attorney or one who is familiar with higher education or employment law in that state.

Recommendations for Chairs In order to be prepared for possible complications, disputes, questions, or other problems, a department chair should read and have available a copy of the faculty handbook and any related policy manuals published by the institution. Not only should the chair be aware of the policies and procedures of the institution as set forth in the handbook, he or she must follow them. Chairs are advised to follow the rules because failure to do so may result in the institution’s breach of the employment contract. The chair is a representative of the institution and decisions and actions, as well as the failure to act, are binding on the institution. Following the procedures in a handbook may also protect the chair from individual liability, internal disciplinary processes, and claims such as defamation, discrimination, or sexual harassment. I would also suggest that the chair document all important decisionmaking processes and the basis for those decisions. This should include any decision involving hiring, firing, promoting, and recommendations for granting or denial of tenure. If the chair is aware of contradictions, omissions, or ambiguities in the faculty handbook, then by all means, see



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

17

that they are corrected. It is always better to practice preventative medicine than to respond to crisis after crisis. Leave that job to the firemen. Jon K. Dalager, J.D., is dean of the School of Natural and Social Sciences at Wayne State College. Email: [email protected]. This article is based on a presentation at the 24th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 7–9, 2007, Orlando, Florida.

The Chair as Evaluation “Charlatan” by Christine M. Licata and N. Douglas Lees Ask any ten department chairs which aspect of their job they feel the least equipped for and at least seven will tell you it is the task of evaluating department faculty. The chair’s evaluation role has expanded over the last fifteen years, so it is little wonder that many are overwhelmed and underprepared. Chairs often feel like evaluation imposters because they have had little or no training in the art and science of evaluation and know even less about performance counseling. Yet one doesn’t dare advertise these shortcomings. What is different today? First, in the last decade stakeholders in many states have become increasingly uncomfortable with the perceived lack of accountability around faculty work and with the guarantee of continued employment that accompanies tenure. As a result, the ways in which institutions measure faculty performance and productivity are receiving increased scrutiny. Public and private institutions alike are being called on to demonstrate that tenure-track and tenured faculty are regularly reviewed and that appropriate development and intervention occurs as needed. Add to this the highly litigious environment in which academic leaders work and one can understand why chairs find faculty

18

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

evaluation a daunting task. To further heighten the complexity of today’s evaluation responsibilities is the age distribution of faculty. More faculty members are over the age of fifty than under that age today, and no one really knows with certainty what the retirement patterns of these individuals will be. This broader age distribution demands that chairs familiarize themselves with career and adult development theory and include appropriate application in their repertoire. An effective department chair must be able to report that all department members are pulling their own weight, contributing in meaningful and demonstrable ways to teaching and scholarship goals, and helping the department achieve its performance outcome objectives. What this means is that the evaluation role goes well beyond merely writing a review and assigning a performance rating. It extends to developing plans for sustaining individual professional contributions and devising strategies to improve performance. It requires understanding how to nurture and support career planning and engagement for midand late-career faculty. It demands abilities to positively encourage and mentor early-career faculty. Occasionally, it requires the courage to invoke administrative sanctions and bring a contentious situation to an appropriate conclusion for the individual and the institution. Our experience suggests that there are some reasoned and seasoned practices that every department chair might consider. While institutional contexts differ significantly and evaluation procedures vary considerably, the desired outcome from evaluation is the same regardless of institutional culture. Every department strives to hire, tenure, and sustain high-performing quality faculty. We recommend that you try some or all of the following suggestions, and see if your evaluation skills and confidence improve. Place the evaluation process within a larger evaluation and development framework. Know which types of professional development resources are available to faculty at your institution. Have this inventory ready when you write the review and meet with the faculty member. Refer to such things as faculty development grants, activities offered through the teaching and learning center, and summer research grants.



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

19

Include resources that may be available through national disciplinary associations. Remember that you should not evaluate what you cannot develop. Tie the way you close the loop with each faculty member back to a professional development plan and available resources. Collaboratively establish department performance expectations and measures used to evidence and evaluate performance. Refer to these expectations and measures as a way of ensuring that department faculty clearly understand what counts, who does the counting, what is valued, and what flexibility exists. This is the most important place to begin. Consider both quantity and quality performance indicators. Remember that if there isn’t a sense of faculty ownership in the performance expectations, the process will be perfunctory. If you currently don’t have a departmental peer-review process, consider establishing one. Ask faculty to document accomplishments, and use this documentation as your launching pad. You need evidence on which to base your evaluation comments. When departmental peer review is involved, carefully consider what peers have said and how they have arrived at their judgments. You should also keep a running file on each faculty member. Write a quick note each time information comes your way so you don’t forget an achievement that you want to applaud or overlook an issue that has been raised more than once by students, colleagues, or other stakeholders. Write the evaluation in a way that demonstrates you are working from cultures of evidence, respect, collegiality, and quality improvement. Be careful that you characterize performance using precise and objective language. Always use examples to support your evaluative comments. If you cannot point to a concrete example of performance that illustrates your point, don’t say it. Always be generous with recognition of performance that deserves mention. Don’t shy away from pointing out areas that need improvement or performance that causes concern. But remember that if you suggest areas that need improvement, you must also provide recommendations for how to improve, set improvement timelines, and discuss available resources. A rule of thumb: Write the evaluation with sufficient backup material so that if the faculty member grieves the

20

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

review, you have what you need to prevail. Ask another chair or your dean to review a particularly difficult evaluation you are writing. Another set of eyes can bring things back to 20/20. Provide the opportunity for a face-to-face evaluation meeting. Skipping this step, even if your policy doesn’t require it, can be a real mistake in establishing the kind of supportive evaluation-development culture that characterizes effective organizations. Meetings require your time, but at a minimum you should discuss performance at least once every other year with those whose performance is solid and exceeding expectations. For faculty whose performance is just meeting expectations or below expectations, a meeting every year can help you understand the situation better and suggest ways to get the faculty member back on track. Don’t underestimate the power of feedback for both your high performers and your soon-to-be high performers. Close the loop by setting performance goals and a professional development plan for the next year. This step should never be eliminated. By doing this, you have the focal point for the succeeding year’s evaluation. Always pledge your support in writing to work with faculty members in whichever ways seem appropriate to help them achieve their development plan and look for resources that can help faculty realize their performance goals. Review what research on faculty careers tells us about mid- and late-career faculty motivations and interests (Baldwin, 2005; Bland & Bergquist, 1997). Broaden that by paying attention to what new faculty say about work-life concerns. The historical faculty paradigm of a married, white male faculty member with a spouse who handles family and home affairs is no longer the contemporary profile. Faculty diversity (gender, race, sexual orientation) should be supported by faculty worklife practices that help balance professional roles and personal priorities. There is no longer one standard faculty profile. Chairs must recognize and incorporate this into how to manage human resources. Push your institution to embrace innovative family work-life policies (see Mason, Stacy, & Goulden, 2004).



Faculty Recruitment and Evaluation

21

Facilitate career planning by recognizing that some faculty may want to change their focus, modify their areas of emphasis, or change their level of contribution. There can be real generational differences— this is normal and should be celebrated and supported. Experiment with differentiated work assignments. As some faculty age, the vigor to conduct research may fade. Find ways to work with this by increasing teaching, curriculum, or service expectations. Use interested and qualified senior faculty as mentors for new faculty and new students. Team some of your senior faculty with new faculty to see if technology-aversive behavior improves (Lees, Brown, & Barr, 2001; Licata & Morreale, 2006). Employ strategies for maintaining faculty engagement and vitality. Support “hold harmless” experiments for new faculty initiatives. Protect faculty time—help faculty use their expertise wisely. Promote strategic investments to open new and out-of-the box projects. Promote national or international opportunities through travel support and exchanges. Promote undergraduate research opportunities. Try flexible time leaves or time banks where faculty can be relieved of teaching and other responsibilities for less than an entire year or semester. Fund colleague collaboration—team teaching, reverse mentoring, joint research, or joint publishing (Nesteruk, 2006). Keep institutional factors positive to the degree that you can. Don’t shortchange the importance of your faculty having a sense of well-being and knowing that the institution cares about them. Align departmental goals with individual faculty goals, and make sure these goals are compatible with the objectives of high-performing faculty. Promote a collegial environment through opportunities for collaboration. Recognize and reward faculty as often as you can. Use differentiated work assignments to the degree you can in order to build on the strengths of your faculty. Think about the department as a unit and focus on collective productivity rather than on individual productivity. Put 80% of your evaluation energy into helping good faculty become great faculty and helping great faculty sustain their greatness. In those instances when you have a faculty member who has become disengaged, document all attempts to help him or her get back in the groove.

22

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

If all else fails, seek support up the line to take additional administrative action. However, be sure that your ducks are in order before doing so. Bear in mind that ignoring disengagement, or worse, ignoring incompetence, breeds contempt by other department members. You have a responsibility to employ whatever means you have to improve the situation. Your students deserve it, and so do department peers. Hang tough when you need to. Remember: You are not alone in your feelings of inadequacy. Ask your provost or dean to provide you with opportunities for training and mentoring in effective faculty evaluation procedures. Carrying out faculty evaluation responsibilities with confidence and skill requires preparation, practice, and experience. Don’t be afraid to solicit help. And never forget that evaluation ends where development begins. Christine M. Licata is senior associate provost at the Rochester Institute of Technology. N. Douglas Lees is associate dean for planning and finance at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. Email: [email protected], [email protected]

References Baldwin, R. G. (2005, Fall). Making midcareer meaningful. The Department Chair, 16(2), 14–16. Bland, C. J., & Bergquist, W. H. (1997). The vitality of senior faculty members: Snow on the roof—Fire in the furnace (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 25[7]). Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Lees, N. D., Brown, B. E., & Barr, S. H. (2001, Winter). Preparing chairs for expanded roles in post-tenure review: Faculty evaluation and the annual review. The Department Chair, 11(3), 7–9. Licata, C. M., & Morreale, J. C. (2006). Posttenure faculty review and renewal III: Outcomes and impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mason, M. A., Stacy, A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Report on the University of California Work and Family Survey: Developing new initiatives for a family friendly package. Retrieved from http://ucfamilyedge.berkeley.edu/uc%20family%20friendly.ppt Nesteruk, J. (2006,Winter). Midlife in academe. The Department Chair, 16(3), 27–28.

SECTION TWO

Faculty Mentoring and Development A Collaborative for Mentoring New Faculty by Suzanne W. Soled, Melissa M. Jones, Daniel W. Doerger, Jaesook L. Gilbert, and Sara K. Eisenhardt Professional life in higher education necessitates a tremendous learning curve as new faculty are introduced to the customs and traditions associated with college and university positions. Each institution is its own living, breathing unit, and new faculty require time to become accustomed to it. But too often new faculty members are left to their own devices to learn the nuances of academia, negotiating the culture and ensuing expectations with insecurity and trepidation. With the addition of nine new faculty within a two-year span, two department-level administrators—a chair and assistant chair—wanted to create a supportive environment where new faculty could become acculturated to the demands of the university. They hoped to create a safe venue through which neophyte faculty could explore their roles as teachers, scholars, and members of our academic community. The department administrators shared the belief that strong faculty build a strong program, and faculty who want to stay in a department build community. Community creates trust, bolstering the development of relationships with students and faculty. However, the administrators recognized that generating a sense of community among faculty members does not happen by chance. It requires a thoughtful approach to 23

24

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

professional development and collegiality ideally fostered by college and department leaders. This endeavor to create community resulted in the development of a cohort of faculty. At the heart of the New Faculty Collaborative (NFC) was the belief that working together would best support and enrich the lives of all new faculty members. Invitations were extended not only to the new faculty in our department but also to new faculty in other departments in our college. In total, there were eleven first- and second-year faculty across three departments and two administrators participating in the NFC. Our college is located within a comprehensive institution with teaching central to the mission, along with expectations for faculty to conduct scholarly activities and perform community and/or professional service. Lack of sufficient scholarly activity followed by inadequate teaching performance have historically been the reasons why some faculty in our college were not promoted or tenured. Therefore, two key faculty rolesÂ�Â�— teaching and scholarship—were the focus of the collaborative. The overall purpose was, as a collective, to develop and share ways to address the challenges of balancing effective teaching with active engagement in research and scholarship. Over the course of the academic year, we met for two hours each month, addressing a variety of issues. In the area of teaching, the department administrators with the input of NFC participants: • Provided support in syllabi development • Worked toward an understanding of the student population and culture • Shared instructional strategies to intellectually engage students in active learning • Discussed the development of faculty teaching portfolios • Shared ideas for using student evaluations to improve teaching In the area of scholarship we: • Worked toward developing a scholarly agenda • Came to a better understanding of the cycle of research, presenting, and publishing



Faculty Mentoring and Development

25

• Explored how to disseminate scholarship through conferences and publications • Shared tips for professional writing • Explored ways to connect teaching and service with scholarship We also discussed items that are not directly related to teaching and scholarship but are key to being a successful faculty member, including expectations for faculty reappointment and promotion, expectations for student evaluations of teaching, and the annual faculty performance review process. The intent of the NFC was not to replace the one-on-one mentoring between new and experienced faculty. This formal mentoring continued outside of the NFC. The guidance provided through the NFC was less hierarchical in nature. While new faculty were still encouraged to discuss concerns and questions with the tenured faculty member to whom they had been assigned as a mentor, they also received the benefit of interacting with faculty who had a variety of perspectives. They could seek information from each other, check for understanding without feeling incompetent, and know they were not the only ones with questions.

The Evolution of a Community The topics of the NFC meetings were informative and provided new faculty with valuable information needed to be successful and contributing members of the college. However, an unexpected outcome was borne out of our sessions. Not only were new faculty learning the ins and outs of being an effective faculty member, they were also inadvertently creating a new subculture within the college. The NFC became a safe place to take risks, to ask the “dumb” questions that each member thought he or she alone had, contributing to the evolution of a truly collaborative community. The residual outcomes of this collaborative were the unintended social and mental health benefits of these meetings. The members provided support to each other, reducing isolation and generating camaraderie among faculty who were sharing similar experiences.

26

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

This created a two-way dialogue with members becoming contributors to conversations, not just receivers of information. Because the traditional expert versus novice relationships were avoided, members of the NFC recognized themselves as part of a professional learning community, each with expertise to share, diminishing traditional hierarchies. The collaborative became a place where new faculty were honored for what they had to offer, participating as equals across experiences and roles. The experiences provided through the NFC fostered unique connections across programs and departments as well, resulting in collegial relationships that may not have been established otherwise. Unique opportunities to partner on projects were created, including writing a conference paper, coauthoring this article, and writing a book chapter. The seeds for a new collaborative college culture were sown.

Benefits for Administrators The purpose of the NFC was to support new faculty members. However, the administrators quickly learned that there were unexpected benefits for themselves and the department as well. The NFC contributed to a change in the department’s culture, one that they experienced as more collegial and less dependent on a hierarchy. Specifically, the administrators experienced the following benefits, which had an impact on their roles: • With a focus on capacity building, administrators found themselves no longer having to micromanage various faculty responsibilities. • The administrators ensured that everyone was getting the same information, rather than the hit-or-miss fashion that sometimes occurs with one-on-one faculty mentoring. • Administrators were more accessible to the new faculty over the course of the academic year. • New faculty have gotten to know the administrators as peers, not just as supervisors and evaluators, improving communication and the creation of common goals.



Faculty Mentoring and Development

27

There were benefits to others outside the NFC community as well. Due to the NFC, faculty mentoring overall may be evolving, with less focus on specific teaching and scholarship expectations and more on generating supportive partnerships between new and experienced faculty.

The Evolution Continues With the help of the NFC, those participating identify themselves as competent, motivated, and confident instructors who are also active and productive scholars. Members express a sense of rejuvenation as new ideas are shared, sparking new interests and tapping into each other’s talents. We are energized by what we are learning from one another, and the relationships built and camaraderie established will likely carry into the future. Because this program is still in the toddler stages of development, it will continue to transform as we learn from our experiences. We still question how to continue this sense of camaraderie among faculty members once they are considered seasoned, and wonder how involved second-year faculty should be with first-year members. However, as we ponder these decisions, we know that one key concept needs to be maintained. Of utmost importance is the sense of equality among faculty and administrators. To this end, the following needs to remain a mainstay of the NFC: • Faculty and administrators need to participate as colearners and coparticipants regardless of titles, years, and rank. • Faculty and administrators need to engage in a common project(s) with common goals, demonstrating value for what each member contributes. We also believe that the means to this end should continue to include activities surrounding effective teaching and productive scholarship.

Conclusion The NFC has served as a vehicle for creating community where faculty with a range of experiences and years can experiment, stretch, and challenge themselves for their own professional growth, while also

28

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

supporting and facilitating the professional growth of their colleagues. Strong faculty build strong programs, and strength across programs builds a strong community. We have found that taking the time to construct a solid foundation on which a community can be built is energy well invested, creating a capacity for new faculty success, negotiation of new roles, and an enriched department culture. Suzanne W. Soled is associate dean for development and entrepreneurial initiatives, Melissa M. Jones is an associate professor in the Department of Teacher Education and School Leadership, Daniel W. Doerger is assistant professor of education, Jaesook L. Gilbert is assistant professor of education, and Sara K. Eisenhardt is assistant professor of education, all at Northern Kentucky University. Email: [email protected]

Mentoring Tenured Faculty: Rationales and Programs by Jacquelyn S. Litt, Sheryl A. Tucker, and Jill M. Hermsen Achieving promotion, moving into leadership roles, and acquiring the savvy to navigate the changing higher education landscape remain key markers of faculty success. Yet there is little information on how chairs can help faculty be successful in this environment. Mid-career faculty, the largest proportion of faculty on university and college campuses today, may especially need increased attention from their chairs, but few professional development programs focus on this group. We believe that formal mentoring programs for associate and full professors can help department chairs address the issues faced by midcareer faculty. Mentoring is widely recognized for fostering success and



Faculty Mentoring and Development

29

reducing isolation among professionals. Moreover, departments benefit from improved recruitment and retention, increased faculty investment in departmental activities, and enhanced work culture. Here we share our experience having developed and managed two faculty mentoring programs, one focused on post-tenure women faculty in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics sponsored by a National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant (#0618977) and the other on posttenure faculty in the humanities sponsored by our provost’s office. Both women and men can choose to be mentees and/or mentors in each program.

Why Mentor Tenured Faculty? Like most universities, the University of Missouri did not have a formal mentoring program for mid-career faculty. Recognizing the importance of mentoring, we targeted this group for the following reasons (cf., Baldwin, DeZure, Shaw, & Moretto, 2008): • Some experience the post-tenure years as a time of stagnation and inertia. • Women in particular are likely to report dissatisfaction at the mid-career. • Tenured faculty must fend for themselves at a time when responsibilities may be increasing. • Associate and full professors constitute the largest proportion of the faculty. In addition, we developed several important program goals. Reduce faculty isolation. Mentoring can help reduce faculty isolation within and among departments. Moreover, research suggests that women faculty report higher feelings of isolation, marginalization, and exclusion from informal networks and mentors (cf., Bakken, 2005; Hart & Litt, 2009). This translates into fewer advancement opportunities, fewer rewards, and less visibility for women’s work. Men who are similarly isolated or excluded also suffer professionally. Hence, our programs are directed to both women and men.

30

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Foster social networks. Networking is critical. It connects individuals for a variety of purposes and provides unexpected opportunities. Networks serve as an informal and collective mentor, advising, informing, nurturing, instructing, and championing faculty members. The basic social science assertion is that social capital (whom you know) is as important—or, possibly, more important—than knowledge capital (what you know) (Etzkowitz, Kemelgor, & Uzzi, 2000). Develop a mentoring culture. A mentoring culture encourages collaboration at many levels—faculty with administration, other faculty, and students. We have found that when mentoring is considered a legitimate, even essential, part of faculty life, a more supportive and collegial culture is likely to develop.

Developing a Mentoring Program Among many tasks, department chairs are charged with helping faculty succeed. Chairs generally direct their attention to untenured faculty at the beginning of their careers. Yet mid-career faculty can also benefit from continued chair-directed professional development, particularly immediately after promotion and tenure. At a minimum, it is helpful for chairs to monitor faculty progress toward promotion to full professor through annual evaluations. Chairs can also use a mentoring program to help them create an environment for continued faculty success. Chairs should determine the type of program that best suits their departmental needs: one-on-one mentoring, peer mentoring, and/or workshops. One size does not fit all. Our hybrid model, which draws from various components, is successful because it addresses heterogeneous faculty needs. For example, we find that men are more likely to participate in workshops than in one-on-one mentoring. The key challenge is to get input from potential participants about the kind of mentoring programs they would like. We recommend department chairs consider several issues when building a mentoring program.



Faculty Mentoring and Development

31

Funding. Mentoring programs do not have to cost a great deal. In our programs, we pay a mentor stipend to an internal account. We also provide money to offset the cost of mentor/mentee meals together and host occasional luncheons. In addition, we bring in external consultants to offer professional development workshops. Although we have found these additional expenses to be worthwhile, it is entirely possible to run a good mentoring program without them. Goals. Beyond those aforementioned goals, mentoring program goals might include encouraging research collaborations, promoting associate faculty to full professorship, developing teaching innovations, and enhancing institutional knowledge. To determine program goals, chairs should both consult faculty and use their own assessment of current or potential challenges and opportunities the department faces. Department buy-in. Mentoring may not be for everyone. In fact, mentoring sometimes evokes strong negative reactions along the lines of “successful faculty already know what to do; they don’t need mentors.” Thus, it is important that mentoring programs address how mentoring and networking are strategies of successful individuals and not signs of weakness. At the same time, programs with several components can affect a broader audience, as faculty may choose to participate differently. Mentor and mentee training. Mentoring is often considered intuitive, not a teachable skill. We think otherwise. We hold mentor/mentee training sessions where we address program specifics, the importance of goal setting in the mentoring relationship, strategies to expand professional networks, and the consequences of unconscious bias as it applies to the success of underrepresented faculty. In addition, break-out sessions that are mentee-only and mentor-only focus on getting the most out of the experience for that perspective. Peer coaching and network building are also features of these meetings. Touching base with participants. We conducted a series of semistructured interviews with mentees, the results of which we shared with

32

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

participants. The findings direct program modifications, keeping it relevant for the campus and the participants. Chairs might consider tapping into other campus resources for formal program assessment, such as graduate student dissertation projects.

Mentoring Program Ideas There are several different types of mentoring programs to address your needs. Along with the essential element of confidentiality, our program encompasses the following components. One-on-one mentee-mentor relationships. For this type of program it is essential to focus on creating good matches. We established a formal process, which includes gathering information through both mentor and mentee applications and mentee responses to a slate of mentors. Subsequently, we recommend a match based on the application materials and our knowledge of the mentees’ and mentors’ needs, interests, and personalities. Mentors come from outside the mentee’s home department and many times outside the college. To expand faculty networks, chairs should consider a joint program with other departments. A lesson we learned in the matching process is that it is essential to identify the mentee’s specific goals for the program and how the mentoring relationship can support those goals. Both mentees and mentors are more satisfied when the mentee’s goal is identified, there is a clear process for achieving the goal, and the mentoring relationship expectations are established. Networking among mentors. Mentors often face unique issues and challenges when mentoring mid-career faculty. Our programs offer a oncea-semester get together for mentors to talk about mentoring best practices and lessons learned. These sessions allow the mentors to serve as resources to one another while also providing a networking opportunity. Peer mentoring. We recognize that one person cannot meet all of a mentee’s needs. Therefore, we prompt mentors to assist mentees in expanding their networks beyond the one-on-one relationship. We also



Faculty Mentoring and Development

33

organize peer-mentoring opportunities. These mentee discussion times tend to focus on issues common to mid-career professors. Similar to the mentor networking times, these sessions allow mentees to serve as resources for one another, while networking. Professional development workshops. Our program offers professional development opportunities throughout the year where participants can network with others engaged in the mentoring program and learn new skills. Events include lunch-and-learn seminars and professional development workshops. Often based on faculty suggestions, we choose topics that have broad appeal and invite faculty on campus and, in some cases, from nearby institutions. Workshop topics have included preparing promotion dossiers, successful grant writing, work-life balance, academic leadership, and managing research collaborations.

Conclusion Funding changes, the need for general revenue production, declining public support, and new technologies have placed tremendous pressure, as well as opportunities, on faculty. Superimposed on this new paradigm, faculty careers in the twenty-first century are less linear and less predictable than in past decades. Faculty need formal and informal networks for collaboration, information, and professional ties. Organized formal mentoring, supported by campus leaders and department chairs, can play a critical role in a faculty member’s professional success. It can also create improved departmental culture and a more supportive environment for faculty who struggle in the middle of their careers. With the proper buy-in and goodwill, mentoring is a win-win situation for all involved. Jacquelyn S. Litt is chair of the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies, Sheryl A. Tucker is associate dean of the graduate school, and Jill M. Hermsen is program director of Mizzou ADVANCE, all at the University of Missouri. Information, tools, and resources about mentoring are available at http://mizzouadvance .missouri.edu and http://focusonfaculty.missouri.edu. Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. This article is based on a presentation at the 26th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 11–13, 2009, Orlando, Florida.

34

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

References Bakken, L. L. (2005). Who are physician-scientists’ role models? Gender makes a difference. Academic Medicine, 80(5), 502–506. Baldwin, R., DeZure, D., Shaw, A., & Moretto, K. (2008, September/October). Mapping the terrain of mid-career faculty at a research university: Implications for faculty and academic leaders. Change, 40(5), 46–55. Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hart, J., & Litt, J. (2009). Mechanisms of integration and exclusion: Dissecting the production of gender inequity in STEM faculty. Retrieved from www.advance.vt.edu /Advance_2009_PI_Mtg/PIMtg2009%20Mizzou%20Mechanisms%20of %20Integration.pdf

Energizing the Senior Professor by Barbara Oney Garvey Most departments have fewer new faculty due to hiring cuts and colleagues retiring later. Economic conditions suggest that little will change in the next decade. The question is which type of post-tenure review will be the most beneficial for the individual faculty member, the department, and the institution. Hanover College consists mostly of tenured professors, and the faculty adopted a statement of purposes of post-tenure review that embraces a pluralistic approach offering genuinely revitalizing experiences. This article explains Hanover’s formative post-tenure review process developed over the last decade. Three areas will be covered: the specific program at Hanover College and the role of senior faculty, the repertory grid example as one type of model for colleagues to find their better selves, and specific suggestions for department chairs.



Faculty Mentoring and Development

35

The Hanover College Model The Hanover College post-tenure review model offers post-tenure, nonpromotion review options selected from the following: • Faculty Evaluation Committee review every seventh year, summative process. OR • Formative review options. Over a seven-year period, the faculty member must address scholarship, teaching, and service in one of the following ways: participation in a peermentoring group, individual mentoring by someone who has exceptionally good skills in the area studied, approved series of formative workshops, or approved individual plan. The senior faculty member’s role. I have served on nearly every committee in my thirty years at Hanover, including the Committee on Committees. A few years ago I was chosen to serve on the Faculty Evaluation Committee and was reminded how long it had been since a senior faculty member had been elected. I felt I had no voice and in order to be allowed into the conversation, I relied on self-effacing communication. I began observing communication patterns at faculty meetings and held discussions with senior faculty members who said they felt unheard and overlooked. After two years of participant observation, I concluded senior faculty used communication in three ways: sympathizer, jester, or complainer. These categories were not gender based. The sympathizer responds to the emotions of the group. This person may have the most information about what is happening at the college, but he or she is not expected to act. The messages are limited to showing kindness and acceptance without being judgmental. There is no questioning or criticizing. The jester has weak positions in the organization just as does the sympathizer. The style, more nonverbal than verbal, is to cheer and applaud the power and

36

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

work of others by inserting jokes and good humor. The jester has more involvement in the group but receives too much praise for simply acting foolishly. The overabundance of praise causes him or her to develop communication patterns that are self-effacing and generally prevent colleagues from realizing and demonstrating their worth. The complainer angers the group and often is forced into verbal styles more militant than he or she wishes.

The Repertory Grid Method As part of my post-tenure review, I studied my senior faculty colleagues. How do senior faculty recognize, label, discuss, and define their place within the academic organization? How can departments and institutions benefit from experienced colleagues with stronger voices? Twenty senior faculty, who had been at the college for fourteen years or longer, volunteered for this study. They were asked about their many experiences as a college professor, including good, bad, and middle of the road experiences. Each person received the following instructions in an individual interview: • Step One:╉Choose twelve experiences you have had at the college that range from good to bad with some in the middle and record one experience per slip that will be kept confidential. • Step Two:╉Compare and contrast three experiences at a time, asking which quality two of these experiences have in common, but different from the third. • Step Three:╉Rank order the twelve slips of paper from most like to least like the construct. The grid scores were studied in three ways: Did the constructs fit larger categories or were they independent? What were the strengths between constructs? What do the constructs “like it is” and “ideal” reveal concerning senior faculty beliefs about themselves, the college, and their needs for successful contributions to the college? Finally, grid data were



Faculty Mentoring and Development

37

analyzed in conjunction with three open-ended questions: What was your best experience as a professor? What was your worst experience? What would you dream for the college if you could make anything happen? The following scale was used: • Grid score╉40 to 55: Moderate strength • Grid score╉56 to 69: Strong strength • Grid score╉70+: High strength Repertory grid results. Faculty responses fell into four themes: satisfaction, teaching, fairness, and energy. The results suggested not just wisdom based on having a long history but a passion that showed little sign of career burnout. Senior faculty continue to grow and are anxious to help their college find its place in this new century. They worried that the present administration looks at easy answers rather than at deeper college issues. These colleagues complained about red tape, likely tied to demands for more assessment data. The grid reports demonstrated moderate satisfaction, but there could be greater satisfaction if these faculty members felt more respected and recognized as “can do” people. Teaching was mentioned the most after satisfaction needs. The college has a long history of faculty dedicated to teaching; these colleagues continue that tradition and strongly support being student-centered. Given conversation about adding fewer liberal arts programs, uncertainty exists about future teaching assignments. Fairness and energy were the next most frequently mentioned themes. Although past administrative duplicity was commented on, the openness of the new administration received praise. The faculty, averaging 24.6 years at Hanover, welcome the new president’s fresh spirit. The strongest concern is that because we are moving in so many different directions there is no identity. Grids showed the need for unity, but doubted whether unification is possible. Focused interview results. The focused interviews supported the information gathered from the repertory grids. Twelve faculty responded to the first open-ended question, stating that the best thing about the college was its students. Of those twelve, five faculty said it was students

38

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

and their colleagues, while five said it was their colleagues only. Seven faculty said the best thing was getting to teach what you loved. Sixteen people said that the worst thing was the political battles within the faculty—smallness of thought and turf battles. Three people said that the duplicity of past administrators made it hard to trust the new administration. Even with the difficult economic times only two people said the worst thing was no money. The responses to “blue-sky” wishes continued to support this feedback. Eleven participants wished for more respect among departments and across the college as a whole. In this question money is mentioned by almost one-third of the senior faculty, but not just for themselves. The wish is for enough students so that more faculty could be hired and physical spaces updated. Faculty would like raises and retirement back but it was not their first wish: Almost one-third of the group wished for a clear sense of college identity.

Recommendations for Chairs To be a professional implies qualities traditionally thought of as rationality, power, decisiveness, activity, objectivity, and toughness. If senior colleagues are not allowed an active role in academic leadership, do they believe themselves to be less of a professional? Might not the reason that so many of the study participants wished for the college to have a stronger sense of identity be that they feel they have lost their sense of professional identity? A variety of negative choices exists to cope with the lost sense of being a professional. One possibility is to care only about harmonious relationships or about keeping a position. In either case there is little concern for the well-being of the academic institution and its performance. A second choice is to do most anything to be included in any decision-making groups but to behave only as little more than a puppet for the decisions of others. A final choice is to withdraw either physically or psychologically in isolation and give up participation. The repertory grids and the focused interviews suggest that our group does not want to become inactive professionals. There is a high level of energy and dedication to teaching. The average expected years of teach-



Faculty Mentoring and Development

39

ing remaining for these faculty members is 8.5. Both the college and the individuals will suffer without a systematic plan to use the talents of this older faculty group. My work at present is three fold. I encourage senior faculty to use the post-tenure review process as a way to reengage with the Hanover academic community. I take specific projects to our president and academic dean for their consideration, such as the reorganization of a department and a plan to involve retired faculty more deeply in college activities. I asked the academic dean to replace my committee responsibilities with oversight of the whole post-tenure process, because inspiring faculty in my own department cannot be separated from inspiring senior faculty throughout my institution. As the result of presenting my scholarship at a recent conference, the study took a new direction. At the conference I learned Hanover College’s continued review of senior faculty was unique. Of almost four hundred chairs representing diverse types of schools and varied locations, most of the institutions had no or limited post-tenure review procedures. Rather than a long, tedious report due every seven years—the reason Hanover now offers a different kind of post-tenure review—many institutions at this conference required little review of tenured faculty. A commonly expressed view was, “You have to really mess up to have anyone look at your work.” Implied in the responses was why go to so much trouble as the Hanover College model if you do not have to do so. Admittedly, without an institutional focus on post-tenure review, the chair’s role to inspire long-time faculty members is made more difficult. The Hanover model offers creative options to keep senior faculty engaged within a department and the academic community. However, looking at just the college’s focused interviews, we can see an immediate, less complicated way to address the needs of senior faculty. Chairs could devote a meeting (or one-on-one time) to asking for stories about what their colleagues like best and least about their department and/or institution. I am confident that categories similar to Hanover’s of feeling satisfied, love of teaching, fair play, and being energized will emerge. Is there a department policy that students find unfair but colleagues have not had the time to revise? Could the senior faculty most interested

40

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

in fairness take that on? How about developing a newsletter that connects a colleague’s unique knowledge to a problem of the day, such as nuclear power in Japan or understanding the stock market or the Tea Party protest? Might a support group connecting old and new faculty teach “tricks of the trade” to the new folks but energize senior faculty to “remember when”? Is there a prominent speaker someone always wanted to bring to campus that the whole department can get behind? Can students, working with one colleague, be encouraged to become more active in departmental issues? We hold our dissertations dear; could a seminar be developed using the initial research but updating it to fit today’s problems? Might an artist have a showing of old pieces that now offer new meaning? Or could a pianist join a literature professor and a media tech professor to make a DVD of music and readings important over their careers? Is there a faculty member who at one point was especially popular with students but seems overlooked by today’s students? Might alumni be brought back to honor that person? These suggestions would fit some colleagues and departments better than others, yet they present various ways to engage senior faculty members who seem to have lost their way.

Conclusion As department chairs we often are so busy with depleted finances and student complaints that we forget our greatest resource—our colleagues, especially those who paved the way. I challenge all chairs to take a careful look at their long-time senior faculty, not just because we are going to be working together longer than once expected, but because the result will be a far more successful department. As Chaim Perelman wrote, once a problem is present and choice points are offered, we find oneness that affirms us all. Barbara Oney Garvey is professor of communication at Hanover College. Email: [email protected]. This article is based on a presentation at the 28th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 10–11, 2011, Orlando, Florida.



Faculty Mentoring and Development

41

Mentoring and Faculty Development by Carol A. Mullen

Department chairs are expected to promote faculty development and to facilitate or implement high-quality mentoring systems. Mentoring is an activity that is intentional in the support given to new and developing faculty. Moreover, it is an organizational capacity of leadership exhibited by chairs who generate conditions of support. Scholarly leaders demonstrate this capacity through such activities as collaborating, co-learning, and networking. Many options exist for turning academic workplaces into vibrant mentoring cultures. Notably, we can choose to adopt formal, informal, or combinational approaches to build capacity within our particular environments. We shouldn’t wait for “outsiders” (colleges, universities, consultants) to initiate the mentoring of our faculties, although such supports can be beneficial. Concentrated efforts assist those seeking tenure and promotion, as well as those undergoing reeducation or retooling. Tierney (2007) argues for the placement of faculty development models within departments. He believes that chairs should nurture all of their faculty members and thereby increase productivity at the individual and unit levels. Chairs must not proceed in haste, however. Mentoring blueprints should be developed, and they should encompass multiple and useful sources (e.g., documented promising practices in faculty development). Avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach to faculty mentoring, we attend to what may best work for our own context. Promising mentoring interventions depend on our knowing the norms, influences, and ideologies that shape how people learn and think. Work in “publish or perish” academies demands that we closely study our environments before we act. Culturally responsive leadership supports the building of synergistic, trusting relationships that serve as a platform from which new practices can develop. Such leaders reflect on the work they and others do, collect

42

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

and analyze data (e.g., feedback) from participating faculty, and experiment and make adjustments as they go.

A Vignette of Faculty Mentoring I was recruited from the outside as a department chair at my present location in 2007. Before I could act, I had much to learn. I could see that I needed to develop a participatory, organic model to promote the professional development of my new colleagues. Thus, I constructed a map of the types of formal and informal mentoring that were occurring. It became clear that mentoring was in an early, experimental phase—in my unit, tenure-earning faculty had recently been paired with a senior counterpart. Aside from their assigned relationships, they had initiated mentorships for survival and support. Some faculty don’t like formal approaches to mentoring, finding them uninspiring, if not off-putting. They want the tenure and promotion process to be a human and natural one. Interpersonal chemistry drives a good mentoring relationship, not imposed expectations. Chairs must ensure that the real value of the work faculty do is protected, not just understood. An initial conversation with my new tenure-earning peers revealed they wanted their values to be protected in the evaluation process. We discuss issues involving power and process, and we also share our journeys. Although my background in mentoring theory and practice may have somewhat prepared me for this challenge, I had a lot to learn. Because academic contexts are complex and changing, mentoring cannot succeed when approached as a recipe. To me, improving a place means building on the ingenuity, partnership, and vision of those involved. Because my department has a strong social justice focus, we struggle with the complexity of being educational leaders committed to justice and democracy and yet employees of a public educational organization. Our commitments permeate our work and relationships; thus, the mentoring we do embodies democratic and feminist values (e.g., equality, diversity, mutuality). The pretenure faculty have participated in creating our unique approach



Faculty Mentoring and Development

43

to mentoring, the senior faculty share their time and resources, and our model is being nurtured along informal but systematic lines. Our monthly pretenure meetings are approached as a collaborative exercise. For example, when I asked about good icebreakers, we decided to “air” what we each need and can offer in the way of mentoring. We have since shared ideas ranging from areas of need with respect to learning about our culture to the relative merit and value of academic journals; we also disclosed specific personal strengths and academic skills. Thus, one individual’s offerings became the potential solution to another’s needs. We’ve also talked about the mid-review stage of the tenure process. The tenure-earning faculty in their fourth years shared their reassignment binders with the first-year faculty, and we highlighted strategies and criteria for selecting outlets for publication review. The technical process of putting together a binder was an opportunity to reveal one’s commitments as a social justice advocate. The personal narrative was viewed as a “signature statement.” The assistant professors preparing for tenure review have also shared the development of their line of inquiry and planning with respect to having work simultaneously in preparation and under review. A related project involves the departmental tenure and promotion guidelines we’ve officially developed to assist junior faculty with their review process. Chairs can also work beyond the unit level to promote a faculty mentoring culture. For example, I initiated the college-wide Mentoring/Advising/Supervising Award for faculty judged by their peers or students to be exemplary mentors. Such forms of recognition give credence to the value and work of mentoring, and the role of department chairs as scholarly leaders.

Types of Mentoring Relationships Different types of mentoring relationships can be fostered between and among faculty and they express particular ideologies, preferences, and purposes (Mullen, 2005). In this context, formal mentoring is a one-on-one mentor-protégé arrangement based on assignment to the relationship; it

44

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

can also be a group that faculty mentors have institutionalized and led. In contrast, informal mentorship is spontaneous; consequently, these relationships are not managed, structured, or officially recognized—much like the organic mentoring I encountered in my new place of work. Interestingly, the mentoring literature is “undecided” about whether informal or formal mentoring actually yields greater benefits for protégés—a bottom line is that context and culture matter. Although mentoring relationships are not inherently authoritarian, the distinction made between mentors and protégés as expert and novice, respectively, can create a gulf. Such tensions have unfortunately sparked misunderstandings and even power conflicts, especially where the protégé (i.e., tenure-earning faculty member) is equal in intellectual prowess or is a mature learner and seasoned professional. The idea of a mentor as somehow separate from or above an individual or a group is considered outdated. Progressive concepts of mentorship include co-mentoring or collaborative mentoring. Faculty members who commit to co-mentoring aim to change traditional practices, hierarchical systems, and homogeneous cultures. Co-mentors are close colleagues in a mutual mentorship, they engage in dialogue, and they form a network. They share relational, feminist values and promote diversity by bringing women and minorities into a network. When practiced effectively, collaborative mentoring enables productive synergy in such forms as cross-cultural relationships and programs. Within a dynamic, interdependent network of high performers, individuals’ multiple needs—from the intellectual to the emotional—can be satisfied.

Mentoring Steps and Approaches Based on my own experiences, department chairs may want to consider some or all of these steps for strengthening their academic cultures: • Find out which mentoring practices may already be at work within your unit, college, and university.



Faculty Mentoring and Development

45

• Talk with senior and junior faculty to see which views they hold about mentoring in general and, more specifically, in relation to the unit and college. • Educate faculty on formal and informal approaches to mentoring and the relative strengths and drawbacks of each form, in addition to different types of mentoring relationships. • Collaboratively develop mentoring processes or programs that fit your culture, mission, and shared values. • Prepare the faculty in your unit for their mentoring roles and consider “training” and compensation for mentors. You may also find the following four approaches to faculty mentoring helpful. They can be kept informal or regulated and thus made formal. • Support groups are constituted by faculty who commit to the same goal or who are undergoing the same change; the members share similar needs and concerns. • Writing teams are perpetuated by faculty who share common interests and who make contributions to the scholarship that neither party could have accomplished alone; collaborators can cross barriers in status, gender, race, age, discipline, and more. • Cross-cultural mentoring occurs across cultural/ethnic differences and promotes diversity awareness education. • Telementoring or e-mentoring depends on computer-mediated communications between individuals or within groups and allows for mentoring and collaborating at a distance.

Conclusion The creation of viable mentoring systems and relationships that satisfy individual and institutional goals is now within the purview of the department chair’s responsibilities. Mentoring and faculty development have been recast in more egalitarian ways. We all have a serious role to play in fostering such thinking, especially the leaders of departments

46

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

and colleges. Authoritarian structures shift when faculty members are brought into the picture as genuine collaborators, not just mentors and protégés. Carol A. Mullen is chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations at the University of North Carolina–Greensboro. Email: cmullen@coedu .usf.edu

References Mullen, C. A. (2005). The mentorship primer. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Tierney, W. G. (2007, Spring). Academic leadership and globalization. The Department Chair, 17(4), 1–3.

SECTION THREE

Enhancing Teaching and Building Community Building a Shared Value of Teaching in a Department: What Chairs Can Do by Mary C. Wright Outside of Crosley Tower, the University of Cincinnati’s campus is coming alive with the start of a new quarter. Inside, the twelfth floor feels like a morgue. “The atmosphere here [in the department] is just deadly,” says John A. Powers, an associate professor who has been here for 37 years. This devastation is the fallout from a war between two faculty groups who clashed over priorities: teaching or research. One side wanted to raise the department in national rankings by focusing on publishing, the other to put a premium on teaching and advising students. (Wilson, 2002, p. A12) Although this case is extreme, it represents many department chairs’ worst nightmares—their departments are rendered dysfunctional by a failure to agree on key values, such as teaching and research. In my book, Always at Odds? (2008), I examine two departments in which faculty perceived that they valued teaching much more than others in their department. I also look at two departments in which faculty saw a shared value of teaching across the department. In these cases, I interviewed four department chairs (and forty-six faculty about them) to better

47

48

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

understand what both faculty and administrators can do to build a common culture of teaching. Feeling alone in one’s value of teaching is actually quite common, especially in research universities, where surveys show that faculty often report that they place more esteem on teaching than do others in their departments. In researching departmental culture and teaching, I found that units that lacked a common commitment to teaching suffered from many problems as a result of this incongruence. Junior faculty faced tenure decisions without clear guidance as to how teaching counted in the process, or how it was to be assessed by the department. Institutional continuity was threatened as certain department members did the bulk of teaching or curricular work. Other organizational research indicates that congruence levels also hold implications for faculty attrition, job satisfaction, and time spent on teaching. Based on my research I provide here some key examples of what chairs can do to develop a shared value of teaching in their departments. Departments can be split along many lines, and there can be factions about a number of issues. Although I focus on teaching, conflicts about other values—such as research, community outreach, service, and diversity—could just as easily divide a department, and readers in these other situations also may find the following suggestions useful. Spread out instructional work. Administrators in congruent departments establish a plan for rotating the teaching among courses, so that many faculty teach service, required, or large courses. Similarly, curricular work is spread across the department. In creating this plan, service to these courses was factored into annual reviews or tenure and promotion. Create peer review opportunities. Peer review helps faculty gather direct evidence on teaching standards and approaches, which assists faculty in establishing shared understandings of the constituents of effective teaching. However, I define peer review more expansively than our usual understanding of the term, where a visitor observes the class, often for summative purposes. Instead, I look at any opportunities where windows can be opened into faculty classrooms, such as team teaching, informal



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

49

observations (i.e., just “to learn from someone”), and public discussion of student ratings or common assessments. Cultivate instructional discussions among faculty. If desired, at events where all faculty are in attendance (e.g., retreats), chairs can place pedagogical discussions on the agenda to communicate the symbolic value the department accords to teaching. However, I found that if chairs wait for infrequent, high-profile events for the department to talk about teaching, this decision could misfire. Sometimes, not all faculty attend, and other times, faculty do not interpret the discussion as communicating a value of teaching. Instead, it may be more effective to establish frequent informal events, such as daily conversations and coffee breaks, where teaching can be discussed. For example, one department chair noted that refreshments for the daily afternoon coffee break were a small but important budget item because the informal meeting time was a profitable way to spread information about both research and teaching. Develop a multiplicity of practices for evaluating teaching. A culture of teaching implies a shared value of the worth of teaching in faculty work, but it is important to state that this does not imply uniformity. Such departments need not be comprised of instructional clones, whose definitions of effective teaching are exactly the same. However, for alignment about the value of teaching to exist in a department, faculty will have a repertoire of shared understandings about what constitutes effective teaching and how to assess it. Departments that use student ratings as the sole source of information about teaching may find it problematic when faculty shoot down ratings for being invalid. Chairs need to broaden the ways in which teaching is evaluated. With faculty input, chairs can establish multiple means of measuring teaching effectiveness and student learning. For example, one department in my study had a repertoire of formal and informal practices, including teaching portfolios (which included student evaluations, peer evaluations, and metrics for student performance), circulation of student feedback, and informal peer review that took place during team teaching.

50

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Give attention to informal departmental practices that support good teaching and clarify tenure and promotion policies for evaluating teaching. If they were not supported by follow-up discussions, faculty in my study expressed a lot of ambiguity about the meaning of formal policies that, ostensibly, established standards and practices for valuing and evaluating teaching. Through regular discussions with faculty, chairs can better understand whether formal policies are well understood, formal teaching events are well attended, and formal mechanisms for evaluating teaching are well accepted. Both accessibility (an open door) and outreach (going beyond the door) are useful for chairs to make valuable contacts with faculty. Sometimes, these discussions took place at a formal annual review meeting, but often they were informal conversations that began with, “How is it going?” Use your time well to communicate symbolically the value of teaching. Chairs in congruent departments carefully chose some timeconsuming but highly meaningful events that resonated with their faculty. These strategic activities communicated that the department values teaching because they involved a personal commitment to teaching on the part of the chair. For example, one chair taught every year—something not to be taken for granted in a large research university science department—because he felt that continuing to teach is “absolutely vital” to maintain credibility from colleagues. Faculty noted this symbolism, and I heard from several faculty that the chair performs “extremely well” and does a “top gun, bang-up job.” This success supported the chair’s conviction that valuable department members were those who “pull their weight,” meaning that the teaching load was carefully assessed and reassigned when someone was not doing enough teaching.

Conclusion Given the time constraints department chairs face, I want to emphasize that several of these strategies are relatively informal and time efficient. Of course, use of these strategies does not guarantee that a department can become more congruent, and, as a result, more effective at classroom



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

51

instruction. But in my study, chairs who used these techniques were located in departments with more agreement about the value of teaching. And departments with more agreement about the value of teaching had higher student ratings. Attention to teaching cultures also can prevent numerous problems in departments that are debating the role and value of teaching—in both faculty meetings and lounges. Mary C. Wright is assistant director for evaluation and assistant research scientist in the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching at the University of Michigan. Email: [email protected]

References Wilson, R. (2002, October 18). Bickering decimates a department. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A12. Wright, M. C. (2008). Always at odds? Creating alignment between faculty and administrative values. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Motivating Faculty to Engage in Service-Learning by Debra Burke

Increasingly, a university’s mission reflects a commitment to creating a community of scholarship dedicated to service, research, and creative activities in which the benefits of its scholarship extend to society. In recognizing the role and responsibility of universities as being a major public resource and a needed partner for community development, administrators such as department chairs must work to ensure that this articulated goal of productive engagement becomes a reality. To this end, chairs must enlighten an already burdened faculty as to why servicelearning as a pedagogical approach is worthwhile, and encourage them

52

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

to pursue such projects. Each of the three functions of faculty members—teaching, research, and service—may be fulfilled through servicelearning activities, and that reality itself is the greatest hook for gaining faculty support for the concept.

Describing the Benefits to Faculty First, service-learning projects contribute to the service component of a faculty member’s responsibilities, particularly given the acknowledgment of a university’s substantial role in being a valuable resource and contributing member of the local community. Second, with respect to teaching, service-learning produces positive teaching and learning outcomes because students become more involved in the class, participate more fully in class discussions, and develop a better understanding of course material. They also become more aware of and interested in community issues and, as a result, may become more connected, a factor that can enhance retention rates. Faculty who advocate service-learning also report that it provides a way to test and implement knowledge from textbooks, creates better relationships with students because of the greater emphasis on student-centered teaching, and represents a distinctive approach to learning that may complement or even replace a traditional lecture approach. It also opens the door to provocative discussions of current events, citizenship, and the application of knowledge. In sum, service-learning can enhance the teaching and learning experience for both the faculty member and the student, which will likely result in superior teaching evaluations. Third, service-learning presents additional research and publication opportunities. There are a growing number of conferences and publications specifically dedicated to pedagogical research on service-learning. In addition, discipline-based pedagogical publications are an outlet for empirical, theoretical, and applied articles on service-learning as a pedagogical approach. Providing that the institution recognizes all of the four domains of scholarship delineated by Boyer—discovery, application, integration, and the scholarship of teaching and learning—then



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

53

pursuing these research activities should be acceptable. Further, if the university’s mission supports both teaching and engagement, then the scholarship of teaching and learning in conjunction with educational opportunities focused on engagement with community partners should be recognized and rewarded. Case studies represent a final productivity outlet for discipline-specific research studies conducted for community partners as part of the curricular experience.

Assisting with the Process There are several ways in which a department chair may facilitate an interested faculty member’s involvement with service-learning activities. First, chairs can provide resource materials to their faculty in an effort to familiarize them with best practices for this pedagogical approach. The following websites contain a wealth of such resources for faculty, including available conferences and research outlets, and should be circulated among them: • Campus Compact www.compact.org • Corporation for National and Community Service www.nationalservice.gov • International Partnership for Service-Learning and Leadership www.ipsl.org • National Service-Learning Clearinghouse www.servicelearning.org • National Service-Learning Partnership www.service-learningpartnership.org • National Society for Experiential Education www.nsee.org In addition to providing information on available resources, chairs can suggest course objectives geared to this pedagogical approach, as well as feasible projects relevant to the discipline and sample syllabi

54

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Table 1. Sample Course Objectives for Service-Learning Projects •  Engage in active learning by applying principles to real problems •  Engage community in mutually beneficial knowledge-based relationships •  Promote skills and knowledge needed for leadership •  Research and address real-world problems •  Provide relevant field experience •  Enhance job skills and personal responsibility •  Connect substantive coursework to actual experiences •  Improve problem-solving skills •  Develop a habit of reflective self-evaluation •  Integrate research and practice •  Enhance reflective judgment practices

Table 2. Sample Service-Learning Projects •  Maintain and monitor participation in a chat room in which students share their experiences and discuss issues •  Require students to make an individual or group presentation to the class or community partner that explains and examines their experience •  Have students provide a written report to the community partner and to the instructor •  Ask students to write a newspaper article explaining in brief their project and its goals, and then try to get it published •  Require students to write reflection papers in which they analyze the effectiveness of their involvement and the application of the principles learned from the course •  Provide class time for group sharing and reflection on experiences, lessons learned, and/or epiphanies •  Require students to maintain a journal (or blog) in which they chronicle their experiences and their reactions, as well as the reactions of other participants

provisions outlining such expectations. Tables 1 and 2 present some potential learning goals and assignments that can be shared and discussed with faculty. Often faculty members are willing to undertake a new direction if given a nudge through the provision of relevant concrete examples and suggestions. In addition, department chairs can help with the assessment of such projects in achieving programmatic or course goals and objectives. Assessment can assist with program planning, provide data



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

55

about student learning so that improvements may be made, and measure assurance of learning goals. To document outcomes and effectiveness the chair, in cooperation with the faculty, can develop assessment instruments for the interested parties in a service-learning project: students, faculty, and community partners. To encourage faculty participation, the chair should offer to coordinate the distribution and collection of survey instruments, as well as the tabulation of results. The department chair should also exercise a leadership role in advocating for the recognition of service-learning projects in the annual faculty evaluation, as well as in the tenure and promotion process. As long as the university mission recognizes the value of engagement activities and the scholarship of teaching and learning, such advocacy is justified. Likewise, funds should be allocated to support this aspect of the university’s civic and educational mission. Chairs should provide financial support for faculty members to attend conferences on service-learning to receive training on methods of reflection, integration, and assessment, as well as ultimately to present research results on their own service-learning experiences. To the extent possible, financial support should be provided for the incidental expenses associated with the implementation of a service-learning project, such as funding for transportation expenses and necessary supplies. It is also important for the chair to appreciate impediments to the implementation of a project and to assist with overcoming potential barriers. For example, the chair can act as a liaison to the university’s legal counsel to risk-manage the implementation of a service-learning project. This task can be accomplished by either the verification of sufficient insurance coverage or by the execution of valid liability waivers as provided by university attorneys. Frequently, time constraints imposed by traditional course scheduling can adversely impact the implementation of a project. It is important for the chair to combine an appropriate mix of structure and flexibility to help the faculty member organize the project so as to handle these constraints.

56

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Concluding Thoughts The most important way in which department chairs can motivate faculty members to engage in service-learning projects is to lead by example. By incorporating a service-learning component into one of their own courses, chairs communicate the importance and validity of the endeavor. Executing a service-learning project for the first time can be an intimidating proposition. Therefore, chairs should maintain open communication with the faculty and provide a forum for the exchange of information and ideas. The chair’s own experiences can contribute to this dialogue. The department chair should establish a rapport with faculty that fosters reciprocal cooperation characterized by mutual trust, which is tolerant of less than perfect outcomes. A solid assessment program will lead to improvements over time based on feedback so that continuous improvement, not instant perfection, is the realistic goal. Finally, it is critical for chairs to celebrate the achievements of students, faculty, and community partners in their service-learning endeavors. To this end, the chair should publicize and promote departmental service-learning projects through the university’s public relations department. It is also imperative that the efforts of students, faculty, and community partners be recognized and appreciated in a public manner. Chairs can provide certificates or plaques and possibly host an awards banquet or ceremony to honor participants and celebrate their achievements, the completion of a valuable mission, and the establishment of a new relationship. In sum, the department chair can facilitate the successful fulfillment of the tripartite job of faculty members with respect to teaching, research, and service, through the support of a tripartite relationship between students, faculty, and community partners engaged in service-learning projects. Debra Burke is associate dean in the College of Business at Western Carolina University. Email: [email protected]. This article is based on a presentation at the 24th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 7–9, 2007, Orlando, Florida.



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

57

Joyful Chairing: Finding Joy in Committee Work by Kina S. Mallard and Mark L. Sargent Colleges are built one committee at a time. Faculty and staff workload studies vary, but a safe estimate is that the average educator spends approximately 20% of his or her time in committee meetings. One could double and perhaps triple that percentage for department chairs. Some chairs bloom in these settings while others burn. Those who see committee work as a chore will relate to the words of humorist Richard Armour: “At meetings of clubs, by a gesture of will / I always conspire to keep perfectly still; / For it takes but a word of annoyance or pity / And, wham, there I am on another committee.” Committee life does indeed inspire plenty of groans. Everyone has been saddled with meetings they did not want to endure. And committees do absorb chair time that could otherwise be devoted to casting vision, developing new programs and curriculum, building relationships with students, improving teaching, and working on scholarship. Some chairs avoid planning department meetings, and educators have become good at finding their way onto the university standing committees that seem to meet only every other leap year. But if committee life is ripe for satire, it can also represent some of the academy’s highest ideals—the principles of shared governance and democratic decision making. The intellectual ethos of an institution is often best defined by the vitality and relevance of its committees and can be a place to find joy and fulfillment. Most of our institutions have college-wide standing committee service as a requirement. In addition to these standing committees, departments can have from one to ten departmental committees depending on the size of the department. Helping faculty see the importance of serving on both types of committees is part of the chair’s role. Originally published as the second article in a three-part series.

58

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

How does one impart to faculty the importance of committee life? The most valuable way is to model effective and efficient committee work in departmental meetings and committees where you serve as chair. As you model, consider the importance of the social aspects. One of the most beneficial aspects of committee life is the opportunity to connect with colleagues from within your department with whom you have little time to get to know. When your faculty serve on university-wide committees they meet colleagues from other disciplines, often individuals with whom they would not, by discipline or disposition, immediately choose to know. All committees have tasks, of course, but the purpose of the committee is not simply its tasks—it is about the communities that are formed when educators get together to share their lives and their hopes. Even when committee conversations focus on the simple and pragmatic, they are almost inevitably a way that educators sort out mission and meaning. It is during committee meetings that faculty learn the background and biases, vision and values, and priorities and principles of both the department and the college. Committee conversations about the minutiae of academic life can also become a code for the things we like best: the sense of freedom and wonder in students, the traditional rituals of the academic year, and the legacy of an esteemed colleague. Even as we focus on the values of committees, we must acknowledge that the inefficiencies of committee life can be exasperating. But there are ways for educators, even in their early years, to help revitalize committee life. The reasons committees stumble are generally obvious: agendas are not clear, tasks are not delegated so little gets done between meetings, and too much time is spent advocating or obstructing one member’s ideas. Chairs have an opportunity to model a synthesizing spirit—an ability to listen well, discern the common ground, anticipate objections, and project a possible solution. Harold Heie, former educator and administrator at Gordon and Messiah Colleges—and one of the best committee members we have known—taught us two important practices for committee work. First, he always came to a meeting with a draft on paper, something to which the members could respond. Second, he reminded faculty about the value of



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

59

shaping the committee conversation by having others debate his draft. He modeled a practice that garners gratitude from other members for having written a draft, wins the trust of colleagues by listening to their advice and critiques, and advances one’s own vision by synthesizing the possibilities into a proposal or program that the educator can endorse. Good leaders listen, synthesize, and give vision to the future. Committees provide you an opportunity to shape that vision. Committees are also places to observe the influence of those in power. Because many decisions are formed at the committee level, the influence of those chosen to sit on a committee cannot be underestimated. Unfortunately, some institutions of higher learning have become political palaces of power where the needs of the students fall low on the list of priorities behind competition for resources, navigation of mega-egos, discussion of unethical practices, and downright stubbornness. Despite our feelings about power, it exists. In any organization there are those with formal and/or informal power who influence the decisions and direction of the organization. Formal power is given by virtue of title and rank. Those with formal power land on the organizational chart; however, in reality, those with formal power may have little influence but hold a seat at the table where important decisions are made because of their positions in the institutions. By contrast, those with informal power are often those with real influence in the organization. Some faculty and chairs build influence by having strong interpersonal and relational skills or contributing valuable input to critical conversations. It is often hard to pinpoint how they have acquired their informal influence, but knowing where these people are in an institution and treating them well aids success. Others earn influence by election to key committees, recognition as scholars in their guilds, and sometimes just because they work alongside someone with formal power. At most colleges and universities faculty have power over their content, their classes, and institutional governance. Faculty deliver a vote of no confidence and a college president falls. Faculty make a subjective decision to waive an attendance policy or curve a grade and a failing student passes the class. Faculty vote to add a new major and a fledgling department has the chance to flourish. But power can be deceptive, and

60

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

educators with both informal and formal power find themselves in what C. S. Lewis refers to as the “inner ring,” the invisible place where the official hierarchy of an organization coincides with its actual workings. Lewis describes the ring as an unavoidable necessity. Committees are places where faculty can acquire relational power, which helps one leverage existing power and find one’s place of influence in an organization. Relational power is realizing that underneath the individualism of academia there is an appreciation of collaborative work. In Academic Life, John Bennett (2003) writes that in relational power “sharing with and learning from each other are seen as primary values. Competition is understood in terms of value added. Others are viewed as bearers of intrinsic value that can enrich the self, and vice versa. Relational power is honored and celebrated—the ability to incorporate and reflect [on] contributions from others is judged a mark of strength, not a lack of power” (p. 40). Successful leadership—whether as educators leading a class, committee members influencing policy, or department chairs managing other employees—depends on allowing others to make a difference. This may sound easier than it actually is. Allowing others to make a difference calls for humility in regarding others as better than ourselves and looking not to our own interests but to the interests of our students and colleagues. In our view, true power is being ready to submit our individual will for the collective will of others. It is the joy we find when we surrender the burden of having our own way, freeing us to value and serve others. Kina S. Mallard is provost and vice president for academic affairs at CarsonNewman College. Mark L. Sargent is provost at Gordon College. This article is adapted from the authors’ book chapter, “Finding and Sustaining Joy in Your New Role,” in The Soul of a Christian University (Abilene Christian University Press, 2008). Email: [email protected], [email protected]

References Bennett, J. B. (2003). Academic life: Hospitality, ethics, and spirituality. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

61

Department Chairs and Work-Life Flexibility for Faculty by Kate Quinn Faculty demographics are changing and so are faculty expectations for work-life balance. At the same time, some national agencies have called for increased work-life flexibility in faculty careers to improve gender equity (American Council on Education, 2005; Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, 2007). The satisfaction and success of faculty members depends a great deal on the department chair (Gappa, 2002). Colleges and universities may adopt flexible policies to support their faculty members, but these policies are typically implemented at the department level—where prevailing cultural norms may prevent faculty from utilizing them (Drago, Crouter, Wardell, & Willits, 2001). Therefore, department-level leadership is needed to create an environment that is supportive of faculty work-life balance. This article offers guidelines for how department chairs can support the work-life balance of faculty across the career course. Work-life balance isn’t just for faculty with children; it is for the varied work-life needs of a diverse faculty.

Work-Life Challenges Across the Career Course Early-career faculty tend to have the highest frequency of small children in the home and, therefore, the greatest need for reliable daycare. Some early-career faculty have school-aged children requiring after-school care. Sick childcare and emergency back-up childcare are crucial to maintaining the productivity of these faculty. In addition, some early-career faculty have concerns related to elder care, personal medical conditions, or partner/ spouse medical conditions. For early-career faculty on the tenure track, these responsibilities are faced while climbing the stressful “up-or-out” hill to tenure. Nontenure line faculty face these challenges while struggling to

62

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

establish their careers and renew their term contracts. In recruiting and retaining early-career faculty, childcare is a powerful incentive, as is the availability of flexible policy options such as tenure clock extensions. Likewise, temporary release from teaching obligations can assist faculty in establishing their research agendas and their new lives at the institution. Mid-career faculty still have the potential to have small children in the household, but more frequently have school-aged children who require after-school care arrangements, sick childcare, and emergency back-up childcare, or teenagers. Many are starting to face paying the college tuition of their dependents. These faculty may see increases in elder care, personal medical concerns, and partner/spouse medical concerns. For tenured mid-career faculty, these responsibilities compete with efforts to attain merit raises and promotion to full professor. For mid-career faculty who are off-line, these responsibilities are faced while constantly being reviewed for contract renewals and merit raises. Flexible policy options such as a release from teaching can assist mid-career faculty in meeting temporary care demands such as helping a parent transition into a care facility. Tuition remission policies for dependents can help attract and retain mid-career faculty with college-bound children. Late-career faculty still have the potential to have small or schoolaged children in their homes, but a high percentage have teenagers or college-aged children. Some of these faculty may still need to provide elder care and many have a need for flexibility to tend to personal medical issues or for the care of a spouse or partner. Late-career faculty may be looking toward retirement or to reducing the time commitment to work. Flexible options such as part-time appointments or phased retirement may assist these faculty in remaining productive academically as they transition into retirement.

Flexible Policy Options and Resources Work-life supports exist on many campuses, but chairs and faculty tend not to be aware of them (Drago & Colbeck, 2003). Examples of flexible policy options and resources include the following.



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

63

Tenure clock extensions/stops provide additional years in which pretenure faculty can meet the requirements of tenure review. Reasons for use vary but can include personal or family reasons such as childbirth or adoption, elder care, or care-giving for another family member, as well as work-related reasons such as lack or loss of lab space or equipment and excessive service or committee work. Family and medical leave includes the federally mandated Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, as well as institution-based policies. Typically, medical leave, which covers medical and disability leave for the individual, is paid, and family leave, which covers caregiving for another family member, is unpaid. Transitional support programs provide temporary support to faculty members who are experiencing career-threatening transitions such as major illness, elder care, or complications related to the birth or adoption of a child. Types of support provided typically include funding for released time from teaching; research personnel, such as graduate students or postdoctoral assistants; and lab equipment. The intention is to allow faculty to maintain professionally productivity while managing challenging personal transitions. Active service modified duties include a range of options to temporarily reduce faculty workload with no reduction in pay. This may take the form of a teaching release, modifications in service expectations, and more. Eligibility for policy use might be restricted to care for a newborn or a newly adopted young child, or tied to FMLA standards. Part-time tenure track provides the protections and benefits of a tenured faculty position while permitting a reduced workload. Salary, benefits, and the probationary period before tenure review are prorated based on the reduced appointment. Part-time tenure-track policies can permit faculty to resume their full-time appointment after a fixed time period or require a permanent reduction in appointment. Onsite childcare and childcare referrals are extremely important for faculty with young children. Reliable childcare permits faculty to focus on academic responsibilities. Unfortunately, many campuses are facing childcare shortages, which makes childcare referrals for available community-based childcare crucial.

64

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Seminars and support groups provide opportunities for faculty to meet other faculty or staff who share similar interests or challenges related to care-giving. These groups can help faculty locate resources and provide emotional support through stressful times. Some of these groups are structured and coordinated by the college or university; others are spearheaded and/or coordinated by faculty. Mentoring for work-family balance is a fairly new but growing phenomenon as work-family concerns become more mainstream for faculty members. Work-family mentoring can introduce faculty members to the flexible policy options available on campus, as well as help faculty navigate the tenure process while raising children or providing care for elders or partners/spouses.

How Chairs Can Support Their Faculty Every department is different, so these are general guidelines. Chairs can step in and be supportive before faculty feel the need to either walk away from their academic positions or accept offers at institutions that appear more supportive of work-life balance. Be openly supportive. This sends a message to faculty that their concerns are taken seriously and that there is a safety net in place should they need it at some point in the future. Recognize that needs differ. One size does not fit all. Not all new parents desire to take leave from work or to extend their probationary period before tenure review. Work-life balance is unique to each individual and even varies across an individual’s life and career course. Initiate work-family cultural change. A climate that supports worklife balance provides the foundation for all other support efforts. Faculty must feel safe taking a leave, modifying their duties, or extending the tenure clock as their circumstances warrant. Maintain zero tolerance for discrimination. It must be clear to all faculty that hostile behaviors and discriminatory or disparaging comments will not be tolerated. Know the policies. Chairs must be familiar with the flexible policy options that exist on their campuses if they are to be ready to discuss pol-



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

65

icy use with their faculty. Chairs can make use of existing policies and can typically offer informal supports to faculty in lieu of formal policies. Talk with faculty. Chairs need to talk with faculty to determine course and committee assignments that will be manageable during periods of crisis or transition, as well as upon return from a leave. Chairs must ask pretenure faculty during regular reviews if they have experienced anything that might warrant an extra year before tenure review. Likewise, chairs can check with faculty to see if they are experiencing anything that might potentially derail their careers if they do not receive support. Advocate for (or utilize) a “risk pool.” To help departments handle the financial burden of replacement instruction, teaching or research assistants, and other supports for faculty, some colleges and universities are creating risk pools. These are central pools of funding, typically generated through a tax-like structure across the campus, that can be accessed to cover unexpected costs. Kate Quinn is project director of Balance@UW at the University of Washington. Email: [email protected]. This article is based on a presentation at the 25th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 6–8, 2008, Orlando, Florida.

References American Council on Education. (2005). An agenda for excellence: Creating flexibility in tenure-track faculty careers. Washington, DC: Author. Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Drago, R., & Colbeck, C. (2003). The mapping project: Exploring the terrain of U.S. colleges and universities for faculty and families. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Drago, R., Crouter, A. C., Wardell, M., & Willits, B. S. (2001). Final report of the faculty and families project. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Gappa, J. M. (2002). Academic careers for the 21st century: More options for new faculty. In J. C. Smart & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVII, pp. 425–475). New York, NY: Agathon Press.

66

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Engaging Faculty: Departmental Shared Governance That Works by Mary L. Fisher

Although shared governance is a model faculty see enacted at the school and campus levels through the use of faculty senates/councils and committee work, it is much less likely to be used as a model within academic departments. Faculty have increasing expectations for consultation in unit decision making and it is vital that department chairs assist in forming unit shared governance models that work. Individual departmental units may chose to enact shared governance and thus empower faculty into a more cohesive, functioning unit. Of course, it is preferable for entire schools to embrace the concept so peer units do not have drastically differing governance structures. This article focuses on principles, values and beliefs, faculty and administrator roles and responsibilities, and a departmental committee and governance structure that are foundational to departmental shared governance. Clear delineation between faculty decision-making and advisory functions is addressed. The article also highlights the process for implementing shared governance and evaluation of the model to date.

Principles, Values, and Beliefs Members of the Indiana University School of Nursing Department of Environments for Health at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis crafted the following principles that represent the unit’s culture related to shared governance (Baker, Donnelly, Pesut, & Riner, 2001): 1. Principle-centered leadership requires attention to trustworthiness, trust, empowerment, and alignment of personal and



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

67

professional visions that are consistent with the vision and mission of the school and university. 2. Attention to issues requires awareness and insight and action regarding alignment of the environment, behavior, capabilities, values/beliefs, identity, mission, and vision of individuals in the context of an organization and service beyond the organization. 3. Mutually supportive relationships are the means to solve problems and manage polarities. 4. Learning and growing promote accountability. 5. Faculty share the right and the responsibility to: • Participate in decision making about their work and administrative affairs • Recruit, select, educate, and mentor students in all educational programs • Help create an active, mutually supportive environment with ongoing communication between administrators, faculty, staff, and students • Recruit, select, educate, and mentor faculty colleagues • Design, implement, and evaluate curricula in all educational programs • Conduct and disseminate research, scholarship, and creative endeavors • Provide service to the department, school, university, and profession consistent with the vision and mission of the school • Provide service to local, state, national, and international communities consistent with the vision and mission of the school.

Faculty and Administrator Roles and Responsibilities Areas where the department faculty as a whole have primary responsibility are core areas in which to concentrate the governance model. These include curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction,

68

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

research, faculty status, faculty work, and student life as it directly relates to the educational process (Baker et al., 2001). Faculty are responsible for articulating faculty views through representation on administrative and faculty governance committees. These lines often follow directly the nuances of faculty/administrative differences in policy formation as derived from the university’s academic handbook. Clearly delineating the areas of administrative purview from those of shared responsibilities is a major benefit of a shared governance model. The extent to which the process can open dialogue about these issues and seek alignment and consensus will predict the success of the shared governance model. For example, administrators represent the school to external constituents, direct strategic planning, allocate and distribute resources, maximize unit operations, and oversee policy formation and implementation. Shared responsibilities may include providing the dean with input on the use of resources and hiring, participating in peer review, conducting program review, communicating, and academic community building. The shared interests, rights, and responsibilities of faculty and administration enable the creation of an academic community focused on achieving the goals and mission of the department in the context of the school and university. Each individual plays a crucial role in creating and sustaining the academic community. Both faculty and administrators are responsible for community building. These shared responsibilities require faculty and administrator development to assure shared values, skills, and models of engagement. For example, in our department, appreciative inquiry is the model of communication and professional reflection that we, as an academic community of scholars, have agreed to embrace as an avenue to individual and collective renewal (Pesut, 2003). Members receive faculty development about appreciative inquiry in our annual retreat. A consistent feature of healthy organizations is the appreciation of common values supporting the human connections of people within the organization and the recognition, through appreciative actions of academic community members, of the unique contributions of its members. Consistent with this philosophy, we hold one another accountable in



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

69

our interactions for civility, community building, and actively acknowledging the unique contributions of each member.

Departmental Committee and Governance Structure In addition to our existing Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee (APT, mandated by faculty bylaws of the school), the Leadership Council (LC) was formed in 2001 to enact our model of shared governance. The LC is a forum to create, build, and sustain a sense of community and to serve the governance and administrative management needs of the faculty and administration. Five elected faculty (rotated among the full-time faculty in staggered two-year terms), the chair of APT, the department chair, the undergraduate coordinator, and the department administrative assistant (ex-officio) comprise the LC. The convener is selected from the five elected faculty. Anyone in the department can put an item on the LC agenda and make a presentation or request to the LC. Both the advisory and the decision-making functions of the LC are clearly identified. Examples of decision-making functions include creating task groups as needed to accomplish the work of the department; improving operational support systems; acting on student admission, progression, and graduation issues; planning faculty development programs and retreats; creating mentoring mechanisms; marketing and showcasing faculty and student achievements in teaching, research, and service; nominating faculty for appointments and awards; creating and sustaining student life activities to engage students; planning, organizing, and evaluating special events; and ensuring effective two-way communication of LC activities, functions, and decisions to constituents. Advisory functions include providing faculty input into administrative decision making; consulting with the department chair regarding budgetary affairs and merit review; soliciting input from colleagues on issues of concern; supporting socialization and education of faculty in regard to rights and responsibilities and monitoring differences in administrative and faculty roles; advising, counseling, and making recommendations regarding issues of

70

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

workload, policies and procedures, and teaching assignments; and promoting integration and leadership of curriculum changes.

Practical Recommendations for Implementation Engage faculty in the development of the model of shared governance suitable to the setting and discipline. First, establish whether faculty desire to be engaged in shared governance. You can test the waters by seeking their input in departmental decisions that affect their roles such as course assignments or committee representation. Working together on a project of departmental concern is another way to determine the level of engagement. Offering readings on the topic can stimulate dialogue about the concept of unit shared governance. A retreat where the following are drafted might be a next step: departmental mission; departmental principles, values, and beliefs; roles and responsibilities of faculty and administrators; departmental committee and governance structure; leadership council activities and functions (both advisory and decisionmaking). Consider what faculty development is necessary to provide the skills needed for a higher level of faculty departmental citizenship, and arrange for an external expert to provide it. Allow for ongoing dialogue and further crafting of the model to align with the department’s mission and culture. Demonstrate the behaviors desired for such a collaborative model through open and honest communication about the challenges you will face in the implementation of shared governance. Expect faculty to hold you accountable for leading in a way consistent with the new thinking. Hold faculty accountable in turn for their commitment to make decisions together and do the work of the department.

Evaluation of the Model In the six years since our implementation, the model has evolved and matured. Most of the full-time faculty have rotated through the LC and have become more knowledgeable about departmental needs and operational issues. We have undergone major work in the areas of



Enhancing Teaching and Building Community

71

communications, rules of engagement, civility training, appreciative inquiry, and culture building. We have a smoothly functioning and cohesive department in which faculty are highly productive. Each person’s unique contributions are valued and recognized, thus reducing previous tensions between tenured and clinical-track faculty. Faculty are mentored and supported for promotion. The dynamics of the department look completely different than they did ten years ago, and faculty governance has made all the difference. Mary L. Fisher is associate vice chancellor for academic affairs and associate dean of the faculties at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. Email: mlfisher@ iupui.edu. This article is based on a presentation at the 24th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 7–9, 2007, Orlando, Florida.

References Baker, C. M., Donnelly, E., Pesut, D. J., & Riner, M. B. (2001). Department governance statement. Indianapolis: Indiana University, School of Nursing, Department of Environments for Health. Pesut, D. J. (2003, November). Create the future through renewal. Presidential Call to Action presented at the Sigma Theta Tau International Nursing Honor Society Biennial Convention, Toronto, Canada.

SECTION FOUR

Departmental Initiatives

Hitting the Ground Running: Making Strategic Changes by John Paxton I stepped into the department head role unexpectedly in August 2007 when the former head accepted a dean’s position elsewhere. The challenges that the department faced at the time were declining student enrollments, relatively low research productivity, and loose alignment with the university’s vision to be more interdisciplinary. Since then, the department has made significant improvements in five different strategic areas: curriculum, research, space and facilities, development, and public relations. I believe that there is a honeymoon period during which people in an organization are willing to give a new leader some latitude and try new things. Thus, it is important to hit the ground running.

Curriculum Structural changes. Three structural changes were made. First and most significantly, we split our bachelor of science degree into two options: a traditional professional option and a new interdisciplinary option. The interdisciplinary option allows a student to pursue a minor of

72



Departmental Initiatives

73

choice. During a student’s senior year, a capstone project that relates computing to the selected minor is undertaken. This option caters to students who have interests outside of computing and aligns with our institution’s vision to be more interdisciplinary. We also made our minor more flexible and added a courses-only option for our masters’ students to better cater to employees of local industry such as RightNow Technologies and Zoot Enterprises. Course changes. One new course to highlight is an interdisciplinary Web design course that was first offered in the spring 2009 semester. We developed and now team-teach the course in equal partnership with the art department. The course has attracted one hundred students from diverse disciplines in each of its first three offerings and is likely to serve two hundred students per semester now that it has an “arts” core designation. Instructor enhancements. Because our faculty is fairly small, we have hired industry practitioners to teach certain regular offerings (such as software engineering and computer security) and special onetime offerings (such as user interface design). Students have responded favorably to being taught by industry practitioners and being exposed to cutting-edge industry tools. Results. Student enrollments in regular computer science courses have increased by more than 10% and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology cited the interdisciplinary option as a strength of our program.

Research The strategy used to increase research expenditures is twofold. First, incentives were aligned with desired behavior by articulating a standard teaching load (two courses per semester), a course buy-out policy (providing one-ninth of one’s salary), and general standards for promotion using research as the area of excellence. Second, good hires were made in this area. Results. Funded research has increased 150% from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2010. One of our faculty members won an NSF Career Award.

74

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Space and Facilities It is important to understand the space that your department controls and to ensure that it is being used effectively. To this end, our department has made three significant changes. First, eight graduate student areas were largely reorganized. Graduate students who work with the same professor or on related research projects are now seated in the same room. In addition, many of the graduate student rooms have been named (e.g., Data Mining Lab) to foster future grant applications. Second, an underutilized room has been converted into a space that functions as a robotics laboratory and small classroom. In order to make computer science more appealing, some of our early courses now incorporate a short robotic unit, and we have added new elective courses in the areas of robot vision and robot navigation. The room doubles as a showroom for prospective students. Third, an underutilized student lounge was given a facelift. The room is now used for student club meetings, by students between classes, by students studying together, and even by the occasional student who wants to nap on the sofa!

Development When I first became department head, development was the area that I least understood. Two and a half years later, I understand that development, if done successfully, greatly enhances an organization. Advisory board. A strong advisory board can provide critical feedback on current directions and future opportunities and assist the department in better understanding current industry needs. This in turn can provide ideas for development opportunities. Our advisory board has been updated with nine new members since 2007. In general, advisory board members who can contribute incisive feedback to the department and who are in positions of leadership within their companies have proven especially valuable.



Departmental Initiatives

75

Industry Affiliates Program. Our department began its Industry Affiliates Program in 2007. Industry Affiliates members pay a yearly membership fee (currently $25,000 to join at the gold membership level and $15,000 to join at the silver membership level) in return for various benefits. Presently, we have three members in our Industry Affiliates Program and hope to grow this number once the economy has better recovered. The annual revenues that we receive ($55,000 in 2009) enable us to hire a half-time associate research professor in an area of critical need (software engineering). RightNow Technologies Distinguished Professor. In 2006–2007, the department had failed on a faculty search that included a generous threeyear start-up package provided by RightNow Technologies. After discussions with key people, the search criteria were reformulated to cast a wider net. The resulting search was successful and allowed us to hire a mid-career researcher from Johns Hopkins University for the fall 2008 semester. The success of this search was critically important from a development standpoint. Making an impactful hire not only allowed the department to benefit from the start-up monies, but also makes it more likely that this company will continue to support us in the future. Other ideas. Development benefits range from scholarships for students, to support for an adjunct instructor to teach a course, to being given the use of a boardroom for an annual retreat. Development is an area where outside-the-box thinking can be very effective. It is important to remember that development is an ongoing process and does not stop when a gift is made. Remember to thank your donors.

Public Relations Stakeholders want to be associated with an organization where positive things are happening and information regarding the organization is easy to obtain. To reach our stakeholders more effectively, we have turned to our departmental website and other communication tools. Website. In summer 2007 our website was out of date, incomplete, and difficult to maintain. Our system administrator recommended porting our

76

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

website to Drupal, an open source, content management platform that allows nontechnical users to make changes to the website using a relatively straightforward editing system. During the spring 2008 semester, two students undertook an independent study project to make a shadow copy of the current website using Drupal, and we went live with the new version in summer 2008. Whether it is recruiting a new faculty member, allowing a prospective student to more easily learn about our curriculum, recruiting a new member for our advisory board, or letting a potential donor know more about our organization, having an up-to-date and informative website is crucial. Other ideas. We have promoted our department members by applying for various awards at both the college and university levels. In the spring 2009 semester, department members won three College of Engineering awards and one university-wide award. Winning awards acknowledges outstanding work being done by department members and sends a positive message to the outside world about the quality of the organization.

Conclusion Although I work differently as a department head than I did as a faculty member, I am enjoying the challenges of the position greatly. I enjoy working with the organization’s stakeholders to improve it, learning new skills, and meeting new people. In order to make strategic changes, here are a few final suggestions for new department heads: understand your context, seek buy-in, be patient but persistent, seek opportunity in adversity, utilize students when practical, be willing to do some of the work yourself but also be willing to delegate, choose your battles carefully, read relevant literature (e.g., Gardner, 1990; Sample, 2002), and finally, celebrate wins whether they are big or small. John Paxton is head of the Department of Computer Science at Montana State University. Email: [email protected]. This article is based on a presenta-



Departmental Initiatives

77

tion at the 27th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 11–12, 2010, Orlando, Florida.

References Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Sample, S. (2002). The contrarian’s guide to leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

The Department Advisory Board as an Academic Partner by Dan W. French Many academic departments have advisory boards comprised of individuals who have an interest in the department’s academic area. A successful board serves more than to be just a list of noted individuals for purposes of department publicity. An effectively utilized department advisory board can provide a practical and functional organization for developing relationships with department alumni and other outside individuals who would have an interest in supporting the mission of an academic department. The purpose of this article is to provide a brief overview of the organization and execution of a successful advisory board. It draws on my seven years’ experience as chair of the Department of Finance in the Robert J. Trulaske, Sr. College of Business of the University of Missouri working with the Finance Advisory Board (FAB). While the FAB has been a successful and productive organization, the examples presented here should serve as only one way of doing things well; there are many avenues that lead to a thriving department advisory board. An advisory board can offer several benefits to a department, including: • Providing guidance and counsel to the department chair and to individual faculty members

78

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

• Interacting with department major students in a variety of ways such as through individual mentoring and job shadowing • Serving as classroom guest speakers • Fundraising • Organization of a board Bylaws. A good set of bylaws is an important tool for maintaining a board. Items noted in the following subsections are good candidates for specifying in the bylaws. Bylaws can help with the transition from one set of officers to another, and they can provide a set of guidelines that can help reduce any disagreements that might arise. How many members should the board have? Finding the right balance between having a sufficient number of board members and a number that becomes too cumbersome is an act that probably comes more with experience than with a rule of thumb. There should be enough members to represent a broad cross-section of the various subareas that your department covers. For example, a modern language department would want board members representing each of the languages taught in the department. My experience has shown that a board of about twenty-five members serves us well. There will usually be between five and ten members who cannot make a meeting, so an attendance of fifteen to twenty at a meeting is a manageable number and allows each individual the opportunity to contribute. Officers. The title, responsibility, and number of officers to empower is another area that the bylaws should address. The number and responsibilities are probably best determined by the board based on its needs. The FAB has only a chair and a vice chair who assumes the position of chair the following year. There are several minor officer positions (committee chairs) that may or may not have many duties in any one given year. Also, individual members take on ad hoc duties and responsibilities as needs arise. The board has four standing committees: promotion, student relations, membership, and fundraising. Each committee has a chair. There is no secretary position; the department’s administrative assistant has the



Departmental Initiatives

79

task of taking minutes at each meeting. The board needs no treasurer because all funds flow through the department’s official account with the university. Recruiting and retaining members. Recruiting new members is essential to an advisory board’s health. New members bring fresh ideas and can reenergize a board that might be starting to founder. Effective board members will be proactive, attend meetings on a regular basis, and participate in the board’s activities to the extent possible. The bylaws should identify: • Procedures for inviting prospective new members and placing them on the board • Terms for members • Processes for inviting members to recommit or graciously exit at the end of their term I have found two effective sources of candidates for membership. Most obvious is the current board membership and their circle of connections. The second is faculty who can recommend former students with whom they may have maintained contact. Alumni are usually the best prospects; they have an already established loyalty to the department and often look forward to reconnecting with faculty members who may still be teaching for the department. The FAB invites prospective members to a trial meeting in which the candidate “decides whether he or she wants to join such a notorious group.” In that way the board avoids giving the prospect the impression of being on probation and allows the candidate a way out if there is no fit. Following this first meeting, the board extends a formal invitation to join. The department chair’s role. The leadership of the board should be vested in its officers, with the department chair in the role of a nonvoting, permanent member. Board members will take ownership of their organization and are more likely to offer their services and resources if the department chair serves more as a consultant than a participant. Board members will respect a department chair who offers suggestions and guidance but allows the board to makes its own decisions.

80

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

During FAB meetings, after the chair calls the meeting to order and introduces prospective new members, I present a forty-five-minute report on the department and sum up by outlining the topics that I hope the board will address and act on during the meeting. For the remainder of the meeting, members direct questions to me about the topic they are addressing, so I serve an informational and guidance role during that time.

Board Meetings How often, where, and when should the board meet? Choose a balance in the number of board meetings. Too few meetings will lead to board members losing interest; too many will cause burnout. The campus makes a great place to meet as long as adequate facilities are available. Make it as easy as possible for board members to get more for their trip to campus by combining events if possible. The FAB has two meetings per year, each starting at 9:00 a.m. and ending by about 2:45 p.m. (Members tend to start getting restless soon after lunch, and some members like to have a post-meeting session at one of the nearby pubs.) The fall meeting is on Friday preceding the homecoming football game, and the spring meeting coincides with the college’s honors luncheon. Basketball games and other events can also provide a nice draw. Pre-meeting organization. Members appreciate a well-organized and executed meeting. Set and announce the date of the next meeting during the current meeting. Planning should begin months before the meeting date so that everything will proceed smoothly and should include: • Reminder emails leading up to the meeting day, including a copy of the previous meeting’s minutes • Meeting facility and catering arrangements (light breakfast for those arriving early, with a full lunch recommended; be sure to have coffee available all day) • Table tents and name tags Conducting effective meetings. Board officers who lead meetings should have the skills to facilitate an effective meeting. Sometimes the department



Departmental Initiatives

81

chair can gently guide the discussion back to its intended target, and providing an agenda with topics and times helps keep the meeting on schedule.

Successfully Engaging Advisory Board Members A successful board is actively engaged with the department. However, left on their own, boards tend to lose steam, so the department chair should continually work to involve members. Board members need to know that their contributions make a difference and that their commitments of time and other valuable resources are not wasted. Participation and engagement create a rewarding experience for members and lead to continued and additional participation. The following are suggestions for projects that keep members involved and contributing to the department’s mission: • Plan and host major events: Bring in a noted speaker or practitioner in the field (department chairs should offer resources such as department staff for planning and executing an event). • Engagement with students: Serve as a student’s mentor, host a student to job-shadow, or sponsor a reception for students to meet board members (chairs and staff can help coordinate these events). • Professor for a day: Speak to a class (chairs should encourage department faculty to invite board members). • Student trips: Members can host student trips or arrange them with acquaintances (chairs can offer operational assistance). The following are department chair activities that can help keep the board thriving: • Visits: Periodically arrange a brief visit with board members at their work, home, or for lunch. • Communication: Keep members informed of what’s going on via emails, newsletters, and/or a website.

82

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Fundraising If fundraising is the primary reason that a department sponsors a board, then the board will probably neither effectively contribute to the department’s mission nor successfully raise funds. On the other hand, active and engaged board members who feel that their contributions of time and effort have made a positive difference will often be willing (and possibly wanting) to make a financial contribution. Any of the special projects noted in the previous section provide opportunities for raising funds. For example, there are expenses associated with bringing in a noted guest speaker, and the board could make it a priority that members would provide or solicit funding for the event. Any department chair who works with board members during meetings and in activities such as those mentioned in the previous section will develop close relationships with board members. As part of this relationship, it is appropriate to have a frank discussion with the member about the financial challenges that higher education faces and possible contributions that the member could make to help the department achieve its goals.

Conclusion Sponsoring a department advisory board can be a fulfilling undertaking for an academic department chair, and it can lead to benefits that help the department advance its goals. However, department chairs who have taken on the challenge to form and maintain an advisory board will be the first to admit that success comes only through many hours of work and months or years of developing working relationships. Dan W. French is chair of the Department of Finance in the Robert J. Trulaske, Sr. College of Business at the University of Missouri. Email: [email protected]. This article is based on a presentation at the 27th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 11–12, 2010, Orlando, Florida.



Departmental Initiatives

83

Reframing Departmental Planning by Mark Putnam From time to time I am contacted by colleagues who are preparing for a departmental planning retreat. They are generally focused on questions about the future. Most are anticipating discussions on emerging trends in their disciplines or related fields of study. Many are seeking to find alignments between the goals and measures outlined in plans formulated at the institutional level. Some present a need for satisfying standards for accreditation, with assessment increasingly surfacing as a topic. But all of them are looking for one thing in particular—a process that will work. The reality is that planning is highly contextual. Each one is crafted through a shared experience that is unique and defined at the local level. The problem for most of us is that we desperately want a template—one that has been tested and is fool-proof in producing satisfying results with the least amount of effort possible. This is where my conversations with colleagues about approaches to planning usually end differently than they anticipate, as they tend to leave with more questions than answers. Context matters a lot, and the dynamics of mission, history, culture, values, traditions, and disciplinary character are essential elements to consider. Accordingly I encourage department chairs to reflect on several general principles that I am persuaded guide most, if not all, planning processes.

Framing the Context There are four factors that help to determine the design of a planning process that will be sensitive to the context of any department. How comprehensive will this plan need to be to meet our needs? Answering this question early will help to avoid confusion among participants in the process as ambiguity regarding the scope of planning

84

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

can derail most planning efforts. The list of possibilities may include curriculum, faculty workload, student enrollment, research, diversity, technology, and, of course, parking. The potential list of topics is enormous. Bringing clarity early to the scope of the intended plan will help to focus discussions on the matters most important. The challenge is in elevating the discourse beyond the immediate needs and interests of the department and turning attention to the critical issues that will be on the horizon. How inclusive does our process need to be to ensure success? For some departments the answer may appear obvious, but the question takes us to a deeper level of thinking. Depending on the size of the department, can the planning process effectively include all faculty members? If not, how do we engage the broader faculty at appropriate levels if a subset will be working directly in the process? To what extent should students play a role in this planning effort? Because a department is nested within a school, division, college, or university, is there a role for a director, dean, or vice provost we need to consider? Do other departments within our institution have important contributions to make to our ideas about planning given the growing interest in interdisciplinary teaching, research, programs of study, or joint appointments? Are there outside professionals associated with our field who should advise us on emerging trends? How dynamic does this plan need to be to serve us well over the next few years? The answer to this question varies widely by discipline. For some disciplines change comes through a slow evolutionary process, while others feel more revolutionary in character. The underlying issue, however, is the expectations for adaptation that can reasonably be assumed. The creation of a static five-year plan for some departments may feel like a prison worthy of a breakout, but for others it is a safe haven. The key is in thinking through the likelihood that this plan will need to be amended. As external forces, emerging trends, changes in technology, or curricular innovations surface, the capacity for the plan to facilitate the adjustments will determine if the plan falls quickly into irrelevance or serves as a platform for managing change.



Departmental Initiatives

85

How open will this planning process need to be to ensure an effective outcome? Every plan I have developed has been viewed through a filter I refer to as process legitimacy. The extent to which the process is open and transparent to those interested becomes an important consideration. If the process is deemed to be unfit through a post hoc analysis, then the product may be rejected or marginalized. Our immediate response is often to assert that this should be a completely open process. However, the question is not that easy to answer. What if we are contemplating changes to the curriculum or programs of study that will impact students and alumni? If in our deliberations we raise ideas regarding facilities and equipment that would need sources of funding, will we create a backlash from others? Transparency has the great benefit of building trust, but it can also limit the scope of discussion in certain settings if there is potential for controversy. There are no easy answers. The best advice is to think though the process and anticipate the nature of the discussions that are likely to occur. How these conversations are managed becomes a very local decision.

Avoiding the Pitfalls There are always some pitfalls in planning to keep in mind as the process is designed. Planning will make some people nervous. I have found that it generally helps to remind participants that a plan is not legislation and should not be a substitute for governance. Planning is best understood as the preparation of a multiyear agenda. The tendency is for department members to believe that the ideas and initiatives they discuss in a planning process will automatically be enacted through the adoption of the plan. Most plans are more speculative than that. Invariably there will be potential initiatives to be further studied. In time some ideas may be rejected and others added. Planning should not become a substitute for governance. Instead it should serve as a departmental management tool that will enable a coordinated effort to be organized around some important directions for the future.

86

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Planning the Plan Checklist Here are a few key steps to follow in preparing for the planning process. •  Determine the planning horizon. Three years? Five years? •  Select the participants. Will they be appointed or elected? •  Outline the process steps that will be followed. Allow for some flexibility. •  Establish the timeline for the process. Consider the demands of the academic calendar. •  Gather relevant data and information. Look for important patterns, trends, and comparisons. •  Develop key assumptions that will inform the plan. Are there any institutional issues to consider? •  Acknowledge any limitations or boundary conditions, but don’t stifle creativity. •  Stimulate fresh thinking and new ideas. Should you bring in some outside perspective? •  Review accreditation standards and cycles. Ensure that your planning efforts will serve these interests as well. •  Incorporate assessment and measures of success.

Some people fall in love with the process. I have to admit that for those of us who have spent many years designing and implementing plans, the process can become rather seductive. The important thing to remember is that we can never allow planning to become an end in itself. The purpose of planning should remain focused on the goals and aspirations of the department. If success is defined as scheduling many meetings (always with food), producing large binders of material, and reducing ideas to PowerPoint slides, we then discover the pitfall of the means-end reversal: As the proverbial surgeon says upon leaving the operating room, “The operation was successful . . . the patient died.” The focus of planning should be on the creation of a shared experience that yields alignment and integration about the future of the department. If a planning process can lead to that outcome, then it is useful. If the process itself becomes an impediment or even a distraction, then it should be redesigned. Enabling people to diverge in their thinking before they converge on a plan is harder for some than others. Finding ways to elevate the discourse among participants is a tough challenge and requires a sus-



Departmental Initiatives

87

tained effort. Setting expectations is an important component in the preparation, but getting people to be playful is the goal. I sometimes ask participants in planning to discuss what they know, what they think they know, and what they don’t know about a particular topic. Special readings can help. Presentations will often stimulate some dialogue. The trick is to avoid falling into a frame of mind that reduces everything to one single problem or issue that “must be fixed before we can ever achieve our goals.” In the end, every plan becomes a narrative if it is done well. Enabling your department to tell that story will not only develop a much needed agenda for the future, but will leave you with a healthier organization. Mark Putnam is president of Central College. Email: [email protected]

Conducting an Annual Fund Campaign by Jeffrey L. Buller A properly designed annual fund campaign can serve as an important component of every department chair’s budget planning. In good economic times, annual fund campaigns can help transform a strong department into a truly superb department. In bad economic times, an annual fund campaign can mean the difference between scaling back on resources that could help advance the unit’s mission and keeping core programs intact until the situation improves. At the department level, annual fund campaigns can be more important than capital and endowment drives, and their impact can be far more immediate—small contributions go a long way in the annual fund. Many institutions cap the draw from their endowments at only 4% a year. This policy is beneficial because it helps the endowments grow over

88

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

time and protects them when investments have low returns. But it also means that endowments often have to be enormous to provide the same level of support that a department can obtain from even a modest annual fund campaign. For instance, the $100,000 that a chair raises as part of an annual fund drive would require an endowment of $2.5 million to produce an equivalent return. Although the endowment would continue to produce this amount year after year, many chairs do not have access to donors who are able to make multimillion dollar gifts. They do, however, know people who might be able to contribute $10 or $100 each year. And in years when stocks perform poorly and the return on bonds is low, annual fund contributions can help compensate for these disappointing investments. At the department level, focusing your development efforts on an annual fund campaign is often preferable to diffusing them on larger efforts that could have a very small likelihood of success. An annual fund campaign differs from a typical annual fund appeal because of a special emphasis or a particular theme it has been given. For instance, you might develop an annual campaign to commemorate a particular event (the department’s one-hundredth anniversary or the year a significant scholar in your field was born) or purpose (an important new piece of equipment or the funds required to send students to a major conference). Annual fund campaigns can also be based on specific fundraising strategies, three of which work particularly well at the department level.

The Chair’s Challenge One of the easiest and most effective types of annual fund campaigns for a department chair to initiate is a challenge, a drive in which the chair pledges a specified type of contribution if a certain goal is reached. Challenge campaigns should always be established with preset limits and conditions. The first thing a chair should do when planning a challenge campaign is to establish the maximum amount that he or she is willing to contribute and then build the challenge around that amount. For instance, if a chair determines that a pledge of $500 is the most he or



Departmental Initiatives

89

she is able to contribute to the campaign, a challenge can be established that will not exceed this amount. The chair sends out a letter to program graduates stating, “Because annual fund contributions are so important to the success of our program, I’ve decided to back this initiative with my own money. For this reason, if our program’s alumni contribute an amount that equals or exceeds $500 during the month of November, I will match that gift with my own additional pledge of $500.” Phrased in this way, the challenge cannot commit the chair to an amount beyond what he or she has set in advance. Moreover, if the alumni’s contributions exceed the $500 target by only a small amount (suppose that $535 is raised within the time limit), the chair has the option of additional generosity through a one-to-one match for every dollar raised, or the original pledge can be honored. There are several ways this type of challenge can be tailored to the circumstances of an individual department. The target amount can be raised or lowered, and the time limit for the campaign can be set for a day, a week, a month, an academic term, or an entire year. The group to whom the challenge is made can also be changed to that which is most appropriate to the program: current students, parents of current students, graduates from particular years or decades, or any other body of prospective donors. The challenge can be made in terms of gifts that are pledged, gifts that are received, or increases in pledges from previous years. It is even possible to construct a challenge in terms of individual gifts rather than total amounts. In this case, the chair would write something like, “If any single gift from one of our alumni exceeds $500 during the month of November, then I will make one additional gift of $500.”

The Power of Ten A second strategy for an annual fund campaign involves basing contributions on the year that a student graduates from your program. This type of campaign can be particularly effective with current students, their parents, and alumni. For instance, if a student graduated in 2006, you could request a donation of $20.06 as a celebration of that year.

90

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

Current students who intend to graduate in 2015 would be asked to contribute $20.15, and so on. As recognition that one’s earning capacity usually increases over time, you might also request that alumni invoke the Power of Ten by moving the decimal one place to the right for each ten years since their graduation. Thus, those who graduated in 1997 might be asked to consider a gift of $199.70, those who graduated in 1985 would be asked to consider giving $198.50, and so on. Not all of your alumni will be capable of contributing the full amount of the request, particularly if they graduated three or more decades ago, but this approach to the annual fund makes it clear to donors that contributions should grow over time. The success that students reap is due, at least in part, to the education that they received from your department, and this strategy allows students to celebrate their graduation year and give something back to a program that helped them so much. Offices of institutional advancement frequently observe that a donor who has contributed consistently at one level for ten or twelve years is usually ready to ratchet up that rate of contribution to a new level. The Power of Ten strategy provides a convenient way to make these periodic increases more systematic. An alternative form of this approach can be used for parents of current students. Those who contribute $20.13 in honor of a child who expects to graduate in 2013 can have their names recorded on a Parent’s Honor Roll, with a gift of $201.30 placing them on the Gold Honor Roll, and $2,013 qualifying them for the Platinum Honor Roll. The difference among these levels can be reflected in any way that is appropriate to your department. For instance, those who qualify for the Chair’s Honor Roll might receive a certificate of recognition; those on the Gold Honor Roll might also receive an invitation to a dinner before a public lecture sponsored by the department; and those on the Platinum Honor Roll might also have their child’s name recorded on a department plaque or included on a brick in a Walk of Fame. The specific recognitions that you choose are less important than the fact that some sort of graduated level of recognition has been offered. Public radio and television stations have long based their annual fund drives



Departmental Initiatives

91

on precisely this sort of graduated recognition, and a surprising level of support can be generated by gifts no more expensive than a mug, T-shirt, or calendar.

The Golden Ticket A final strategy for an annual fund campaign takes the concept of graduated levels of recognition even further. The Golden Ticket approach to the annual fund encourages contributors to consider increasing their donation in return for expanded benefits or privileges. Every academic department has the ability to offer some kind of activity that will appeal to the general public. While the fine and performing arts might offer special access to performances and exhibits, other disciplines can host presentations or guest lectures on topics that might appeal to the community, opportunities to meet distinguished scholars in the field, or a behind-the-scenes look at innovative facilities or new equipment for research. Bundling these opportunities with VIP parking for events, more personalized attention, dinners or receptions with special guests after a presentation, printed or electronic newsletters about current developments in the department, and the opportunity to sit in on certain classes when space is available can be attractive inducements to increase a pledge during an annual fund campaign. The amounts you recommend for the various giving levels will depend on the nature of your community, the philanthropic capacity of people who live in your area, and the attractiveness of the opportunities you can offer. A Golden Ticket for VIP admission to certain events or programs should be offered at a level that is low enough to entice a substantial number of donors but high enough to make the campaign worthwhile. A Platinum Ticket should offer several additional privileges and be priced at two to three times the cost of the Golden Ticket. A Diamond Ticket should include all the benefits of the Golden and Platinum Tickets, plus at least one or two truly desirable privileges. If your institution’s president is willing to participate in your efforts, your Diamond Ticket might include an opportunity for the donor to share a private lunch with the president, or

92

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

something as simple as placing that person’s name on a plaque celebrating that year’s friends of the department. Depending on the income level of the community in which your department is located, the contribution levels for these three kinds of distinctions might be $100/$250/$1,000, $500/$2,500/$10,000, or whatever you believe is attainable in your area.

Conclusion One additional benefit of the annual fund campaign is that it increases your percentage rate of contribution for different classes of donors. When seeking a major gift from a supporter, it can be very effective to be able to say, “The alumni of this department support our new direction so much that, although only 15% contributed to the annual fund three years ago, this year that rate is more than 50%.” In this way, your annual fund campaign actually provides a double benefit: It brings immediate resources during the current year, and it increases your chance of securing large gifts in future years because it demonstrates a strong level of support from many of your unit’s most important stakeholders. Jeffrey L. Buller is dean of the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College at Florida Atlantic University. Email: [email protected]

SECTION FIVE

Chair Development and Next Steps

Administrative Reflection: Focal Points and Considerations for Department Chairs by David A. Birch Periodic self-assessment is important for individuals in any leadership position. Reflection has been identified as one strategy for selfunderstanding for leaders. Bennis and Goldsmith (2003) described knowing yourself “through reflection and self-observation” (p. 177) as an essential quality of leadership. Butterfoss (2001) identified reflection on successes and failures as part of a leader’s professional growth, while DeGraaf (2002) presented reflection as a strategy that enables leaders to review the overall picture of an organization and examine the subcomponents that contribute to the unit’s mission. Reflection can serve as an important leadership strategy for department chairs. Bennett (2003) described honest reflection as an important part of a chair’s vital education. Jones (2002) identified reflection for chairs as a method for reviewing leadership situations in order to consider changes in individual leadership approaches. Thus, self-reflection by department chairs can serve as a basis for increased self-understanding, a review of department functioning, and a catalyst for planning. This article presents activities for and responsibilities of department chairs

93

94

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

that can serve as focal points for reflection and offers suggestions for engaging in reflection.

Focal Points for Reflection Department goals and objectives. Department goals and objectives or other performance-based indicators present an obvious source for reflection. These indicators, often found in department strategic plans or as part of accreditation requirements, might have specific timelines for accomplishment or may be designed to be monitored on a periodic basis. Chair’s evaluation. Another source for reflection is any formal evaluation of a department chair. These evaluations may be based on input from department faculty members, a dean or other administrators, or, in appropriate cases, students. Departmental initiatives and ongoing activities. Specific department activities can be examined on a regular basis for status or progress. These activities might be the product of efforts conducted by the entire faculty, faculty committees, faculty in leadership positions such as graduate coordinator or curriculum coordinator, or other individuals such as student advisors. Examples of such activities include curriculum revision, new department policies, fundraising, student recruitment, and alumni outreach. Faculty meetings. Faculty meetings are a critical activity for the department chair and faculty members. Meetings should be well planned and address issues important to the success of students, faculty, and the department. Because of this importance, meetings should be regularly reviewed by chairs. Reflection can serve as a method for review. Meeting components such as the environment and setting, agenda items (appropriate, meaningful, too many, etc.), faculty interaction, and the presence and leadership of the chair can serve as focal points for reflection. Individual meetings with faculty. In addition to meetings with the entire department, chairs also meet with faculty members on an individual basis or in small groups. These meetings may be planned and scheduled in advance or occur with little notice. While some may not



Chair Development and Next Steps

95

be of considerable significance or may conclude with simple resolution, others may be of importance and require meaningful discussion and deliberation. Meetings of individual or department consequence should be reviewed through the reflective process. Meetings outside the department. Chairs represent the department in meetings on campus, in the community, and within the discipline(s) represented by the department. These meetings may take place within a group or with individuals such as a dean or other administrator. Aspects related to these meetings such as the overall value of the meeting to the department, the value of the time spent at the meeting, and the chair’s interaction with others can serve as focal points for reflection for these meetings. Written communication. Department chairs often must communicate with faculty members, university administrators, students, alumni, other professional colleagues, and other department stakeholders through written documents. These communications may be in the form of email messages, memos, letters, announcements, and other documents. Periodic review of these documents can serve as important focal points for reflection for these various forms of communication. Faculty teaching. Classroom observations, meetings with individual faculty members, meetings with students, teaching-related publications, and review of formal evaluation reports are all possible focal points for reflection centering on faculty teaching. Supporting success in teaching is an important responsibility for chairs. Reviewing notes for individual faculty members based on any of these teaching focal points can serve as a source for reflection. This reflection may reinforce successful approaches for supporting teaching and lead to new ideas for support. Faculty research. Faculty research productivity is demonstrated through, for example, peer-reviewed publications and presentations, grant proposals, and externally funded projects. An examination of these activities for individual faculty members can serve as a starting point for reflection. However, supporting factors that promote faculty productivity such as adequate time allotment for research activity, seed money or other financial support, and graduate assistant support can also serve as

96

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

focal points. While publications, presentations, proposals, and funded projects can be determined through the review of a curriculum vitae, understanding the nature of the research and the faculty perception of support can be ascertained through interaction with faculty. The reviews and interactions can serve as focal points for reflecting on research productivity. Faculty service. Similar to research productivity, faculty involvement in professional service is dependent on an environment supportive of engagement in service activities. The value and reward for service activity will vary among different universities and within departments at the same university. Focal points for reflection for faculty service, like research productivity, can be addressed through a review of specific faculty activities and interactions with faculty members. Chair’s professional development. Like other faculty members, department chairs grow as practitioners through professional development. Pertinent experiences may include attendance at professional conference sessions that address administrative issues, the review of literature related to the responsibilities of chairs, personal scholarship including publications and presentations, and participation in administrative discussion groups. Periodically reflecting on these experiences can help chairs relate them to department activities and issues.

Engaging in Reflection Engaging in administrative reflection requires varying amounts of time. Some focal points for reflection require more attention than others. However, any reflection requires time. Thus, the first step in a busy department chair’s reflective process is setting aside time. One approach may be taking time immediately after selected activities for reflection. For example, after each faculty meeting build time into the schedule that day to review the agenda and reflect item by item. Another approach may be building time into the end of each day or each week to reflect on daily or weekly activities. The second step is to express your reflective thoughts in writing. The style and level of formality (or informality) is up to the individual en-



Chair Development and Next Steps

97

gaged in writing. Some may use complete sentences while others may use words and phrases—any style is appropriate as long as it captures the writer’s thoughts. These reflective thoughts may be expressed as personal judgments on the activities, questions, or ideas for adjusting future leadership actions, department activities, or policy. Reflection on a specific event in the life of a chair should occur more than once. After the reflective thoughts are in writing, a periodic review of your documentation may enhance the original reflection. For example, if reflection on a faculty meeting occurred at the end of the day of the meeting, the chair may want to revisit that reflection at the end of the following week. At this later date, new perspectives may be generated that can be expressed in writing and added to the original reflection. These periodic reviews are especially helpful if the past reflection included ideas for a change in the chair’s leadership or in department activities or policy. While reflection is initiated through self-assessment, it does not have to be a solo activity. Though some reflections may be too personal to share, others may be enhanced through discussion with trusted colleagues. Engaging in dialogue and listening to the perspectives of others may further enrich the chair’s perspective of the leadership experiences.

Summary Reflection can serve as an important vehicle for enhancing a department chair’s self-understanding of her or his leadership. Key activities and administrative responsibilities provide focal points for reflection. To maximize the meaningful nature of the process, the observations and future actions that result from reflection should be expressed in a written format. The process should be ongoing and focus not only on a chair’s immediate activities, but also on past activities through periodic “repeat” reflection. Although reflection is initiated through individual introspection, it can be enriched through interaction with selected colleagues. Ideally, self-reflection will result in more deliberate and informed leadership and provide benefits to faculty and students.

98

Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments David A. Birch is chair of the Department of Health Education and Recreation at Southern Illinois University–Carbondale. Email: [email protected]

References Bennett, J. B. (2003). Engaged, but not heroic, academic leadership. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 2(4). Retrieved from www.academicleadership.org/ article/Engaged_But_Not_Heroic_Academic_Leadership Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (2003). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a leader (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. Butterfoss, F. (2001). President’s column. Society for Public Health Education News & Views, 28(2), 1–2. DeGraaf, D. (2002). Servant leadership: A new paradigm for delivering recreation programs. AALR Reporter, 27(3), 10–11. Jones, J. P. (2002). The challenges of a new department chair: Success despite reality. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 2(30). Retrieved from www.academic leadership.org/article/The_Challenges_of_a_New_Department_Chair_Success _Despite_Reality

Taking Your Administrative Résumé to the Next Level of Excellence by Jeffrey L. Buller Department chairs, like other higher education administrators, have responsibilities that are somewhat different from those of faculty members in their disciplines. Nevertheless, if you look at the résumés of most chairs, you discover that they are often structured almost identically to those of most faculty members, providing an inaccurate impression of both their abilities and achievements. An academic administrator needs a résumé that focuses on administrative accomplishments, and the document should follow a structure and design all its own.



Chair Development and Next Steps

99

There are two different types of administrative résumés, each with a distinctive format and a specific range of uses. Because they are used in different ways, both documents should be prepared by every academic administrator. • The action résumé is a short document, no longer than a single double-sided piece of paper, that quickly summarizes the writer’s responsibilities and accomplishments. • The administrative vita is a more comprehensive document that provides a complete context for and background to the administrator’s accomplishments. To better appreciate the differences between these two types of résumés, let’s consider each of them in turn.

The Action Résumé As its name implies, the action résumé provides a quick summary of an administrator’s actions, achievements, and responsibilities. An action résumé should always include the following information: • Full contact information including the writer’s mailing address(es), email address, all telephone numbers (work, home, cell, and fax), and website location, if applicable • The writer’s academic degrees, both earned and honorary, the institutions granting these degrees, and the years that they were received • A brief listing of all relevant positions held and their dates • Bulleted highlights of the writer’s major accomplishments in each relevant position (e.g., $250 million raised, 3 books, 41 articles, 7 new academic programs developed, increased funding for new programs by 38%, etc.) Action résumés should never occupy more than two sides of a single sheet of paper. It is this form of your administrative résumé that people

100 Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

will use when introducing you at public events, citing your accomplishments in print, and considering you for awards or appointments. If you decide to apply for higher administrative positions, you should always include an action résumé, even if you are also providing an administrative vita, because the two documents may well be reviewed by different constituencies on the search committee. For instance, donors, trustees, or regents who happen to be from business backgrounds will often find the action résumé to be more similar to the documents they receive from candidates for positions in their fields. On the other hand, faculty members will find the format of the curriculum vitae more familiar. In addition, the action résumé is more suitable for the kind of “quick skim” that search committees give to files in the early stages of a search. It summarizes all of your publications, contributions raised, and enrollments increased without requiring the committee to add this information together from several pages of your vita. If the committee then decides that it is interested in your candidacy, it will take the time to review your more detailed documentation.

The Administrative Vita The administrative vita provides an opportunity to elaborate on and supply the context for the accomplishments that are summarized in your action résumé. For instance, if your action résumé noted that you raised $250 million in development activities for your institution, your administrative vita would detail the various gifts for which you were responsible, your role in securing each gift, and the impact these contributions had on your institution. If your action résumé stated that you had published forty-one articles, your administrative vita would list all of the individual publications and provide full citations so that readers can locate them. If you served as a faculty member before assuming your position as chair, you are likely familiar with writing a curriculum vitae and are even still using an updated version of the one you developed in your faculty role. Doing so may not be the best practice, however. A true administrative vita should be structured differently from a faculty member’s



Chair Development and Next Steps

101

curriculum vitae. After all, the purpose of a faculty member’s CV is to list the individual’s accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service. For this reason, most faculty members will place general information (such as addresses, telephone numbers, degrees received, and positions held) on the first page, followed by separate sections listing publications, presentations, courses taught, awards received, and so on. The information is selected and arranged in such a way that the reader can examine it quickly and develop a good sense of the person as a teacher, as a researcher or creative artist, and as a community citizen. Nevertheless, the skills by which we judge administrators are different. We want to know about successful initiatives that the person has launched, problems that have been solved, money that has been raised, and organizational successes that have occurred. For this reason, an administrator may want to include entirely different types of information than what is commonly found in a faculty member’s vita and organize the entire document according to categories. Some of the appropriate sections that might appear in an administrative vita include: • Finance and budget: Indicate such things as the size of the budgets for which you have been responsible, the amount of external funding you have raised, and the grant activity you have generated • Academic programs: Cite examples of new programs you have created, inefficient programs you improved or eliminated, and the number of academic programs you have supervised • Faculty relations: Refer to faculty development programs you have initiated, full-time positions you have created, and the number of faculty positions that ultimately report to you • Policies and procedures: List procedures you have revised or initiated, benefits that arose from strategic planning initiatives in your area, and policies you were responsible for enforcing • Technological innovation: List improvements in equipment or software that you supervised, obtained funding for, or mandated

102 Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

• External relations: List activities relating to donors, alumni, parents of students, and other external constituencies • Organizational efficiency: Cite any type of improvement that you made to help the institution become more effective or a better steward of its resources

Suggestions for the Action Résumé and the Administrative Vita • Print all documents on good, solid white paper. Plain white paper will produce better copies when, as inevitably occurs, your documents are reproduced by others. • Never staple your documents in order to make for easy photocopying by the recipient. • Include a header or footer that lists your name and the page number. Whenever possible use the format “Page X of Y” because sooner or later someone will drop your vita or even an entire stack of vitas. Numbering your pages in this way allows the document to be reassembled more easily and indicates where pages may be missing. • Rather than simply using a bulleted list for most sections, number the items. This way you do not force readers to count your accomplishments if they wish to know, for example, how many articles you have written or how many committees you have chaired. • When formatting your document, use tabs, margin settings, and columns to align items, not multiple spaces. You may have to send the document to someone electronically, and what formats well on your screen or printer may not format well on someone else’s. As a general rule, hit the space bar once between words and at the end of sentences, and never more than twice in succession. If you find yourself using more than two spaces, you are formatting incorrectly.



Chair Development and Next Steps

103

• List all items in a section in reverse chronological order. This order has become so common that any other type of structure (e.g., alphabetical or chronological order) may confuse or mislead the reader. • Consider your audience. What can people be expected to know or not to know? For instance, you should never include an abbreviation or course prefix that any potential reader of your document would not understand. • Run all information continuously. Do not separate sections with blank spaces, even if one section must then be continued onto the next page. Empty space in a résumé or vita makes it look empty to some people, artificially padded to others. • Carefully check all listings, including dates, for errors or typos. A mistake that is obviously a typographical error can make you look careless. A mistake that is not obviously a typographical error can make you look dishonest. • End your document with a short phrase reading “Updated [DATE]” so that your readers will know through which date the information in the document is current. Jeffrey L. Buller is dean of the Harriet L. Wilkes Honors College at Florida Atlantic University. Email: [email protected]

Preparing for Your Departure as Chair by N. Douglas Lees

Yes, the day that you are no longer serving as department chair will come. For those currently serving there are likely recent events that will cause one to say “and not soon enough,” while other experiences

104 Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

will result in an “I will miss that” remark. Hopefully there are many more of the latter than the former. The precipitating motive for departure can come from a variety of sources. Many institutions or units within them have term limits for chairs or have a rotating chair system so chairs know with good certainty when their exit time will come. Others hold renewable appointments and have the potential to remain on indefinitely. Chairs may leave of their own volition after tiring of chair responsibilities, because they desire to move to other work, or because they have planned a set time period for chair work. Finally, chairs move on because they are no longer effective in some aspect of the position, because of a new administration that wishes to move in a direction in which the chair is not prepared to lead, or because the level of support from the faculty or the dean has fallen below a workable level. In any event, all chairs relinquish their titles and in most of these scenarios the departure date is known or negotiated ahead of time. Despite the many variables, sitting chairs have two responsibilities to address before moving on. One is to plan a smooth transition to the new department leadership and the second is to place themselves in a good position for the next stage of their lives. One possibility for the latter, planning for permanent retirement, will not be a focus of this article. Instead, returning to the faculty and moving up the administrative ladder will be prime considerations.

Preparing Your Successor If institutional practice is to appoint a new chair from the existing departmental faculty, the work of the exiting chair will be far easier than if the new chair is selected from the outside as the result of a national search. The internal successor will be familiar with institutional and local policies, procedures, and practices. There is likely to be some familiarity with courses and programs, and such an individual will know the faculty, staff, and students in addition to the dean. In the time between the selection of the internal successor and the actual transfer of leader-



Chair Development and Next Steps

105

ship, the exiting chair should be able to mentor the new chair-to-be in areas where there is a lack of previous involvement. Areas where the new chair may need some help include class scheduling and assigning teaching, the chair role in faculty development, setting budgets, evaluating faculty and assigning merit, and promotion and tenure responsibilities. If time permits, the successor may be able to work with the chair on some of these issues in real time while others would come from historical examples and discussions. In addition, the sitting chair may have the opportunity to appoint the successor to higher level committees that would provide useful insights or even designate the new chair as a replacement at key meetings (a chair’s council, for example) to offer a preview of things to come. The challenge of preparing a new external chair is significantly greater. Assuming there are several months between the acceptance of the offer and the start date, the sitting chair has some time to familiarize the successor with a good number of things. Sessions are best done in person, if possible, and the new appointment could be available for such sessions if the travel distance is not too great or if the successor has plans to visit the campus on several occasions before actually starting. If no such visits are possible then the process must take place via email and telephone. Because the real or virtual meetings will be infrequent it is important that they operate by a structured agenda. The topics to be covered should be mutually agreed upon. This allows for focused exchanges and for the appropriate questions and documentation to be prepared ahead of time. As someone who has no institutional history, having documents (handouts, if you like) can serve as prompts later when the subject is revisited. This is where the often-overlooked role of the chair as the repository of vital unit information and data becomes critical. For example, mundane topics such as scheduling classes and assigning teaching can have many pitfalls that the novice may not recognize. Sections may be scheduled to avoid conflicts with other courses in which students routinely co-enroll, to allow staff adequate preparation time, or to promote more robust enrollments. Depending on unit culture, section and course

106 Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

assignments may have local political complications based on seniority and past promises or practices. This does not mean that self-interests should prevail but rather that the new chair should be aware of local expectations before inadvertently making changes. Budgeting is another area where the sitting chair can be an immense help to the newcomer. Having information on how budgets are set and how they are spent will give the new chair some sense of how resources may be enhanced as well as which expenditures are set and which are discretionary. Most institutions also have other “pots of money” that may be tapped under certain circumstances or with special justifications. For example, does the dean have a fund for additional adjunct hires if a new section is mandated by enrollment demand? Are there programs that will provide graduate student support or fund projects that enhance retention? Is there an incentive element in the budgeting process that rewards departments for increased enrollments, graduates, or grant overhead generation? Knowing early on the answers to questions such as these will allow the new chair to get into the budget game at the outset. There are several other topics that might be discussed between the exiting and new chairs but space will not allow all to be explored. There is one, however, that may be controversial in some ways but will save the new chair much time in moving ahead with a new agenda. Thus, it deserves mention. This concerns familiarizing the new chair with the personalities that will soon be faced on a daily basis. This is a delicate consideration where some components could be tainted by personal issues that chairs may have with some people. Let’s start with dealing with the dean. How does one approach the dean with an idea that requires resources? Is the dean an innovative idea person or a numbers person who expects real return on investment? How does the dean like to be contacted or approached? Answers here can make the difference in whether the request will be favorably received. Beyond the dean, there are the faculty and staff who populate the department and with whom the new chair will regularly interact. They are also the front-line people who generate the products of higher education. It is hard to imagine any academic unit that does not have some



Chair Development and Next Steps

107

lingering personal or professional issues that are not evident to a chair candidate during the interview. That was an occasion for best behavior. There also may be difficult personalities in residence or clusters of faculty who do not get along. In addition, there may be faculty who think they have been passed over or treated poorly, and staff who do a minimal job or miss work time too frequently. How might the present chair objectively inform the successor of these situations? An indirect way to convey data on department personnel performance as a whole is to share the most current external program review documentation, if this is a practice at the institution and if one was conducted recently. This gives a general overview of the department’s activities and its strengths and weaknesses. Beyond that the chair might share faculty CVs, annual reports, and staff reviews. Although these are privileged documents in some sense, the new chair will have access to them when the term begins so previewing these records should be acceptable. These documents will reveal productivity and effectiveness data, identify areas where the present chair has had concerns, and indicate the steps that have been recommended or taken to improve performance. With this context the new chair should be ready to face the “line at the door.”

Preparing Yourself for the Next Step Most chairs whose service ends before permanent retirement return to the faculty. In some instances this is an easy and smooth transition. In others, long-serving chairs may need to do some retooling in order to resume productive faculty lives. This would be true for chairs in liberal arts colleges where scholarship expectations have risen while serving, and for chairs at comprehensive institutions where student numbers and resource issues have taken far too much time from teaching and scholarship. Chairs in these situations should try to arrange for sabbatical leaves, formal or informal, and a modest restart-up package. The leave may come in the form of a teaching load reduction and allows the “new” faculty member to become familiar with current pedagogies and the use of technology and/or to restart or reinvigorate a research agenda. The

108 Special Issues in Chairing Academic Departments

monetary component allows for conference travel, supplies, and personnel to supplement the process. Chairs sacrifice much to do their work and it is in the best interests of the institution to recognize this and help them resume productive faculty lives. Preparing to move to the level of dean is another option and one that will likely mean changing institutions. Thus, chair accomplishments in the present institution must be clearly visible to search committees. Effective management skills are basic requirements but not the sort of evidence that will stand out and earn an interview. Chairs should be cognizant of the need to engage in high-impact projects that have positive outcomes. There are choices regarding the nature of discretionary work a chair might elect to do, and those planning an administrative career should select projects that effect significant institutional change. Leadership in student recruitment or retention strategies, external engagement, diversification of the faculty or the student body, increasing external funding, philanthropy activities, and innovative academic programming are all examples that will attract attention. Chairs should not only document the projects and the data on their outcomes but also the reasons they were started and the rationale for the process that was used to generate buy-in and promote successful implementation. All of these aspects should be recorded at the time of the work, as memories of past environments and thought processes fade with time.

Summary Present chairs need to keep in mind the day their service will end in order to be prepared to mentor the next chair such that department operations are not compromised. In addition, they must take steps to make certain they are well positioned to move to the next phase of their professional lives. N. Douglas Lees is associate dean for planning and finance at Indiana University– Purdue University Indianapolis. Email: [email protected]. This article is based on a presentation at the 28th annual Academic Chairpersons Conference, February 10–11, 2011, Orlando, Florida.