next »

[ipse_dixit]

So I'm stumped on what to do about this. I collaborated with a colleague on a project that I was stoked about -- I'd already gotten the data, started the analysis, etc., when hu approached me about getting involved with the project. I was new to the dept. and welcomed the collaboration. We did two joint conference papers, where I did 60 pct. of the work on the first and probably close to 90 pct. on the second. Well, lesson learned, I think, I'll just finish these projects and be done with that colleague in collaboration.

Wish it were that easy.

This colleague is having tenure issues. Hu has annoyed the vice president of academic affairs, hu is perceived as lazy and selfish, and hu has not pulled hu's weight on search and other committees. Hu is going up for tenure this fall and has a slim portfolio (one peer-reviewed paper, co-authored with me, in which all hu had to do was submit an edited version of the conference presentation -- no additional cognitive work).

So one Sunday I'm checking email, and there is one from hu's spouse. The subject line is "Help X" and the body of the email is saying, "X is a nice person who cannot say no and is overwhelmed with other commitments, and hu really needs you to get this other paper out. There are two kinds of people in this world -- talkers and doers. So far all I've seen is talk."

Stunned, I read and reread, and then I called my senior faculty member confidante (everyone needs at least one) and poured out my heart. Yes, that paper was on my plate, yes, I had been working on it, but it was a law review of 80+ pages that wasn't gonna get written overnight, yes, I was sympathetic to my colleague's plight but it should not be my job to get hu tenure.... and my confidante said don't worry about it.

I wrote back an email to the spouse saying that I had been working on the paper all along and that hu's spouse would see a draft soon. I did not kowtow but I was pleasant to a fault, despite the roiling stomach I had composing the response.

Next day I go into my office, and the phone rings. It's my chair. Hu says, "Hey, don't worry about X's spouse's email -- you have no responsibility for hu's tenure." How did the chair know? The chair had been blindcopied on the original email. Who else was blindcopied? I don't have any idea. The spouse has since gone into the chair's office and made comments like, "Well, that email got Ipse working, haha."

So, I'm not worried about the chair. But what next? Do I tell my colleague that hu's spouse is sending out these emails? Do I write something formal for my file about the working relationship, outlining what was done in the collaborative efforts (those are required for co-authored work but I am betting my colleague will try to pad hu's contributions)? Do I just let it all go and consider it a lesson hard learned?

I am really stumped because I considered the colleague a friend...and now even trying to work on the collaborative paper makes me ill at heart. On one hand I would want to know if my spouse was sending out emails like that, but on the other, it could cause a rift in the marriage...and frankly, the damage is done with me. I am still friendly to my colleague and intend to uphold my end of the bargain, as it were, but I don't know what, if anything, to do next.

[larryc]

I'd be pissed, and I am rarely pissed. Email the wife back and tell her that you appreciate neither the email nor her sending it around the department and that in the future you will communicate only with her husband directly. And cc the husband whose ass you are supposed to saving. Then drop the unfinished article on his desk and ask him to make the next set of changes.

[shrek]

I have a slightly different take. The spouse is desperate, and so is your colleague. Sounds like your colleague isn't going to make tenure. Just imagine what it might be like. Get the paper out if you can, but it's not your responsibility to make it happen, you do it on your timetable (faster if you can). I would not respond to the spouse at all-- I'd pretend that it didn't happen and I'd imagine that the spouse is embarrassed (I would be). Hit delete and forget about it, it never happened. It's very painful for your colleague and it will likely get more painful as the tenure process begins.

[larryc]

On second thought, Shrek is more kind and more wise than I. Do your best and let this little drama play itself out.

[clean]

I agree with LarryC .

Id be a bit annoyed too.  At this point, I think that I would be 'sooo distressed' by the interference that I would not be able to pick the paper up again until Christmas.  By then, the T&P process will be well under way. IF it is so important to get it out, let the coauthor pick it up and run with it.  Either way, it should be well underway by the time they go on the job market.

On the other hand... there is a forgive and forget issue.  The ONLY thing that would really have closed the door on the forgiveness was the ""Well, that email got Ipse working, haha.""
 issue.  SO that is why I would disagree with Shrek.  That says to me that it was not an unfortunate slip.

Good luck,

clean

[clean]

Larry C,
what have you done?

Are you swappin back? 

[shrek]

I'm not saying it WAS an unfortunate slip, I'm saying you act as tho' it was. And you work on the manuscript-- who is the first author? If you are, you have a conversation with your colleague, maybe they want to be first (and take on the responsibility of getting it out). But, that probably won't happen. And the Chair sounds like knows what's up, so even if spouse is making silly comments to the Chair, well, they just sound stupid and uninformed. The slim tenure file will speak for itself (also make sure yours is much much better).
In the future remember it doesn't do any good to get pulled into these dramas. I don't speak with my students' spouses about their work and I don't speak with my colleagues spouses about their work either (even if we socialize-- that is not a topic for discussion-- anything you say (or worse yet WRITE) is going to bite you in the ass!)

[katherineparr]

I am inspired by Clean's Darth Vader quote. I cannot be as forgiving as Shrek (though his/hers is the best advice, I suspect). I think I would respond.

However, it's obvious that your chair is fairly sane. S/he has seen this before, maybe, because the response to the bcc clearly shows that s/he understands the desperation in the spouse.

The thing is, the bcc suggests that this isn't the first contact between either Colleague X or his spouse and the chair. Why would she bcc the chair unless it had already been pointed out that the holdup in further publication is not Colleague X but you? This makes me wonder whether Colleague X or the spouse has complained to the chair that you are a lazy slob who is the real problem.

All this - my own paranoia? maybe - would push me to reply. But I'm of the Kill Them With Kindness school. So...

"Dear Spouse" (cc Colleague X)
     When I replied to your email (below), I was unaware that you had bcc'd Chairman Freud. In the context of a professional relationship, I find this inappropriate. I value the constructive working relationship with Colleague X which has produced sound scholarship. I hope it continues for many years. However, from this point forward I will communicate only with him/her about our work and professional life."

Or something like that. Firm, but not nasty. And affirming that you have no knives out for Colleague X while informing him/her of the spouse's weird behavior.

Honestly, though: don't they seem made for one another? Colleague X joins up with you on research, then fails to do his/her share. Colleague X has no other pubs at tenure time. Spouse X blames you and urges you to get to work? Twins of the heart, those two.

[drsyn]

I would be royally pissed, but I wouldn't have any contact with the spouse.  I would consider the spouse to be no one to me.

The chair has already dealt with the issue.  At most I would tell the chair that it really threw you for a loop, but that you are going to forget if for now.  (you might do this by email to create a paper trail.)

Finish the article as soon as possible, because it will count towards your tenure - unless there are more important articles to work on.  Then you put a few hours a week.  Do the documentation for the article that you talked about earlier.

But don't have any further communication with the spouse.  Don't grant them any validity.  Forward any communications to the chair.  Don't meet with the spouse.

[ipse_dixit]

The thing is, the bcc suggests that this isn't the first contact between either Colleague X or his spouse and the chair. Why would she bcc the chair unless it had already been pointed out that the holdup in further publication is not Colleague X but you? This makes me wonder whether Colleague X or the spouse has complained to the chair that you are a lazy slob who is the real problem.

It would not surprise me if this was the case. My colleague has tried to blame-shift before, although never onto me. But the same colleague has been ballsy enough to ask the chair to put hu's name on the chair's textbook -- not to share in the royalties but to bolster the tenure package. The answer was no, of course. The chair has my colleague's number. I just won a research award from my university, so my star is high right now.

Thank you all for your comments. I am still pissed, and I don't think I will stop being pissed, well, ever. :) The article, on which I'm the first author, will be a huge help to tenure, and I plan to complete it, but this whole situation makes working on it pretty bitter right now. And honestly, I'm not willing to turn it over to my colleague for completion, because I like it and believe in it too much. It would rot before my colleague would be able to turn it around. I guess it is just about cooling off, no?

[jammer]

I'd be pissed, too, but, as mentioned by the wise posters above, it never hurts to be the bigger person in situations such as this, especially if your chair knows the deal. 

I'd be even more pissed, however, if my spouse did something like this.  What's wrong with this person?  How could he/she think that this could help?  Some people have no idea...

And congratulations on the research award!

[kaysixteen]

My read of the OP's original post suggests that Prof. X is highly unlikely, highly unlikely, to get tenure.  However, assume the worst-case scenario-- the OP finishes the outstanding co-authored paper, does a great job, and then somehow campus officials who know no better use it and the previous 'collaborations' to decide Prof. X is in fact a great scholar deserving of tenure, and he gets it.  It might well occur then that he takes more or less all the credit for the so-called collaborations, and the OP himself gets styled a slacker, and loses out on his future tenure bid.  Thus, IMO, the OP should take steps to make sure it is documented how little X actually did on their 'collaborative' efforts.  X and Mrs. X do not sound at all trustworthy.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

I'd take the chair's reply as a cue to feel reassured about my own standing, do nothing "official," and then seek a social occasion at which I could be a stone cold biatch to the wife. Then again, I've got the biatch thing going for me already, so it's a predictable pattern.

Do not e-mail the spouse again, ever, under any circumstances. If you get another e-mail from her, archive it or forward it to whomever you like (the entire department?).

As for the plans for the article, do nothing differently than you would have already.

[mozman]

Be friendly, be polite, be neutral and start scoping out your colleagues office furniture.

Your colleague is toast.  Your chair knows it.  Make no mistake, your colleague knows it too.  He (hu?) and the spouse are grasping at straws.

That email (or series of emails) from the spouse sealed the deal.  It shows that your colleague is not in charge of their own career, and are relying on spouse to make it better.  This won't help. At all.

Besides, things being as you describe, even another co-authored pub won't get colleague tenure.  Tenure requires a steady stream of work, not a rush near the deadline.  Your colleague needs to suck up reality and start preparing for the worst.  Mark my words, they won't be around next year.

mm

[brunhilde]

I am inspired by Clean's Darth Vader quote. I cannot be as forgiving as Shrek (though his/hers is the best advice, I suspect). I think I would respond.

However, it's obvious that your chair is fairly sane. S/he has seen this before, maybe, because the response to the bcc clearly shows that s/he understands the desperation in the spouse.

The thing is, the bcc suggests that this isn't the first contact between either Colleague X or his spouse and the chair. Why would she bcc the chair unless it had already been pointed out that the holdup in further publication is not Colleague X but you? This makes me wonder whether Colleague X or the spouse has complained to the chair that you are a lazy slob who is the real problem.

All this - my own paranoia? maybe - would push me to reply. But I'm of the Kill Them With Kindness school. So...

"Dear Spouse" (cc Colleague X)
     When I replied to your email (below), I was unaware that you had bcc'd Chairman Freud. In the context of a professional relationship, I find this inappropriate. I value the constructive working relationship with Colleague X which has produced sound scholarship. I hope it continues for many years. However, from this point forward I will communicate only with him/her about our work and professional life."

Or something like that. Firm, but not nasty. And affirming that you have no knives out for Colleague X while informing him/her of the spouse's weird behavior.

Honestly, though: don't they seem made for one another? Colleague X joins up with you on research, then fails to do his/her share. Colleague X has no other pubs at tenure time. Spouse X blames you and urges you to get to work? Twins of the heart, those two.

Is the spouse also a member of the department? I would not respond to the spouse at all. Instead, I'd send an email similar to KatherineParr's, but addressed to the colleague.