next »

[la_jupe]

I have just recently been elected chair of a small (10 person) department at a SLAC.  I'm following a chair who basically did the least amount of work possible and left the department in chaos.  Maybe it's no surprise that everyone wants to see immediate changes in the way our department operates.  By immediate, I mean RIGHT NOW, even though I'm not officially chair until the start of the new academic year. 

As I think about how I want to handle the current situation, I wonder how I can be a good chair without giving up more time and energy than is absolutely necessary.  Any advice from those of you who have been in this position?  Particularly from those of you who have helped your department recover from a rough patch? 



     

[verbena]

How about making a point to meet/have lunch with everyone in the dept to talk about how they're doing/where the dept is headed? Make it clear it's not a meeting about evaluating them, but about keeping your job on track. Maybe ask people what they think could be changed, either within the department or on campus?

[case_insensitive]

A good chair interferes as little as possible, but is proactive when necessary.

A good chair backs up his or her faculty.

A good chair doesn't let students pull stupid grade-grubbing stunts.

A good chair doesn't call meetings unless absolutely necessary.

A good chair is a good listener.

A good chair figures out what makes each individual faculty the most productive and works to create those situations.

[minor_t]

Congratulations on your election, and best of luck in your new position.

CI has a great list of characteristics of a good chair, and I like the idea posed by verbena of meeting with each faculty member.  Put together a list of questions that you'd like to discuss, i.e. What strengths do you lend to the department?  What should be the most important things we do?  What are our biggest challenges?  Questions of that sort.  Send them out to the faculty and say that you'd like to meet with each of them individually to discuss the questions.  That way, there won't be any paranoia about what the meetings are about, and you'll learn a lot about the department and faculty.  If you want, you can report back to them, i.e. "Of the ten of you, seven expressed a concern about our admissions standards, while six think that we do an excellent job in research" or some such.  And count on every one of them saying that the department is under-resourced.

As for your not wanting to give "more time and energy than is absolutely necessary", consider that the department is recovering from a chair who did the least amount of work possible.  The department will expect - and likely deserve - a good chunk of your time and a lot of your energy.

mt

[scotia]

A Chair I really admired used to stroll around our department (of 12) and try to accidentally bump into people at least once a week for a quick one-on-one chat - typically no more than 2 - 3 minutes. It looked spontaneous, but this way he knew what was going on, what was upsetting people and was alerted to problems early. He claimed it took no more than 90 minutes a week, typically less than an hour, and saved him hours of firefighting.

When he took over the department head role he talked to everyone in the group (in their office rather than his to give a more informal impression) and asked how each member of staff would contribute to the development of the department. This way he was able to identify people's pet projects and get them to commit time and energy to the projects: all he did was orchestrate the projects. It also got rid of unproductive whining as people had to be prepared to commit to getting involved before they complained.

Finally, if there was a class that everyone hated teaching he would volunteer to do it for a year - his view was that no-one should be asked to do anything that he was not prepared to do himself. His successor was careful to teach only the minimum number of low aggravation classes and was regarded with contempt.

[jammer]

Having had two bad chairs in a row now, I think the most important thing is communication with your colleagues:  chatting with everyone in the department about changes they'd like to see is a good one, reminders about deadlines and requirements, especially for those new to the tt, relaying info from on high, checking your email and phone messages regularly (Yes - we had a chair who said "You know, sometimes if I don't check my email for a while, whatever it was that seemed to be so important just sort of goes away".  I felt like I was stuck in an episode of The Office).  I'd say that this is the minimum - and I'd give anything for the minimum right now.

The best thing about this situation is that, whatever you do, it will probably be better than the last person.

[dr_stones]

Despite your most haunting desire, it is not possible to recommend "extermination" as an alternative at post-tenure review.

[la_jupe]

As for your not wanting to give "more time and energy than is absolutely necessary", consider that the department is recovering from a chair who did the least amount of work possible.  The department will expect - and likely deserve - a good chunk of your time and a lot of your energy.

mt

Of course minor-t is right.  My original query stemmed from the fact that I have a tendency to throw myself completely into every project I take on--balance is not, shall we say, my strong suit.  I imagine this is why I was elected chair, on the assumption that I would throw myself fully into the task of salvaging our department as well.

However, I'm trying to forestall a situation where I find myself ignoring other, equally important responsibilities.  I have a book coming out in the fall and have already agreed to a number of speaking engagements; do I cut back on such engagements in order to be an available, hands-on chair?  Do I cut back on writing and research in order to meet with colleagues?  Given the finite number of hours in a day, there's only so much I can do; my aim here is to figure out what I absolutely must do.

Thanks for all the suggestions so far--I'm taking notes.

la_jupe     
   

[justfornow]

If you do talk to each faculty member, you could well discover that many people are expecting you to solve some of the problems they identify. You know--the very problems that the previous, do-the-minimum chair was not dealing with.  The tricky part is that it could be a mistake to rush into "doing" something about these problems although you should commit to dealing with them relatively soon.  Discuss and ponder the options: it seems to me that setting the wheels in motion often gives a great morale boost and gives you time to identify the best solutions to problems (assuming they have solutions, of course).

Along those lines, I disagree with one of Case's suggestions: I think it is important to hold regular meetings, say every other week or so, in order to have sustained and coherent dialogue about advancing departments goals and solving department problems.  Of course, these shouldn't be long meetings!

[case_insensitive]

Along those lines, I disagree with one of Case's suggestions: I think it is important to hold regular meetings, say every other week or so, in order to have sustained and coherent dialogue about advancing departments goals and solving department problems.  Of course, these shouldn't be long meetings!

I'm so glad you aren't my dept head.  :o)

In my first position (i was there 6 years), we had dept meetings every other week, even if we had no agenda and nothing pressing. They always lasted at least an hour.  What a waste of time!

In my second position, we had dept meetings only when something monumental needed to be discussed as a group (it was a big dept, as well, which meant getting everyone together was difficult). We didn't waste time, for sure.

In my third position, we had dept meetings mostly only when something semi-major was happening.  We never wasted time, with a few exceptions.

In my current position, we've had about three this year, mostly to discuss an on-going search. I appreciate a dept head who knows when we all need to be present in the same room to discuss something (like the search) and when it's just not necessary.

Of course, in a dept that has been historically confused about goals, or has been moving backward, i do understand the need to meet to agree, perhaps, on how to move forward. But having meetings every other week for the sake of having them... makes no sense to me.  The faculty should be teaching and researching with the bulk of their time and the dept head should be taking care of 95% of dept admin so faculty do not have to worry about those things.  This presupposes a GOOD dept head, of course!

[dr_crankypants]

Meetings every other week?  That does sound nightmarish.  I think that a big part of the listening has to be done informally, especially if you're at all interested in what the untenured people think. 

[case_insensitive]

Meetings every other week?  That does sound nightmarish.  I think that a big part of the listening has to be done informally, especially if you're at all interested in what the untenured people think. 

Bingo. Many of the untenured folks will speak candidly with the dept head privately or over lunch, but will not do so in a dept meeting.  Keeping one's head down and one's mouth shut is pretty smart when untenured.

[anthroid]

I am just finishing my second year as a chair in a larger department than OP's (20) and was brought in from the outside because the place was incredibly dysfunctional with a chair just as OP's predecessor is described.  I have learned a number of things in this kind of situation:

Ask the dean for more money for your operating budget NOW and get the commitment NOW.  In my case, I made it a condition of hire; the dean said "sure."  When I asked why, if it was that easy, had it not been done before, the dean said "no one asked."

Have monthly, not biweekly, meetings.  You must lead them firmly, and you can't allow tangents to go on for more than 60-90 seconds (really).  If they last more than an hour, you're talking too much!  There is enough information presented to chairs by the deans, and enough work to spread around, that a monthly meeting really is adviseable.  That way too everyone knows that, say, Mondays at 3 are always free since no one schedules class for that time because that's meeting day!  Publish the agenda several days in advance.

Stop the moaning about the past as soon as you can and focus on the future.

Say yes to reasonable requests whenever possible.

They don't really mean it when they say "shared governance."  What they mean is you do all the work and they approve your drafts.  That's just the nature of being a chair.  They also mean that you get to make the very hard decisions and they never have to take the heat.

You get to make the hard decisions.  Make them and stand firm.

They don't mean immediate change now.  They mean "make my life better right now."  You may not be able to do that; you may have to demand more from them, or take away a RA, or something.  They want you to do what they want you to do, but sometimes your colleagues cannot see the forest for their own personal trees.  Sometimes you need to make decisions in the best interests of the department or its programs or its individual faculty, which may conflict with immediate needs and concerns.  You have to be the long-term, big-picture thinker here.

Do not give in to department bullies.  Sometimes they yell "shared governance" because they don't realize that just because you are smart enough to discount their opinion doesn't mean you discount everyone's opinion.  Of 20 people, I have a couple who are real doozies.  I consult with their colleagues before consulting with them so my back can be even straighter than usual.

Set standards for student and colleagues' scholarship.  That means, for students (and, presumably, colleagues), no plagiarism.  For colleagues, that means do some damn scholarship and get published.

Your scholarship will likely suffer but do not cancel your talks.  Don't.  You will have so much more legitimacy, particularly when raising those standards, if you can walk the walk.

Don't be surprised when people--perhaps, or especially, those who were your staunchest supporters at the outset--turn on you.  Those who claim to want strong leadership actually only want strong leadership when it agrees with them.  The ones who have been sitting back watching will likely be your go-to people; the loudmouths will fume about your tyranny (and get all dramatic about it) but since no one listens to them it won't matter.  If you are consistent and fair, you will do well by everyone, and most of your colleagues will see this.

Are you scared?  Don't be...this is a very rewarding, but very challenging, job.  Did you see:

http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2007/05/2007050101c/careers.html

I circulated this to my fellow chairs, and most agreed this essay gets it right.

Feel free to PM me with any specific questions or concerns.

[jammer]

Anthroid, will you be my chair?

(although, I suppose, as a good chair, you'd tell me to stop messing around on the forum and get back to work...)

[case_insensitive]

Do not give in to department bullies.  Sometimes they yell "shared governance" because they don't realize that just because you are smart enough to discount their opinion doesn't mean you discount everyone's opinion.  Of 20 people, I have a couple who are real doozies.  I consult with their colleagues before consulting with them so my back can be even straighter than usual.

Was it hard to figure out who these folks are?  How long did it take for you to get the lay of the land?