next »

[professor_pat]

Gary Olson's article, "How Not to Evaluate Your Department Head" (http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2008/07/2008071801c.htm) requests factual, detailed descriptions of a chair's weaknesses in annual reviews in order to be "heard" by the dean. I understand Olson's point and applaud his intent.

However, our chair reviews are shared word for word with the chair. Someone who is especially problematic (the kind of person likely to draw the vitriol that Olson describes, at least from more than one faculty member) may also, likely, be untrustworthy. In my last chair review, I felt that I had to be much more general than I would have liked in order to remain anonymous; I don't trust my chair not to penalize me for negative review comments. Details would have revealed clearly who the review author was.

I have shared my views in a cordial, respectful way with this chair and with an associate dean, and on one occasion with the dean, and nothing seems to have changed as a result. I know from conversation that several other faculty members have independently reached the same conclusions I have, so I'm not alone. This chair is the only person on our campus for whom I have highly negative reviews - so it's not that I'm a generic troublemaker.

I would welcome Gary Olson's (or other forumites') suggestions for writing helpful negative reviews under these circumstances.

[fiona]

When I've been in situations like yours, the faculty members have quietly and then vociferously organized themselves to consult with/bully the dean into appointing a new chair.

I'm not sure that evaluations make much difference, but face-to-face bluster can.

The Fiona

[professor_pat]

Thanks, Fiona, I appreciate your suggestion. And I'm glad to know that in some university universe, you succeeded! That gives me hope.

PP

[pandora]

I found Olson's article incredibly annoying.  His assumption seems to be that all of those reports about incompetence or unethical conduct were exaggerated or wrong.  I've been fortunate to work under chairs who were generally very competent, but had serious concerns about one.  Also, on a small campus, I think you are likely to have the opposite problem:  no one who is untenured can possibly be assured of the anonymity of his/her responses.  After a certain point I just filled in the highest score in every category and wrote nothing detailed.  I was sick of cranking out platitudinous lies.   

[takapa]

Olson's piece was interesting, but not terribly helpful.  I suppose if you have a dysfunctional department, you get those kinds of things.  But, we're not all children.  Certainly, the swearing and the racial slurs he detailed are beyond acceptable.  But, to me, a dean who discounts chair evaluations out of hand is problemmatic as well.  Honestly, if a department that tended toward good functioning had a number of faculty with such negative reviews of the chair it says, to me, that the dean should be taking action (of some sort) and not merely blowing it off ala Olson.

Having said that, I agree with Fiona that a deliberate, detailed, and fact based talk with the dean would be in order under such circumstances.