next »

[8bits]

I'm in the first year of a rotating-chair position.  Of course I've got all the usual things to deal with, so I'll move onto something a little new and different.  The administration, some faculty in other departments, and some of the faculty within my own department are working to either (1) dissolve my department, (2) split it into small pieces and absorb them into other departments, or (3) simply start a new competing department in the same discipline but with a different name.  The arguments are variously (a) we're not a valid discipline in the first place, (b) everyone else is already doing what we do so we're no longer needed, or (c) we're dysfunctional.  The last has validity, but it's far from the worst, that's for sure.  None of the outcomes are terribly great, and even in the event that the department isn't dissolved it'll either be decimated by removal of faculty without replacement hires or permanently crippled by internal distrust.

So, like all new chairs here, I'm wondering .. is this normal? 

Any advice on good ideas or strategies?

And how do you know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em?

In expectation that at least one response will involve a stiff drink, I'm off to get a head start on that...

[terpsichore]

The situation is difficult if both your administration and some of your faculty want to dismantle the department. Your message raises a number of questions, starting with this: how serious do you think this threat is?

Before you can do anything, you need to decide what you want the outcome to be, and whether it is realistic.  Survival of the program? A stronger department, with more enrollment and funding? A graceful ending, with the department gone, but soft landings for all the people in it?

You should also identify, as much as you can, what hill you are willing to die on (to borrow an overly dramatic phrase from Steven Sample).  Don't talk to others about this, or you be backed onto that hill very quickly.  This thought experiment will help you set priorities, and establish realistic goals for your department.

[digger]

Some thoughts - I am the second most senior chair in my college. My approach to these things may not true up with other folks on this board but – it has worked for me. Your situation will be determined by a few things – first is the administrations perception of what you do. If you are, in their view, babysitting a desk for a short time, you will have a problem discussing long range plans with them.  This lack of continuity may well be one of the reasons your program is being parted out and dysfunctional. It’s a tough spot for you since the problem likely developed over many years and should have not been allowed to fester so long. It won't be undone overnight.

Choices: You can be a caretaker and let your program die comfortably in its sleep or you can try to make a difference. You will get paid the same either way.

In the event you choose the hard road -
Get a handle on your internal issues.
Not knowing your situation - determine if this is a bully/collegiality issue or a spirited debate among friends. If it is the former you need to deal with the problem straight away. It won’t go away on its own. A chair can assign choice committee assignments and tinker with schedules to reward/punish bullies. This is marginally effective. If you need to really grab someone by the scruff and shake them up - and this should be a last recourse - check with the administration to see if you REALLY have their backing. This is a huge issue. You do not want to trigger a grievance or post -tenure review if HR and your Dean will not back your actions. You lose credibility and will cause long term damage to your career.  Its true - never wound a king (or a bully).

If you are rotating into the position – you probably have been in your department for a while and know the players. Your good news is – you have a history there. Your bad news is - you have a history there. Your camps and allies are probably determined. Work with them wisely and know you will eventually have to make hard decisions that may alienate your relationships with allies. Be sure they understand your thinking - it's what open governance is all about.  If it really is in the best interest of the department to stay together you will need to find common ground (and common enemies) and present that to the faculty as a foundation for greater things. This will take all of you best sales and negotiating skills. Spend a lot of time (I mean a lot) walking the hallways and chatting with everyone –certainly about work but also talk about the spouse/kids/cat/last night’s ball game/whatever. Especially with the SOBs you dislike. As you noted, Having a stiff drink is a good idea (make mine Bourbon!) but having a beer and wings with colleagues will go a lot further. While you aren’t being paid to be their friends – a level of collegiality helps you become more effective. It’s a lot easier to call for a vote surrounded by associates who are not at war, and, if you play it right, you will know WHEN to call for a vote. That is one of the greatest powers you have as chair - - you set meeting agendas.

Externally – develop and present a business plan.
I’m in the arts. I report to a hard science person, who reports to a hard science person, who reports to a computer/math person who reports to a board of business people.

My administration has almost no idea what we do. Their choice. They don’t find our work easily accessible and are not interested in speaking my language. Therefore, I have to learn theirs.  I do a hard sell but can’t get any administrative traction talking about the arts.  They do know we are intelligent, dedicated, and produce a ton of FTEs for them.  THAT they care about. My program has grown significantly based on numbers. Sell what you have, put it on a spread sheet, and demonstrate your potential. Show five and ten year projections based on x faculty and resources.

Oops - I just ran out of time - have to run.

I guess it's your choice  - die, or at least fight on the hill or lay down for a good snooze.

[larryc]

No, this is not normal.

Step #1 is to decide what you want. Look at Terpsichore's list of possibilities and sort them twice, once by what you think should happen and again by the political likelihood of each. Now put the lists side-by-side and start to strategize.

[new_bus_prof]

Department lines come and go. Faculty get re-organized, as any organization needing restructuring does.

The best solution is always: figure out a way to keep good people, but remove the administrative layering.

[subsavant]

See advice from Digger and read carefully -- he pretty much says it all and clearly know what he is talking about. And yes, its clear your departments situation did not happen overnight, so it will take real work to reverse it.

A couple of quick comments. First, trust no one. Now that you are one of "them" everyone will treat you differently. You must be very careful what you say, and doubly careful what you write - especially in emails, which can be forwarded ad infinitum. Put nothing in an email you don't want to see on page one of the local paper.

Second, rather than wait to be broken up and absorbed, why not propose something bold, like combining you department with parts of OTHER departments to create a bigger, stronger department? I have a similar situation -- (small department but mostly functional) that crosses other discipline boundaries. But why should your department be the one to go? You will need to get numbers together to support your proposal (SCH's, FTE's, funding, publishing) and you will need to hawk the synergies of the new "you" (yes, go ahead and use the work synergy; admin laps it up).

Finally, good luck!

[david_perlmutter]

Big question: Can you produce some metrics to make the case
that you deserve to survive? How many majors? Donations? Grants? Time to
degree for Ph.Ds? Campus admins. need to see numbers not
abtractions.

[systeme_d_]

The OP has not been back to the fora since the first post, people.