next »

[almond]

The 4 full time, contractual Lecturers in my program have been emailed a form to review our chair. It's an interdisciplinary program, not an actual department. The chair was previously in a staff position but recently got placed in a TT position in the English department.

In the past, most people have sent their evaluations in by email to the Asst. Dean, though there is a choice to send by campus mail.

I don't feel comfortable with this process, as it is not anonymous. But even if it was, the number of respondants is so small that I could not write anything that wasn't completely positive. I do have some concerns with this person's performance but with no job security in my position (renewable yearly) I don't feel that it's worth the risk.

What should I do? Not turn it in and seem irresponsible? Turn it in without answering the short answer questions? Make my concerns known the Asst. Dean, thereby outing myself as someone who has something less than glowing to say? This has been stressing me out and any thoughts on this would be very helpful.

[rear_view_mirror]

"Oh, the review form? Yes, I've been meaning to get to that. Thank you."

[fiona]

If you have to turn in the form, write positive things on it.

Since you have no clout, what you say will have little or no impact, except that it could turn against you if you're seen as negative.

So lie like a rug if need be. Figure it's for a higher purpose--keeping your job--which is more important than what the chair does.

The Fiona

[bluezebracat]

Ha. Chime the Fiona.

360 Review=giant trap.

[lizzy]

If you have to turn in the form, write positive things on it.

Since you have no clout, what you say will have little or no impact, except that it could turn against you if you're seen as negative.
So lie like a rug if need be. Figure it's for a higher purpose--keeping your job--which is more important than what the chair does.

The Fiona

Yep.

Write positive things where you can, and bland, vague things where you can't.

I understand wanting to make suggestions that could improve the chair's performance, but I agree that the risks outweigh the potential benefits. Thinking about it cynically, there may in fact be no real possibility of benefits (in the sense that constructive criticism of the chair could improve the program):  Since there's no way to really be anonymous and therefore completely honest, it may be the case that the administration isn't interested in a real review so much as a rubber stamp.

So stamp away, Almond

[almond]

I think you all are right to play it safe. But I feel that academia is making me a wimp and a liar, and I hate myself for playing the game.

I've been in this business for about 5 years, so I'm not completely naive about the politics. But I am feeling bad about having to be a coward in the face of people in power.

The fact is, I like this program and I want it to be better. If the chair already had a reputation as a loser, I wouldn't mind as much. But the chair is a darling of the school and will continue to do what he wants.

Sigh.

[rear_view_mirror]

I'll venture a psychological explanation. In Dale Carnegie's book "How To Win friends and Influence People" he writes that most people respect the ability to take criticism in good stride, but do not practice this ability.
So the supervisor may believe there's a constructive purpose to the exercise, up until the moment when he finds out what the criticisms are, whereupon he decides that they are unfair.
So lie away, and rationalize thusly: you are making the best decision for both of you.

[terpsichore]

You can and should protect yourself in this situation. Write only positive, true things based on your own observations. Almost everyone has some positive trait you can mention.

I've been on committees that read these review forms, and the aggregate can convey a surprisingly clear impression of a person's performance, through the trends in the comments, without anyone making a single negative comment.

To make up an example, if an administrator's position has the expectation that he or she will cultivate potential donors, and the comments all talk about how well the person runs meetings, how much the staff enjoys working with him or her, etc., with no mention of fundraising, the person reviewing the file will notice.

[fiona]

You can and should protect yourself in this situation. Write only positive, true things based on your own observations. Almost everyone has some positive trait you can mention.

I've been on committees that read these review forms, and the aggregate can convey a surprisingly clear impression of a person's performance, through the trends in the comments, without anyone making a single negative comment.

To make up an example, if an administrator's position has the expectation that he or she will cultivate potential donors, and the comments all talk about how well the person runs meetings, how much the staff enjoys working with him or her, etc., with no mention of fundraising, the person reviewing the file will notice.

This is really a great example. And to the OP--all jobs can make you feel like a wimp and a liar sometimes, but self-preservation is most important. And what Terpsichore points out is terrific.

The Fiona

[walk_and_roll]

I think you all are right to play it safe. But I feel that academia is making me a wimp and a liar, and I hate myself for playing the game.

I've been in this business for about 5 years, so I'm not completely naive about the politics. But I am feeling bad about having to be a coward in the face of people in power.

The fact is, I like this program and I want it to be better. If the chair already had a reputation as a loser, I wouldn't mind as much. But the chair is a darling of the school and will continue to do what he wants.

Sigh.

Are your criticisms with the chair personally (he's a jerk, he plays favorites) or the program itself (he's running it into the ground, it's headed in the wrong direction, things like that)?

[walk_and_roll]

Oops. Hit "post" by mistake.

I meant to say that concerns about the department you're in—if that's in fact the issue you want to raise—probably aren't best expressed in a personnel review anyway, right?

But if they're personal concerns, that's another thing.

[bud04]

I say don't fill out the form and then you won't be a liar. I have done this when I couldn't stomach filling out these type of forms.

[almond]

Thanks for your comments everyone.

To be fair, I should rescind one of my earlier comments. The chair is probably not doing whatever he wants. He is beholden to a lot of people above him and allowing their bad habits to trickle down to us. We noticed a big change once he got on the tenure track and had to save his own butt (thus not willing to advocate for us lowly Lecturers). The fact is he doesn't have a lot of leadership experience.

I looked at the website where the admin found the survey that they "adapted". It is actually a paid service where you are supposed to send the reports to their central depot for anonymity. I wish they would just pay the measly few hundred dollars for the service, at least to give us a little peace of mind.

[walk_and_roll]

I looked at the website where the admin found the survey that they "adapted". It is actually a paid service where you are supposed to send the reports to their central depot for anonymity. I wish they would just pay the measly few hundred dollars for the service, at least to give us a little peace of mind.

Are you more concerned with your chair finding out about your misgivings, or about admin finding out? If the former, then using a third-party anonymizing service wouldn't change that, right, esp. if there are only four of you asked to complete this survey? The results would still go to him.

BTW, is it completely unreasonable to maybe talk to your chair off the formal record about your concerns? Would he really end your appointment if you said "I wish you'd advocate for us like you used to"?

[fiona]

I looked at the website where the admin found the survey that they "adapted". It is actually a paid service where you are supposed to send the reports to their central depot for anonymity. I wish they would just pay the measly few hundred dollars for the service, at least to give us a little peace of mind.

Are you more concerned with your chair finding out about your misgivings, or about admin finding out? If the former, then using a third-party anonymizing service wouldn't change that, right, esp. if there are only four of you asked to complete this survey? The results would still go to him.

BTW, is it completely unreasonable to maybe talk to your chair off the formal record about your concerns? Would he really end your appointment if you said "I wish you'd advocate for us like you used to"?

In my experience, this kind of thing NEVER works. The chair (esp. male chairs) becomes extremely defensive. Be aware that they're trying to save their behinds, which are more important to them than your happiness. I would say DO NOT do this. Fill out the survey or don't fill out the survey, but don't expect a "sincere" conversation to turn someone's professional behavior around. It hardly ever does. Well, I don't know of a single instance where it did, but I do know of complaining adjuncts who got fired.

People really do NOT want advice from underlings.

The Fiona