next »

[drstrangetoughlove]

I am on a committee that is hearing a grievance from another department. Not mincing words, the charge is that the chair is the Dean's lackey and he should be responsible for and representing the faculty's interest not the Dean's.

However, there is a twist ... The faculty did not vote this chair in, rather the Dean appointed him.

Any wisdom and "general acceptance" practices with respect to what should be the Chair's charter and whether it is adequate for the chair to be appointed by the Dean.

[systeme_d_]

Is the department in receivership?  Is that why the Dean appointed the Chair?

[zharkov]

Does the school have a constitution or policy/procedures document or faculty contract that spells all this stuff out?  Or do the powers that be just make it all up as they go along?

IMHO, don't get sucked into trying to figure out what they "should" do based on "general practices," unless you want to make this a huge time sink. 

FWIW, I think the chair should represent the department's interests, the schools interests, and the student's interests, probably in that order. 

[drstrangetoughlove]

IMHO, don't get sucked into trying to figure out what they "should" do based on "general practices," unless you want to make this a huge time sink. 

But that's the only option isn't. Otherwise the chair is saying the dean appointed me, I'm responsible to the dean.

The department is saying, the chair should represent our wishes not the dean.

The dept is not in receivership. It's a very good solid department.

[systeme_d_]

At my place, the role of the chair is to be a two-way conduit.  It's a tricky dance.  The chair has to "sell" the Dean's plans to the department and see that they get carried out, and at the same time, the chair has to represent departmental interests to the Dean.



 

[cgfunmathguy]

Systeme_d beat me to it, as I was just getting ready to say the same. Every position in the hierarchy except the very top and very bottom (student) has this two-way problem.

[zharkov]

IMHO, don't get sucked into trying to figure out what they "should" do based on "general practices," unless you want to make this a huge time sink. 

But that's the only option isn't. Otherwise the chair is saying the dean appointed me, I'm responsible to the dean.

The department is saying, the chair should represent our wishes not the dean.

The dept is not in receivership. It's a very good solid department.

No, of course that is not the only option.  Unless you are in the mood for being sucked into a no win situation.

FWIW, I'd tell them that you can help the group (department and chair) work on communication skills (say), or you can facilitate a meeting in which they themselves -- department and chair -- figure out how to make it all work.  That is what shared governance is really all about: giving people the responsibility for making it all work.

[amlithist]

At my place, the role of the chair is to be a two-way conduit.  It's a tricky dance.  The chair has to "sell" the Dean's plans to the department and see that they get carried out, and at the same time, the chair has to represent departmental interests to the Dean.



 

True here, too.  And if you're lucky, as Chair (as I am), you'll have a Dean with whom you generally get along pretty well and who will take the heat off you--I often have to deliver news/mandates from higher up that I generally agree with, but that I know my faculty won't (i.e., had to remind them all last Friday that they are expected to meet with their classes in the assigned classroom during the assigned final exam period, rather than simply blowing off finals week).  In those cases, I declaim any opinion on the item, saying instead, "Hey, y'all know, I'm just the messenger here...."

Truly, though, it's a balancing act being a chair, which is why it's so often seen as a high-stress, thankless job.

[slinger]

To OP: Both.  There's a reason it's called "middle management."

[larryc]

Does the school have a constitution or policy/procedures document or faculty contract that spells all this stuff out?  Or do the powers that be just make it all up as they go along?

My question as well.

At my old school chairs were appointed by and served at the pleasure of the dean. They were administration and expected to support the administration in all matters. I hated the system but it was clear and unequivocal, plus my chair was a great guy.

At my current institution we elect our chairs for rotating terms. The chair represents the faculty to the administration. It is also clear and unequivocal and it also works.

Which is standard policy at your place?

[ursula]

Does the school have a constitution or policy/procedures document or faculty contract that spells all this stuff out?  Or do the powers that be just make it all up as they go along?

My question as well.

At my old school chairs were appointed by and served at the pleasure of the dean. They were administration and expected to support the administration in all matters. I hated the system but it was clear and unequivocal, plus my chair was a great guy.

At my current institution we elect our chairs for rotating terms. The chair represents the faculty to the administration. It is also clear and unequivocal and it also works.

Which is standard policy at your place?

The latter of these is how it works at our shop; it's even spelled out in the union contract.  Some chairs, though, and some deans, think the chairs work for the deans and should just pass on their orders to those stupid professors.

[anthroid]

The Chair is responsible to both regardless of how the Chair became the Chair.  The reality is that the Chair has to carry out the Dean's wishes and she has to do her best to communicate faculty wishes (insofar as they are worthwhile) to the Dean.  But the Chair has NO responsibility to communicate bone-headed ideas to the Dean.  The Chair really is a crucial position--there is a ton of obligation but not so much support.  It's really hard being Chair.  But the Chair is neither the Dean's lackey NOR the faculty's lackey.  She has a brain, after all, and (presumably) some experience in the academy, so she gets to choose her battles.  I've had to deal with faculty members who think that my only job as a Chair is to tell the Dean what the faculty think; I disagree with the faculty members who think that I exist only to advocate for them (again, particularly when what they want is idiotic). 

My job as chair is to advocate for the interests of the entire department, not just individual faculty members (unless, in my judgment, I need to do so).  I get to think about what the interests of the entire department are, of course guided (in part) by what individual faculty members think.  Certainly I would communicate what I think but individual faculty members don't get to override me. 

[aandsdean]

The Chair is responsible to both regardless of how the Chair became the Chair.  The reality is that the Chair has to carry out the Dean's wishes and she has to do her best to communicate faculty wishes (insofar as they are worthwhile) to the Dean.  But the Chair has NO responsibility to communicate bone-headed ideas to the Dean.  The Chair really is a crucial position--there is a ton of obligation but not so much support.  It's really hard being Chair.  But the Chair is neither the Dean's lackey NOR the faculty's lackey.  She has a brain, after all, and (presumably) some experience in the academy, so she gets to choose her battles.  I've had to deal with faculty members who think that my only job as a Chair is to tell the Dean what the faculty think; I disagree with the faculty members who think that I exist only to advocate for them (again, particularly when what they want is idiotic). 

My job as chair is to advocate for the interests of the entire department, not just individual faculty members (unless, in my judgment, I need to do so).  I get to think about what the interests of the entire department are, of course guided (in part) by what individual faculty members think.  Certainly I would communicate what I think but individual faculty members don't get to override me. 

Having been chair for nine years at two different places, I have to chime on this (which is not surprising, since Anthroid and I are often in harmony).  In fact, it's often a genuine service provided by a good chair that s/he keeps the wacko ideas of certain faculty from filtering upwards to the dean.  Ideally, the chair might be seen as the "transformer" that filters out the bad ideas in both directions, and explains/clarifies the rationales for things coming from both directions as well.

It is indeed a very difficult job.  OTOH, it's at least in your discipline, unlike the higher-up jobs, so at least you usually have a shot at understanding what you're talking about.