next »

[banana]

I think there's a little part of me that might be interested in administration -- not so much the budgetary and managerial responsibilities of standard administrative roles like department chairs and deans, but rather the thinking and planning that go into big-picture issues like academic policy and curriculum that tend to be done by people who chair particular committees or direct campus-wide initiatives.   When we have serious discussions of these kinds of issues, I find that I enjoy thinking about them, have ideas to share, and sort of wish for an appropriate avenue to take action. 

But here's my question: do I take active steps to offer myself up for these kinds of roles (I'm newly tenured), or do I wait and trust that if I really have the skill for it, someone will eventually notice and appoint me to some position of responsibility?  A couple of deans, on separate occasions, have made comments suggesting that they see value in my contributions to various meetings/committees.  That, and the fact that there's something distasteful about the idea of offering myself up, both argue for the "wait and trust" approach.  On the other hand, if these issues are really important to me, it seems sensible to take active steps to engage with them -- for example, telling an administrator I know reasonably well that I hope she'll "think of me" when she's staffing various initiatives.

Your thoughts?

[ursula]

If there's an administrator you trust, such as your Chair or Dean, have a talk with that person.  Identify one or two specific committees on your campus that you'd be interested in serving on (planning, budget, curriculum) and ask how you could get involved with their work.

Sitting around and waiting for the good committees to fall into your lap is unlikely to work.  You're more likely to end up with timetabling or parking.

[theblondeassassin]

I think there's a little part of me that might be interested in administration -- not so much the budgetary and managerial responsibilities of standard administrative roles like department chairs and deans, but rather the thinking and planning that go into big-picture issues like academic policy and curriculum that tend to be done by people who chair particular committees or direct campus-wide initiatives.   When we have serious discussions of these kinds of issues, I find that I enjoy thinking about them, have ideas to share, and sort of wish for an appropriate avenue to take action. 

But here's my question: do I take active steps to offer myself up for these kinds of roles (I'm newly tenured), or do I wait and trust that if I really have the skill for it, someone will eventually notice and appoint me to some position of responsibility?  A couple of deans, on separate occasions, have made comments suggesting that they see value in my contributions to various meetings/committees.  That, and the fact that there's something distasteful about the idea of offering myself up, both argue for the "wait and trust" approach.  On the other hand, if these issues are really important to me, it seems sensible to take active steps to engage with them -- for example, telling an administrator I know reasonably well that I hope she'll "think of me" when she's staffing various initiatives.

Your thoughts?

As well as ursula's comments ...

They come knocking pretty quickly, in my experience, when committee chairs become vacant or ad hoc committees are formed, if you've been a good contributor on relevant committee(s).

If you're interested, decide what position you might like ultimately to pursue, and see if you can get a formal or informal mentor in that area of administration.

To be fair, most of my fun appointments have come through friends of friends or by accident, but it turned out my new contacts needed particular skills that I happened to have that were VRIN - valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable.

[masonsavoy]

I would recommend asking your chair for the committee assignment you want. At my school, most of us try to limit our committee work. Your chair will probably be thrilled to have a willing participant.

[conjugate]

A couple of deans, on separate occasions, have made comments suggesting that they see value in my contributions to various meetings/committees.  That, and the fact that there's something distasteful about the idea of offering myself up, both argue for the "wait and trust" approach.  On the other hand, if these issues are really important to me, it seems sensible to take active steps to engage with them -- for example, telling an administrator I know reasonably well that I hope she'll "think of me" when she's staffing various initiatives.

Your thoughts?

My thought (as an untenured person with extensive experience in academia) is that if you ask diffidently something like "Who did you have in mind for" <fill in the big job here>, it gives you an opportunity to suggest that your skills might be useful.  You might consider framing it as "You know, I don't want to stop contributing just because I've now got tenure, and if you need someone for <big job>, I would be willing."

Best wishes.

[sine_nomine]

As TBA notes, if you have served well on committees, more committee service will come your way.  Your interest, humbly expressed, in bigger-picture issues should be quite welcome to an administrator.  If you are truly interested in these things, you should not think it distasteful to offer yourself up.

[banana]

Thanks, all, for your thoughts so far.  Your replies helped me realize that "offering oneself up" is a more nuanced possibility than I'd given it credit for.  For example, in addition to thinking about who I might talk to, and how I might say it, I'm now also thinking about context, as well.  In the context of a particular position that I know to be open, for example, I would offer specific relevant skills; whereas in the absence of a specific known opening, I would simply be conveying my interest generally.  It all makes me think that the best route might be to have a prepared "offering up speech" in my head, ready to be delivered if and when the right moment presents itself.

I also appreciate the point that good committee service leads pretty naturally to more committee service of increasing levels of responsibility.  So, if I'm willing to be patient, I'll get some of what I want anyway.

[conjugate]

The way it's done here is that the committee meets with last year's chair chairing it just long enough to select a new chair.  At this point, anyone may nominate a potential new chair, and the nominee has a chance to decline.  If you were to nominate yourself under this system, you'd get it for sure.  It's expected that people should take a "leadership role" before getting tenure here, however, so presumably our situations are not comparable.

[snowbound]

Don't you have a Faculty Senate with committees that deal with some of these issues? If so, run for those committees.  That would give you a leg-up when suggesting yourself for an admin  position--interest AND experience.

[banana]

Don't you have a Faculty Senate with committees that deal with some of these issues? If so, run for those committees.  That would give you a leg-up when suggesting yourself for an admin  position--interest AND experience.

In our system, (similar to yours, Snowbound?), the existing committees that deal with the big-picture issues tend to be elected committees.  However, we don't "run" for these.  All tenured faculty are considered to be candidates, and the whole faculty votes.  For non-elected committees, there is indeed a yearly opportunity to express interest, but these tend not to be the big-picture committees.  I suppose I could humbly and gently let some people know that I'm interested in one of the elected committees, and see if that generates enough votes to make it happen.  As an alternative, I find myself thinking about the sorts of ad-hoc committees that get formed as issues arise.

[snowbound]

Our system is somewhat similar.  There tends to be a fair amount of competition for very important committees--because they are powerful and because most people, like you, prefer to invest their time working on important big-picture issues that really affect the direction of the institution, rather than piddling around with the necessary but less exciting minutiae that other committees handle. One way to get elected to these big-picture committees is to prove yourself on lesser committees.  Jump into whatever campus-wide committee you can and do a great job.  Take on tasks, prepare reports, organize initiatives, be thoughtful, articulate, responsible.  You will broaden the number of people who know your name, and earn respect and support that goes beyond your own department.  This will make you far more likely to be rewarded with a plum committee spot eventually or even a direct a campus-wide initiative down the road. 

Playing leadership roles in such areas is not only, or even mainly, about having good ideas (which you have); it's about being able to organize and carry out the work effectively--hashing things out in meetings, building consensus, politicking your way around obstacles, getting input from concerned parties, balancing diametrically opposed interests without totally alienating anyone, gathering data, compiling reports, etc.  Testing the waters via a lesser committee will let you (as well as others) discover if you have the appetite and ability for that kind of thing. Some "good ideas" people are terrible at this stuff; other "good ideas" people are great at it. 

(Now if the stars are aligned just right, you may fall into a good spot without working your way up through lesser committees. THough one has to wonder why such an important position would be given to an unproved newbie.  Is it a time-sucking, soul-detroying vortex that nobody else wants?) 

[banana]

Playing leadership roles in such areas is not only, or even mainly, about having good ideas (which you have); it's about being able to organize and carry out the work effectively--hashing things out in meetings, building consensus, politicking your way around obstacles, getting input from concerned parties, balancing diametrically opposed interests without totally alienating anyone, gathering data, compiling reports, etc.  Testing the waters via a lesser committee will let you (as well as others) discover if you have the appetite and ability for that kind of thing. Some "good ideas" people are terrible at this stuff; other "good ideas" people are great at it. 

I'm so thankful for this paragraph, Snowbound.  You've articulated a list of specific skills that I've been carrying around in my head as just a vague, undifferentiated sense of "good-at-committee-ness" -- and it's exactly the set of skills that I'm eager to try out for myself.  I like your idea of proving myself on a lesser committee  -- I think that's a bit of what I've been doing, but I can see a number of possibilities for doing that in a more focused, intentional way.  Thanks for your thoughts!

[banana]

It's been several months since my original post and your helpful replies.  I thought I'd share a bit of an update... 

Following the advice here to prove myself on a lesser committee, I've been taking an active, visible role on the committee to which I was assigned, and I also volunteered to serve on a new task force addressing particular curricular questions.  On that one, too, I've been actively participating, and trying to exercise the skills (like Snowbound enumerated) that make for a good, trustworthy and potentially leadership-worthy committee member. 

It's impossible that my work on those two committees could have become very public yet, as I've only been on the committee for a few months, and the task force has only met a few times.  However, in the current election cycle for one of our (desirable-to-me) elected committees, I showed up on the short-list.  So now it's a matter of what happens in the next round of voting.  Even if I don't get elected, though, I feel great about showing up on that short ballot.  It means there's some subset of people out there who think of me as suitable for this kind of role, which makes me feel great.  It also invites others, who didn't vote for me the first time around, to consider whether they want to this time around -- sort of gets my name "out there."

Time will tell...  Thanks again for all the valuable input!

Banana

[ruralguy]

Definitely don't just wait to be asked.

I am not sure how your school's or dept.s committee structure (or voting for them, or being appointed to them, etc.) works,
but as others implied, there are usually more leadership positions than folks willing to take them.

So, keep an eye out for committees you'd like to serve on, particularly those that touch upon complex issues that require some administration and dealing with other individuals. Once on them for a year, you can probably be the chair if you want to be,
but its going to depend on rules regarding rank and seniority, etc.

In addition, chairs, deans, and presidents always have their eyes out for the "go-getters" who are willing to chair a special committee or serve as special liason or whatever.

You'll have to learn to let jokes about you "turning to the dark side" and such roll off your back. Lots of academic are both suspicious of administrators in general, and careerism and competitiveness, and willing to lead and deal with people.
So, just go in that direction if you like it, and don't worry about the others who are taking a different sort of direction.

[ruralguy]

Ooops.. I posted after your update, OP.

In any case, you are already doing almost exactly what I suggested, so it all sounds good.

Keep it up.

(News about active, reasonable, and productive faculty spreads fast)