next »

[hey_boo]

Long-time listener, first-time caller...

What does one (or one's department) do with a tenure-track colleague who is progressing fine, but is just ... blah?  Hu is checking all the boxes needed for tenure: decent (but not stellar) research, decent (but not stellar) teaching.  The same goes for service.  

According to our university and departmental criteria, they are tenurable at this point.  So are we stuck with this person forever?  We are a small department, and really need dynamic, proactive people.  This person (third year on the tenure-track) is turning out to be kind of dead weight.  Hu shows up, does the work, goes home, but is phlegmatism personified in a low-enrollment field that needs dynamic people.  I think it's safe to say that many, if not most of us, regret the hire.  But not being completely enamored of someone isn't fair reason to continue someone's contract, right?

[untenured]

We have someone in our department who is just like this.  They hang around more, but neither their teaching nor research are exactly vibrant.  This person is also farther down the tenure-track.

If a significant number of faculty are thinking the same way, this professor might be a real problem later on.  Denying tenure is a major decision, however, and it should be done on grounds based in the contract.  Someone senior and trusted could have an informal chat with human resources.

[voxprincipalis]

But not being completely enamored of someone isn't fair reason to continue someone's contract, right?

I think you got stuck with too many negatives in that question.

If the person has fulfilled the stated criteria for tenure, and you deny them tenure because you think they aren't peppy enough, that person will turn around and sue you so fast your collective heads will spin.

If collegiality plays a role in your tenure decisions, you might be able to leverage that. But even so I think it would be a tough sell. Also, has this been brought up as a problem in an interim or annual review?

VP

[larryc]

You tenure them. You don't have a choice. If you throw out the criteria you set the stage for a lawsuit but you also revert to the law of the jungle and future decisions will be determined by cliques, bullies, and conspiracies.

[glowdart]

On the one hand, I'm a firm believer that departments need a range of personalities.  The phlegmatic one will appeal to the students who are terrified by the peppy profs, for example.  Balance is good.

But, if this prof is less phlegmatic and more lackadaisical and is only doing the bare minimum, then that could be a problem if it's quantifiable and if your policy clearly lays out that you must be stellar in one area and decent in the others; your policies don't seem to have an issue with decent all around, right? 

People sans personality who aren't meeting recruitment goals, for instance, are a problem, if recruitment goals are part of their clearly defined responsibilities; a blah chair with recruiting as part of the job description could be troublesome. 

But a blah prof who does his/her work to the standards is just a blah prof who does the work to the standards.   

[oatmeal]

OP--If this colleague is causing concern now then that is a concern. Has this colleague completed a third year review? What did the review say? Perhaps this colleague will improve if the review has substantive (and substantiated) feedback on areas of concern? Have you read the colleague's annual reports? What are the department's standards for tenure and promotion? I doubt this colleague is tenureable after not even three years with a less than stellar record, unless the standards are low. Average does not suffice and tenure is not just about checking boxes, everyone knows that or should know it, including your colleague.

At the same time, however, has this colleague been advised by the department that hu needs to do more, to address the issues you note? If so, is it is writing? If not, put it in writing. Maybe the colleague does not realize there is an issue. There is more than enough time to correct it. Colleagues can and do change. If you go down this route, the department will need to handle it carefully. Good luck.

[mleok]

I guess an obvious question is how this tenure-track colleague compares to the tenured faculty in the department. You say that you're a small department that needs dynamic people, but is this how you would describe your current tenured faculty? Perhaps the tenure-track colleague is just taking his cue from his more senior colleagues?

[seniorscholar]

At the same time, however, has this colleague been advised by the department that hu needs to do more, to address the issues you note? If so, is it is writing? If not, put it in writing. Maybe the colleague does not realize there is an issue. There is more than enough time to correct it. Colleagues can and do change. If you go down this route, the department will need to handle it carefully. Good luck.

As others have said, this is essential. At my university and, I suspect, at most reputable US institutions, it is quite difficult  to deny tenure unless the problems -- even if they're serious problems like inadequate publication -- have been specified in the report on the third year review, which goes both to the faculty member and to the Dean.

[snowbound]

We have someone in our department who is just like this.  They hang around more, but neither their teaching nor research are exactly vibrant.  This person is also farther down the tenure-track.

If a significant number of faculty are thinking the same way, this professor might be a real problem later on.  Denying tenure is a major decision, however, and it should be done on grounds based in the contract.  Someone senior and trusted could have an informal chat with human resources.

I don't understand this response. Why would one talk to HR about it???  Since HR doesn't play a role in tenure decisions, all I can think of is that you think HR might come up with some sort of excuse, like an inaccuracy in the CV or some such thing.  I hope you weren't suggesting that. 

[untenured]

Someone senior and trusted could have an informal chat with human resources.

I don't understand this response. Why would one talk to HR about it???  Since HR doesn't play a role in tenure decisions, all I can think of is that you think HR might come up with some sort of excuse, like an inaccuracy in the CV or some such thing.  I hope you weren't suggesting that. 

No, I am not suggesting that HR fabricate a response.  Human resources is knowledgeable about the standards and guidelines by which individuals are tenured.  Human resources personnel can speak with faculty to help them better articulate their disappointment with the candidate.  Human resources personnel can then determine whether such disappointment satisfies the objective tenure guidelines.  Sometimes an initially inarticulate 'feeling' about a candidate for tenure can, with questioning, be understood more clearly as a cognizable and objective concern that is a sufficient reason to grant (or not grant) tenure or promotion.

[janewales]

No, I am not suggesting that HR fabricate a response.  Human resources is knowledgeable about the standards and guidelines by which individuals are tenured.  Human resources personnel can speak with faculty to help them better articulate their disappointment with the candidate.  Human resources personnel can then determine whether such disappointment satisfies the objective tenure guidelines.  Sometimes an initially inarticulate 'feeling' about a candidate for tenure can, with questioning, be understood more clearly as a cognizable and objective concern that is a sufficient reason to grant (or not grant) tenure or promotion.

But the OP says that the candidate has met the criteria for teaching, research, and service. The problem appears to be personality: that the candidate is phlegmatic, in a low-enrolment field that could benefit from some more obvious energy and sparkle. At my university, that would not be grounds to deny tenure, and that's what Faculty Relations would say if asked. The OP does categorize all the achievements as "decent" but not "stellar," but unless the tenure guidelines have words like "excellent" or "outstanding," then it's hard to see how one could deny the person described above.

[lucero]

This is an uneducated opinion, so take it with a grain of salt. Since the faculty member meets the requirements for tenure, if you trump up some kind o f "issue" to deny him/her tenure, that sounds just wrong to me. (Although people tell me it happens and I know of some whose academic careers have been ruined because of it). It sounds like you just don't like the person, but maybe there is more to it than what you've explained.

What I would do in the situation, is grant the tenure who has done the necessary work to merit it (rather than malign someone and perhaps destroy his career ) and then work with these person's strengths. He/she might not be the dynamic personality that you want, but surely there must be other ways that he/she can contribute.

[untenured]

It's hard to say.  All we have is a single post.  The fact that most people regret the hire makes me believe that Professor X is not meeting the standards, even though OP has said the standards have been met.

Professor X is not dynamic or proactive - can OP define specific examples of these characteristics and their impacts on the department?

Professor X is dead weight -if they are obtaining decent performance otherwise, why is the consensus that this person is dead weight? Explain.

If X is in a low-enrollment field, what does that say about X?

I can only speculate, and it seems that OP and OP's colleagues do not want to tenure X.  If they do so, they believe X will be a disappointment and do the bare minimum to skate by.  If most people in the department think X is dead weight or regret the hire, that's a problem.

To sum up, if so many people are having these negative feelings about X, then such feelings are probably backed up by objective examples of some kind.  Such examples of bad performance may actually mean that X isn't meeting the standard, notwithstanding what OP thinks.

Who knows, OP may never come back, making this all irrelevant.

[seniorscholar]

Human resources is knowledgeable about the standards and guidelines by which individuals are tenured.  Human resources personnel can speak with faculty to help them better articulate their disappointment with the candidate.  Human resources personnel can then determine whether such disappointment satisfies the objective tenure guidelines. 

My goodness. Do you really work at a university where human resources is populated by people other than half-skilled clerical workers with an online degree from somewhere? I would be surprised if some of ours even know what "tenure" means!

[snowbound]

Yeah, I can't even imagine a department where the faculty are less able to understand tenure and tenure requirements than HR drones.  At most US colleges and universities, tenure decisions are handled entirely by academics--the department, the Dean, the President (and possibly then rubber-stamped by the Board of Trustees). HR gets in on the act only in terms of processing the raises or whatever--NOT decision-making.  I find them pretty efficient at handling payroll, benefits, kinda things, but I certainly don't think they should get involved in interpreting tenure guidelines.  We are far more qualified to do that ourselves.  It would not be a good precedent to invite HR into the process.

As for this particular case . . .  OP says the standards have been met.  So they've been met.  We really have no basis to think that, because the person is not dynamic, the OP must somehow be mistaken about whether the person has met the standards.  Since (according to OP, the only person n this discussion who would know) the standards have been met, the person should be tenured.

OP, if a lively dynamic personality is important to the department, then you should make that a priority in the next search.  A conference interview, plus a two-day campus visit, properly planned, should be enough for you to get a sense of a candidate's personality.