The College Administrator’s Survival Guide: Revised Edition 9780674269170

Citation preview

THE COLLEGE A D M I N I S T R AT O R ’ S S U R V I VA L G U I D E

THE COLLEGE A D M I N I S T R AT O R ’ S S U R V I VA L G U I D E Revised Edition C. K. Gunsalus

Cambridge, Mas­sa­chu­setts London, ­England 2021

 Copyright © 2006, 2021 by C. K. Gunsalus all rights reserved Printed in the United States of Amer­i­ca First edition published by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mas­sa­chu­setts, 2006 First printing Jacket design: Lisa Roberts Jacket illustration: Nadia Bormotova 9780674269187 (EPUB) 9780674269170 (PDF) The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows: Names: Gunsalus, C. K., author. Title: The college administrator’s survival guide / C. K. Gunsalus. Description: Revised edition. | Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard   University Press, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021001345 | ISBN 9780674258549 (cloth) Subjects: LCSH: College personnel management—United States. | Conflict   management—United States. Classification: LCC LB2331.68 .G86 2021 | DDC 378.1/1—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021001345

 To Donald L. Bitzer and Larry R. Faulkner who introduced me to the satisfaction of ­doing work in which I can believe and showed me how to work from princi­ples and for the best interests of the institution. And to the many who have shared their dilemmas, thoughts, and insights with me in the years since the first edition.

C ONTENTS

Preface to the Revised Edition

ix



Introduction

1

1

Embrace Your Fate

11

2

Bound­aries and Expectations

35

3 Colleagues

65

4 Complaints

96

5 Negotiation

118

6 Bullies

145

7

Troubled Units

170

8

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

191

9 Violations

223

1 0 Centering

260

For Further Reading  275 Credits 279 Acknowl­edgments  280 Index 287

PREFACE TO THE RE VISED EDITION

Leading an academic unit has only gotten harder since this book was first published in 2006. The confluence of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, a renewed public focus on racial and social justice, and heightened po­liti­cal divisions has amplified existing internal pressures. Public support for higher education steadily drops; regulations multiply; demographic trends depress enrollment outside of the most elite institutions; financial constraints tighten; social media and email communications add layers of complexity. With ubiquitous personal devices, our constant availability is assumed and expected response times decrease—­and so does time to reflect. Staffing patterns have changed as universities have ­adopted new, more “businesslike” enterprise systems that mostly push responsibility and work downward. This edition no longer mentions “secretaries” and tries to account for the loss of administrative assistants who once so reliably kept the enterprise ­r unning. And that’s all before some bad news from your department goes viral. At the same time, much has not changed. The central challenges are the same: moving from being a colleague to becoming an authority figure in a fundamentally antiauthoritarian environment; managing “up” when ­there is a gulf between the expectations of “upper”

x

Preface to the Revised Edition

administration and every­one ­else, with you in the ­m iddle; the near-­ constant negotiations of daily interactions, often with difficult p­ eople; and the personal and personnel issues that erupt when stressed, tired colleagues r­ unning as fast as they can in a hypercompetitive scholarly environment collide with each other, and with the rules. Readers and workshop participants continue to say that scenarios in the first edition still ring true—­and they continue to play out in one university ­a fter another. This edition brings us up to date by adding a range of new case studies and offers advice for the changing internal and external environments. For example, when the previous edition was published, universities w ­ ere still pro­cessing a lot of paper. While email was being used, we ­d idn’t carry devices that brought our email (or texts) to us constantly, with the concomitant expectation for real-­time responses. Media relations was a specialized support role, not integral to the daily life of leaders. Most top leaders still came from within the academic sector. New chapters include one on troubled academic units that addresses some of the challenges arising from, among other ­things, the generational schism now seen so frequently. Building on requests for additional practical guidance, this edition adds tips found to be effective by many for time management as a leader: managing email, holding effective meetings, and developing personal scripts that w ­ ill serve you well in an academic setting. A commonly shared piece of feedback from the first edition is how valuable it can be to stop and write ­things down or do the thought experiments posed in the book, especially in the early chapters. Regularly, someone comes back to me and says something like “I only r­ eally ­stopped to do the exercises ­after the second time I read the book, and I wish I’d done them much e­ arlier.” Despite the challenges they pre­sent, leadership roles, especially first-­line unit or departmental leadership, are more critical than

Preface to the Revised Edition

xi

ever to the success of an academic unit. Succeeding in them can be im­mensely rewarding if you want to make a difference, leave ­things better than you found them, grow in new professional and personal dimensions, or just give back to an endeavor that has s­haped your ­career. May this revised guide serve you well.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most puzzling aspects of higher education is that its frontline leaders are almost always selected for qualities other than an ability to run complex organ­izations. In fact, it is often seen as virtually disqualifying for a candidate to express anything but the most grudging willingness to assume administrative responsibilities. At least on the surface, the path to becoming a leader in an academic environment is to affect a lack of interest in and preparation for the job. And yet, college and universities are among the most complicated organ­izations around—­and they pre­sent unique challenges for leaders. The central f­ actor of an academic environment is that it contains what was trendy some years back to call “knowledge workers.” ­These are ­people with highly specialized expertise, who are not usually susceptible to being managed in the traditional sense of the word. Their attitude ­towards administrators is often one of disdain: a commonly heard quip asserts that an academic who takes an administrative role loses twenty-­five IQ points. A university is about as far as it is pos­ si­ble to get from a “do it ­because the boss says so” workplace. Not only is the notion that a leader would try to “manage” the expert scholars and teachers in an academic unit a foreign concept; the cherished precepts of academic freedom and tenure complicate the task of leadership; and the forces of the market, where stars are highly mobile and frequently courted by other institutions, make it difficult indeed to impose rules or constraints. While a certain number of

2

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

incon­ve­n ient and irritating mandates may be accepted as the baseline lot of faculty members, once the hassle f­ actor rises too high, t­ hose with options may begin to exercise them.

special places: they are filled with smart p­ eople ­doing intriguing work. Taking on a leadership role in one of ­these vibrant institutions can be an exciting challenge, open up creative vistas, and give you an opportunity to make a difference on a larger scale than you have before. But to be able to do that, you must be able to recognize and navigate around the danger areas that can turn a dream opportunity into a nightmare. Although smart ­people can figure out bud­getary systems and think clearly about what hiring ­w ill strengthen a department, few academics ­were prepared for the housing b­ ubble that led to a serious steep economic contraction, let alone a pandemic, and most are not prepared for dealing with difficult personnel issues, especially t­hose with l­egal implications. What do you do if a staff member has a substance abuse prob­lem, if a star faculty member is throwing his weight around or bullies lab members, if a postdoc accuses a professor of research improprieties, if a series of students from before your time assert—on social media—­ mishandling of sexual misconduct complaints, or if it is time to provide an evaluation of a poorly performing employee? What if an alumnus starts a campaign against a professor in your department or a donor seeks special admissions consideration for a student? Unexpected challenges or changed external environments can pose prob­ lems you may not feel equipped to ­handle—­and ­you’re still responsible for guiding your department through the crises, and shaping a new ­f uture even when ­there i­sn’t enough information to make good choices. For example, the coronavirus pandemic presented a host of health, safety, and bud­getary challenges that not only posed a set of U NIV ERSITIES A R E WONDER FU L,

Introduction

3

complex and difficult decisions, they also required from academic leaders a skill set beyond what most prepared for. Most school presidents are not health experts, and yet their choices literally affected ­human lives, with potentially long-­lasting consequences. ­There are always “­people prob­lems.” ­Because scholars stepping into leadership roles are often not comfortable with or trained to cope with prob­lems involving conflict or difficult personalities, they do not always address them as effectively as they might. The resulting complications, which can range from strife to dysfunction to litigation, distract from the missions of the institution. ­These complications can be very costly in both ­human and financial terms, can deplete the pool of talented individuals willing to assume leadership roles, and can take valuable time away from the constructive endeavors of building a high-­quality department and improving its educational opportunities, faculty, facilities, and ­future. For most academics, the ­people prob­lems are the most difficult aspect of serving in an administrative position. You can work alongside p­ eople for years and never learn t­ hings about them that becoming a leader may bring (or force) to your attention—­sometimes in the first few days or weeks. Department heads consistently tell me that the hardest part of their jobs is that they learn t­ hings about their colleagues ­they’d rather not know, and then, all too frequently, they have to talk about ­those uncomfortable topics, too. In my de­cades as a se­ nior university administrator, I saw a lot of department heads and deans come and go. As far as I can tell, personnel prob­lems are what cause the greatest personal pain and, in consequence, the most resignations from t­ hese positions.

­There are conceptual tools and practical skills that can help academic leaders successfully h ­ andle IT D ­ OESN’T H AV E TO BE THIS WAY.

4

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

personnel prob­lems, and ­these skills can be both taught and learned. Acquiring t­ hese skills can be the key to having your ser­vice as a leader leave a positive legacy. (If you are lucky enough to work in a department that has no outsize egos, disaffected gripers, or difficult personalities who distort priorities or make life unpleasant for o ­ thers, count yourself blessed and use the lessons in this book for giving sage advice to your less fortunate friends and colleagues.) Although a plethora of books about management have been published—­every­thing from hands-on tricks of the trade to applications of the philosophy of ­g reat thinkers to management “systems,” from how to use time efficiently to how to run meetings—­there is a wide gap between the advice offered in t­hose works and the qualities and challenges specific to academia as it is structured in the United States and around the world t­ oday. It is hard to apply the usual management rules to special aspects of the academic environment such as lifetime employment security (tenure) for some, a nonhierarchical management structure for key employees, the self-­motivated nature of the creative work involved in research and teaching, and the declining societal consensus around the value of higher education. This book is intended to fill that gap; its advice is tailored to fit the needs of academic leaders. Colleges and universities around the world face a leadership gap, as it becomes increasingly difficult to recruit p­ eople to serve as department heads and chairs. One reason is surely the lack of support for ­these thankless yet critical jobs. Department heads are on the front lines of e­ very college and university: in a decentralized organ­ization, they are the face of the university to large numbers of ­people, and decisions made within departments often determine the quality of the institution’s teaching and research programs. At the same time, enterprise systems and reorganizations have pushed increasingly large numbers of tasks “down” the organ­ization or moved them online,

Introduction

5

with fewer staff members to manage ­those tasks. Being the front line, unit heads and chairs are easy targets for the ire of the frustrated and disappointed, ­whether ­those are the leaders above you, faculty, staff, or students. That can be stressful enough; in our litigious society they are also often targets of social media campaigns, lawsuits, or both. As a general trend, it is harder to get ­people to do ­these se­n ior jobs, and their tenure in ­these jobs is getting shorter and shorter. And yet good ­people seem still willing to take them on. Why do p­ eople accept leadership roles in colleges and universities? The personal costs can be amplified in difficult times, and ­those are just the moments when organ­izations most need strong and dedicated leaders. The work they do is critical for how our institutions function, and the personal costs in taking them can be real. Positive reasons include making a difference; experiencing intellectual satisfaction and personal growth; preventing someone e­ lse from taking the job and d­ oing harm to a place and group of ­people; giving back; making money; and combinations of t­ hese. Less positive motivations can be fed by ego or a desire to wield power, though sitting leaders may laugh at that notion. I’ll have more to say ­later about the importance of knowing your own reasons and your purpose in taking on the role. What­ever your reasons, you need to make sure that you ­don’t get consumed by your leadership role and its administrative responsibilities, or personally damaged in the pro­cess of carry­ing them out. This book should be useful as you tackle the job. Its purpose is to help you focus your positive reasons and achieve as many of your goals as pos­si­ble during your term of ser­v ice.

I served in vari­ous offices of the central-­campus administration of a major university: in technology transfer, in research administration, in the office of the chief academic FOR MOR E TH A N TW ENTY Y E A RS,

6

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

officer (the provost), and as a university attorney. I conducted internal investigations into allegations of research misconduct, conflicts of interest, sexual harassment, embezzlement, and more. I became known as the “Department of Yucky Prob­lems,” and with a core group of colleagues I introduced new compliance systems, reworked procedures that had ­v iolated or other­w ise been out of compliance with federal or other regulations, administered and revised a wide range of academic policies, oversaw a grievance system, and worked with the workplace vio­lence prevention team. Since then, I’ve headed up a Center that works with colleges and universities to promote research and professional ethics, to help develop responsible academic leaders and resources for them, and to analyze and address prob­lems in challenged and dysfunctional departments. Our guiding princi­ple is that ethics at the personal level is inseparable from institutional context, ethos, and integrity. Along the way, I noticed patterns and came to recognize common signals of environments ­going seriously awry. With colleagues in the provost’s office, I developed a set of programs for providing orientation, training, and support for university administrators, primarily department heads and deans, on the prob­lems academics find the most difficult in their administrative responsibilities—­the ones that involve dealing with ­people. One positive outcome was that, over a period of a de­cade or more, consistent application of the training and support for frontline administrators resulted in a reduction in the growth of my university’s litigation costs related to employment ­m atters. While that w ­ asn’t the original goal of our programs to support academic leaders, it was a welcome bonus, especially since fear of being sued is one of the major inhibitors of action by academics who find themselves in difficult situations. I began taking some of t­hese ideas to other universities. Over the years, I have done both assessments and interventions with challenged academic units and worked with

Introduction

7

a wide range of university leaders across a spectrum of institutions. I have worked with thousands of department heads, and ­those who have ­adopted the preventative leadership skills I describe in this book report that ­these ideas and approaches work for them. They can work for you, too.

the train-­w reck school of professional ethics. Imagine a train that’s just jumped the tracks ­going around a curve. It’s nighttime, so the emergency vehicles are hauling spotlights and the red lights are spinning. The first steps in responding to an event of this nature always involve removing the injured and stabilizing the wreckage to prevent more damage. Now translate this to a university environment: if the train wreck is an allegation of research misconduct, for example, the first steps, evacuation and stabilization, involve insulating students and ­others from damage as much as pos­si­ble, preventing retaliation against ­those who brought information forward, and securing primary data to ensure that a proper investigation can be made. Unfortunately, in universities, the train wreck sometimes includes paralysis and it may take days, weeks, or even months to achieve a consensus that responsive action is necessary. This delay can be costly if the train wreck is si­mul­ta­neously playing out in public via social or traditional media and inevitably makes the next steps—­including a forensic review of what happened to cause the crash—­even harder. ­A fter it’s acknowledged that a major prob­lem exists, the tracks must be cleared so normal traffic (a.k.a. departmental functions) can resume. ­A fter that, it’s time to trace the ­causes of the crash—­ conduct an investigation. What­ever the outcome, an oft-­overlooked and essential step is to examine systems, policies, and procedures to see if they require change in order to prevent ­future prob­lems. A key I COM E FROM W H AT I CA LL

8

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

question is always w ­ hether the crash resulted from one hideous m ­ istake or is part of a pattern. Usually ­people hope that it was one hideous ­mistake—­preferably by someone they dislike—so that thinking about systemic change can be avoided. It is more likely that the cause of the train wreck was more complex—­a combination of bad judgments, crossed signals, poor responses to complaints or warning signs, bad conduct that was implicitly or explic­itly rewarded over long periods, and a system that d­ idn’t work as well as it should have. It can be gratifying to be the one to resolve a serious prob­lem, to be “on the scene” and privy to all the gory details, to figure out how to get the trains moving again. It gets your adrenaline flowing. It’s satisfying to come up with a solution that is as just and even-­handed as pos­si­ble and protects impor­tant princi­ples and institutional integrity. It’s an ego boost to feel like Solomon. But major prob­lems always cause residual damage to p­ eople and / or the institution. You may rescue the injured and clear away the wreckage, but the crash still happened and ­there are still injured parties. Think how much better it would be to have prevented the wreck in the first place. ­After many years of on-­the-­scene response and clean-up, I have come to consider preventive efforts far more intellectually challenging and personally satisfying than clean-up efforts. Prevention is less thrilling, and ultimately more creative and subtle work.

and should be. It is worth knowing that it is rare to find a truly serious prob­lem in a department where good practices have been in effect from beginning to end. If you approach your job with a clear mindset and consistently apply a set of concepts and princi­ples to the basics of academic leadership and administration, you’ll be able to defuse many situations that might other­w ise result in personnel losses, grievances, lawMOST SER IOUS PROB­L E MS CA N BE PR EV ENTED,

Introduction

9

suits, and negative publicity. ­There’s no magic bullet that ­w ill make all difficulties dis­appear, but it is pos­si­ble to avert large numbers of prob­lems that would other­w ise consume disproportionate resources and energy, and to reduce the financial and ­human costs of the ones that do arise. And, to repeat, the skills to do so can be taught and learned. To apply preventive management skills and reduce the wear-­and-­ tear ­factor of ­people prob­lems requires that you think about your leadership duties as a professional role. We all play roles e­ very day. You surely d­ on’t behave the same way around every­one in your life. Almost certainly, you have a dif­fer­ent persona for dealing with el­ derly relatives than you do for dealing with your ­children. You prob­ ably have a par­tic­u ­lar persona that you display in the classroom—­and perhaps dif­fer­ent ones for introductory undergraduate courses and gradu­ate seminars. And in interactions with peers you undoubtedly pre­sent yet another persona. In each persona you are still “you,” but dif­fer­ent styles are effective in dif­fer­ent circumstances. What I’m advising ­here is that you simply acknowledge and purposefully craft the persona you adopt for your leadership duties. Think about what it ­w ill take to be the “you” who is heading up the department. That “you” may have dif­fer­ent attributes in dif­ fer­ent situations, all rooted in the professional role. Who do you need to be to provide the leadership your unit needs? That’s who you need to be to succeed. Has the group been demoralized by a long period of fractured or just plain bad leadership? Does it need a cheerleader? Is the department lacking in resources, so that one of your primary tasks must be to focus on fund­rais­ing? Facilities? Stability? Consensus? Challenge? What­ever it is, the propose of your ser­v ice as leader is not to make you more power­ful, attractive, or rich. It is to accomplish institutional goals or advance the institution’s overall mission, while also stretching your own horizons.

10

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

­There are many ways to succeed in ­these impor­tant jobs; your approach must fit your personality and working style as well as the institutional culture. The one nonnegotiable ele­ment for success is that you bring a sense of professionalism to the role, an understanding that you are taking on a new relationship with the institution and to your colleagues. You w ­ ill have to make many difficult choices, especially if bud­gets are tight or being reduced. Some ­people w ­ ill inevitably be unhappy with one or another aspect of your choices. (Just for the rec­ord, ­there w ­ ill be some who ­w ill be happy, too.) As teachers and parents know, helping ­people grow and develop new skills can be among life’s most rewarding activities—­and can call upon your own talents in new and challenging ways. When you take on a leadership position, you become responsible not only for navigating a course for the group as a ­whole but also for ensuring that all within your domain have chances to grow professionally. At the same time, you must build for the f­uture of the program, for the individuals in it, and for your own growth, while responding to what w ­ ill seem, at times, overwhelming demands large and small, impor­tant and petty. The approach you take to ­these challenges, with this book as your guide, can allow you to steer a path that serves the needs of the department, treats ­people humanely, allows for your personal and professional growth, yet avoids the pitfalls of academic leadership: paralyzing contention, excess stomach acid, sleepless nights, and perhaps lawsuits. It ­w ill inoculate you against the worst effects of the p­ eople prob­lems by helping you develop tools, perspectives, and a certain immunity to the infections of leadership so that you may use your energies and commitment to leave t­hings better than you found them.

1

EMBRACE YOUR FATE It is nearing 6:00 p.m. on your first day as department head. As you are preparing to leave, you receive a drop-in visit from Professor Major, a longtime member of the department with a very high profile in your field. Perching on the corner of your desk, he congratulates you on your new position and commiserates with you about the IQ points you must have lost now that you have become an administrator. He suggests that this is a “­g reat opportunity for us to get a few t­hings straight, so you can be a success in this job.” First, he informs you that, contrary to the published class schedule for next semester, he only teaches on Tuesday after­ noon, Wednesday, and Thursday morning, so as to have the weekends ­free for consulting and media appearances; he is telling you now so you’ll have plenty of time to change the course offerings to match his schedule. Next, he wants you to know that, although he can see why the department has “caved in” to the office staff by no longer requiring them to brew coffee, he finds this acceptable only so long as the office coffeemaker is started by 10:00 a.m. sharp on his teaching days. Fi­nally, Professor Major, mentioning that he supported you for the department headship when few o ­ thers did, says he is sure you’ll understand that since he ­hasn’t been assigned a research assistant for the coming year, he ­w ill be using his teaching assistant for research tasks, including errands and other routine chores to f­ree him to do his research.

When you take on a leadership role you become—­like it or not—an authority figure. ­There are few places where this is as problematic as

12

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

in an academic environment, ­because the ambivalence about authority is pervasive. Y ­ ou’ve heard the jokes about academic administration being like herding cats, and ­you’ve likely made comments yourself about overreaching bureaucrats. Now y­ ou’ve become one. However ambivalent you are about this fate, it is vital to your success that, in a spirit of Nietz­schean amor fate, you embrace it. Acknowledging your ambivalence, and finding constructive ways to think about it, are impor­tant early tasks. KNOW THYSELF

To survive or even thrive as a leader and man­ag­er in an academic setting, you must know yourself. Some focused introspection, in advance, can help prevent overreactions (yours) that might put you at a disadvantage in a charged situation. It can also inoculate you against common ploys of clever manipulators. Not only are t­hese perhaps the most overlooked skills you ­w ill need for succeeding, they are also ones over which you have total control. As a starting place, you need to be able to ask yourself, privately, why you sought or accepted the leadership position—­and come up with honest answers. Why are you d­ oing this job? I have asked thousands of department heads this question in a variety of settings. The answers invariably boil down to one of four or five:



• To give something back (often initially presented as “It was my turn”). • ­Because I was a better alternative than anyone e­ lse (or, less benignly, “To keep X from ­doing it and destroying the department”). • To grow in a new dimension (a way to stretch creatively or intellectually). • To make a difference.

Embrace Your Fate

13

I have only rarely had a department head or chair tell me he or she does it for the money: while an additional stipend can come in handy, especially if retirement looms on the horizon, money is not adequate compensation for the burdens of t­hese roles—if taken on conscientiously. It is a major transition to move from a professorship where one largely controls one’s own intellectual agenda to a position in which one can be nibbled to death by administrivia: the tyranny of the email in-­box, reports, standing meetings, ceremonial events, drop-in visitors, and the latest form or survey required by some bureaucrat in University Hall. This other-­driven swirl can be overwhelming. To survive and even thrive in t­ hese difficult positions, it pays to know—­really know—­why you took them on in the first place. Why did you say yes? B ­ ecause you thought you could do it better than o ­ thers had done it? How? In what dimensions? To leave the department better than you found it? How, specifically? To right a wrong? To change the tone? Write down your answer(s). This is private, so you can burn or shred it as soon as y­ ou’re done, but take the time to go through the personal exercise of answering, for yourself, the “why” question. ­These questions may be more complex for ­those who serve in key administrative roles without faculty status: t­ here is a status system, and non-­faculty ­don’t always count. I once worked with a stellar administrator whose innovations improved the quality of life for many throughout the institution through a pro­cess that rationalized and streamlined many arcane pro­cesses that served no current point. He was widely valued and respected and appreciated—­and was still rebuked when one of his memos began with the salutation “Dear Colleagues,” on the grounds that he ­wasn’t r­ eally a colleague of the faculty members on the committee. T ­ hese tensions can be amplified and play out in other ways as we see more se­n ior leaders hired from

14

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

outside the academic community entirely: executives from the corporate sector, military leaders, and former po­liti­cal figures. The exercise is still worth ­doing. Once you have a clear understanding of why you agreed to take the job, next take a few moments to articulate two or three (not more) goals for your term of ser­v ice. Formulate specific improvements you would like to make: a global goal such as “making this the best department it can be” is too vague. In what two or three dimensions would you like ­things to be dif­fer­ent (better) when you leave this position than they are now? Is t­here a way to mea­sure that difference? How ­will you know if ­you’ve succeeded? Force yourself to express your goals in a few ­simple declarative sentences. It’s worth the time to write them down; our brains h ­ andle the act of writing differently than simply thinking about something. Refer back to your goals for your term of ser­v ice on a regular basis—­once a week i­sn’t too often. If you need a written reminder, keep the list in your desk drawer or on your phone. If y­ ou’re resistant to writing down your goals, say them out loud to yourself at least once. If, ­after you are immersed in the energy-­consuming daily duties and distractions of your job, you are able to summon up and remind yourself of ­these goals, you ­w ill be more likely to continue to make pro­ g ress, however small and incremental, t­oward their achievement. Without ­those reminders of why you are d­ oing what you are ­doing, you can be consumed by activities that may be enervating, depressing, and stressful. With such reminders, you stand a better chance of keeping a sense of your priorities and staying centered. A caveat: once you know your goals, do not turn them into the academic version of the po­liti­cal stump speech. ­Unless the goals come out of the environment and are shared by ­others (such as improving the department’s research standing by attracting more external

Embrace Your Fate

15

funding), you may do more damage than good by having ­these goals and ambitions. It is essential to have ­these goals for yourself, but proceed cautiously in airing them, and take steps to verify along the way that they align with at least some sentiments already pre­sent in the unit, no m ­ atter how quiescent. Your aspirations should support goals that can be used in discussions with o ­ thers invested in your unit, from the faculty to the dean to advisory boards and pos­si­ble donors. If you come into your new role announcing that you have all the answers, or know how to save the unit from itself (even if you likely do), that ­w ill significantly undermine you and your leadership. Another impor­tant early step is to think about your personal vulnerabilities, and to act, consciously and purposefully, to keep them from diminishing your effectiveness in your new role. What pushes your buttons? What kinds of interactions cause you to overreact? Some ­people—­a nd ­they’re the ones who w ­ ill cause you the most misery and stress—­have an instinctive ability to find your weaknesses and exploit them. In your new position you no longer have the luxury of acting out just ­because you feel a certain way. Letting yourself overreact in work settings ­w ill put you in the wrong and can shift the focus of the interaction to your conduct instead of the issues. Neither effect is helpful. You must know your triggers. If you ­don’t know, ask your partner, ­sister, or close friend. You must also learn to anticipate the triggers and have ways to short-­circuit or control your reactions, so you do not give o ­ thers power over you. You, and you alone, are in charge of your be­hav­ior. Do not abdicate your self-­control to the acts of o ­ thers. I once worked with a department head (I’ll call him Professor Murtha) who was an unusually composed person—­u nless he felt unfairly blamed, in which case he tended to explode. While his outbursts could be ­g rand theater for observers, they ­were costly for his effectiveness. Since to o ­ thers his eruptions seemed almost random, he was

16

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

seen as not very balanced. Of course, this set up a cycle in which he did get blamed for ­things, sometimes fairly, sometimes not. ­A fter thinking it through and identifying trigger situations, and ­after a ­g reat deal of trial and error with methods of short-­ circuiting that w ­ ere not effective for him, Professor Murtha and I landed on a control mechanism that is a bit dramatic but works consistently: when he feels like exploding, he spills something (he’s a big coffee drinker), thus disrupting the interaction and buying himself time to regain his self-­control. Since he ­doesn’t lose control very often, this approach works fairly well. He now has a bit of a reputation for clumsiness, but the occasions on which he loses his composure inappropriately have become almost non­ex­is­tent and thus no longer compromise his goals. He is in his second successful university presidency. The best way to figure out what pushes your buttons, I’ve found, is to think about interaction patterns in your personal life. Do you have a parent or a sibling who tries to use guilt to get you to do ­things you ­don’t want to do, and when that happens, do you lash out, saying ­things you l­ater regret? Do you have a friend whose chronic lateness or consistent thoughtlessness accumulates ­until eventually you overreact? How gracefully do you ­handle someone whose reflex action is to blame ­others for their own acts? Do you find yourself avoiding some ­people ­after ­they’ve disappointed you? If ­you’re uncomfortable with the outcome of a discussion or an interaction, do you go back and raise the same issue over and over? What is the common ele­ment in situations where you say or do  ­things you ­later wish you ­hadn’t? Common triggers include feeling blamed, shamed, insulted, disregarded, or put down. Unmet expectations—­whether or not you ever let o ­ thers know what they ­were—­can also spark disproportionate reactions. So ask yourself if ­there is a pattern to the interactions a­ fter which you find yourself apologizing or wishing you could rewind and redo.

Embrace Your Fate

17

Perhaps you manage to control yourself when your buttons are pushed, but then find you c­ an’t concentrate, c­ an’t sleep, or suffer other symptoms of stress. Do you shut down in certain situations, so that ­people often worry that ­you’re mad at them? Do you get “stuck” in a thought cycle as you try to fall asleep, with your brain racing and unable to let go of an e­ arlier encounter? In what situations do you react that way? ­Those, too, are situations for which you need short-­circuiting mechanisms. Life is too short to lose sleep regularly over your work. What­ever your soft spots may be, it’s your job to find ways to prevent them from undercutting your effectiveness. Some find it useful to have a hobby or activity that takes your mind completely away from the prob­lem of the hour. I know a university president who mowed his yard as a distraction and another who took up a dangerous sport that required total concentration. Try to develop a strategy for ­those situations so you are able to behave professionally in the moment. Instead of snapping at a colleague, say something like this: “­You’ve raised some good points. I need some time to think about them. I’ll get back to you next week.” Presenting a consistent, professional persona w ­ ill be an invaluable asset throughout your term of ser­v ice. It ­w ill help you avoid being manipulated by p­ eople who, ­whether with premeditation or unconscious skill, provoke reactions to gain the upper hand over you. Changing your lines can change the script, as the saying goes. This book w ­ ill give you tools for changing your lines so the script ­w ill be less distorted by conflict and personnel prob­lems and the play ­w ill have a more predictable and desirable end. You ­w ill be more effective and more fulfilled—­and you ­w ill sleep better, too. BUILDING A PROFESSIONAL HOME

Beyond knowing yourself, you need to think about your role as an academic leader in your college or university, the roles of your

18

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

colleagues, and how ­those roles interlock. Think about how much of your life is devoted to work: many of us spend more waking hours at our jobs than we do with our families and friends. Your workplace is your professional home, and careful design, good construction, and regular maintenance are required to keep it structurally sound. Let’s follow this meta­phor for a moment. The foundation of the entire structure is institutional values. Knowing and being able to articulate the values and princi­ples upon which your professional life rests is your cornerstone. What is your institution’s mission? Why does it exist? To whom is it accountable? What constituencies does it serve? If you both know and talk about ­these m ­ atters regularly, you can set a tone that is professional and that ­w ill help you make the difficult choices and decisions that w ­ ill necessarily emerge in your ser­v ices as a leader. ­Doing so before hard choices arise can help prevent the temptation to be ad hoc and situational. Making choices and decisions rooted in princi­ples and not in personalities w ­ ill strengthen the foundation of your professional life. If you do not take ­things personally, it w ­ ill help ­others not to do so. The policies governing academia are the framing—­the wood or steel members that rise from the foundation and give shape and form to the structure. In addition to the specific policies of your department and institution, the statements on academic freedom and tenure of the AAUP (American Association of University Professors) are among the framing ele­ments. Are institutional evaluation criteria and procedures implemented as written (brick and steel construction) or not (house of straw)? Are rewards aligned with institutional values and princi­ples, or are the most disruptive members of your department highly rewarded? ­W hether your compensation packages are published, as is the case in many public institutions, or are institutional “secrets,” you may be sure that the relative salary rankings of members of your department ­w ill be common knowledge. Every­one

Embrace Your Fate

19

­ ill see whose office or lab complex is bigger and who teaches more— w or less. The effects on the stability of vari­ous orga­n izational structures from alignment (or nonalignment) of rewards with stated values ­w ill be pervasive and profound in terms of morale, commitment, general cynicism, or toxic interactions.

the complexity of how y­ ou’re ­going to respond to Professor Major, let’s consider another situation that requires some form of hard conversation. Working through this ­w ill help us think about h ­ andling Professor Major. BEFOR E W E DE A L WITH

As the new department head, you have just finished your evaluation of the staff. You call h ­ uman resources to ask about the possibility of transferring the longtime office man­a g­er, Sandor Johansen, out of your unit. He is a twenty-­two-­ year employee of the institution, the last seventeen in your department. You have concluded that Johansen must go for a variety of reasons. He is a disruptive force in the office. He is abrupt and condescending with the staff (a good group of employees, in your assessment), sometimes berating them in a loud voice, and he sometimes refuses to perform certain assigned tasks, citing “previous practice” in the department. You often have to check to be sure he has carried out his responsibilities, and you have been chastised by the college office ­because reports for which he is responsible have been submitted late and have often been incomplete. The HR staff member queries you about Johansen’s personnel file. When you retrieve it, you discover two nominations for the campus Professional Excellence Award (copies of which ­were provided Johansen), two annual evaluations rating his per­for­m ance as “superior” and three rating it as “good.”

20

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

­ here are no other evaluations over his entire time in your T department, and no indications of any concerns about Johansen’s per­ for­ m ance, although your associate head tells you that your two immediate pre­de­ces­sors expressed reservations about him. The associate head offers to write down ­these concerns so you can use them as documentation. It’s clear to you that Sandor is a real prob­lem. One reason you took on t­hese administrative responsibilities was to improve the research profile of the department, and one ­factor in that is the ease (or difficulty) of getting work done. You know the department has a bad reputation in this area, and you think some aspects of it should be ­simple to fix, but Sandor is stubbornly resistant to the changes you want to introduce. Further, you can see that he’s causing prob­lems for productive staff members. Moving him out seems like the right t­ hing to do.

Now step back and take a look from a slightly longer perspective. How, specifically, would transferring this staff member affect your goals for the department and your ability to achieve them? What unintended consequences might flow from getting rid of him—­for example, what message would that action send about what o ­ thers in the unit might expect from you? Fi­nally, acknowledge to yourself that your discomfort with d­ oing a hard t­hing may cause you to be harsher in carry­ing it out than is healthy for your leadership goals or for Sandor Johansen. Before you make a decision and especially before you start collecting written documentation of events that happened before you arrived on the scene, you must talk to Johansen, and not (at least not yet) for the purpose of firing him. Would you feel fairly assessed if you ­were standing in his shoes? If you had received many official compliments over the years, and yet in your first conversation with

Embrace Your Fate

21

your new boss you w ­ ere dismissed without being given a chance to give your side of the story, let alone a chance to succeed? Returning to your own shoes, if y­ ou’re like most p­ eople, you do not look forward to meeting with Sandor. The dread ­you’re feeling may contribute to a self-­fulfilling prophecy. The more you anticipate an unpleasant interaction, the more tense you are likely to be, and your tension increases the likelihood of a confrontation. (If this is a type of situation that makes you particularly uncomfortable, it ­w ill be worth reflecting on how you can develop and maintain a matter-­of-­fact and nonpunitive demeanor.) Moreover, you do not yet have enough information to know ­whether Johansen needs to go. You may be mixing your personal feelings with your professional judgments. Maybe y­ ou’re reacting to information from p­ eople you like or have judged as credible without hearing Johansen’s side of the story. Maybe y­ ou’re feeling defensive about criticism from the college office. It’s worth disentangling all the threads of your own reactions and making sure you have enough accurate information before taking steps that affect someone’s job. Think about Johansen’s long-­term employment at the university and the department. He has been given written positive feedback, and ­there is no rec­ord of any negative feedback on any aspect of his performance—­except the recent complaints from the office staff. The fundamental question is, has Sandor ever been sent clear messages about how he is expected to contribute to the department’s overall mission? From his perspective, he has e­ very reason to believe he is contributing: his work has twice been nominated for special recognition. Your first step, therefore, is to have a conversation with him in which you ask how he thinks t­hings are ­going and review his current job description. (In fact, it would make sense to have this conversation with ­every key member of your department.) This is only

22

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

fair; regardless of ­whether circumstances have changed and he can no longer make a contribution or w ­ hether he himself has changed and is no longer making a contribution, his perspective is needed. Taking this step sends the message that ­you’re someone who considers all relevant facts before acting; y­ ou’re informed, judicious, and thoughtful. You are creating a fair and sound structure for ­others to work within. The key is to ask open-­ended questions to which Johansen’s responses w ­ ill give you the longer perspective you need in formulating your decision. Beyond the fundamental importance of seeking full information before you draw conclusions, you may well learn impor­tant facts that change your view of the situation. ­Until you talk to Johansen, you know only one version of the story. One of the biggest m ­ istakes you can make as a leader is to act on only one version of a story that involves multiple players. Collecting all the relevant perspectives ­w ill give you more nuanced understanding and is likely to influence your view of what action is appropriate. Perhaps you’ll learn that Sandor has become unhappy and would like to change jobs or retire. If that’s the case, you ­won’t need to have the hard conversation; you’ll be able to bring the situation to a quiet close without any unpleasant confrontation. Few ­people enjoy ­doing a bad job; perhaps you’ll find out that Sandor’s duties have evolved since the days when he received commendations for his work, and that he’s now being asked to perform tasks he ­isn’t trained for or comfortable d­ oing. In that case, readjusting the distribution of duties among staff members may restore to you a valuable long-­term employee without a reduction in your staff (if your institution has imposed a hiring freeze) or without the upheaval of hiring and training a new person. Johansen may also have constructive suggestions about how to improve the situation. Alternatively, you may discover that his talents simply cannot be well used in your department with its

Embrace Your Fate

23

current configuration. Find out what support your college has in ­human resources and ask someone ­there for assistance in finding another job at the university that would be a better fit; the chances are good that, if he has strong skills, he can go back to being a productive employee when he’s no longer a square peg trying to work in a round hole. Of course, it may turn out that Johansen is oblivious to the prob­ lems you see. He may think he’s ­doing just fine and that any prob­ lems lie in the changes that have occurred over the years. In that case, you need to don your role as authority figure. First, buy yourself some time for reflection: tell him that you w ­ ill review the distribution of duties and get back to him. For your next interaction with him you’ll need the communication skills discussed in the next chapter as well as your clear sense of yourself, your direction, and your goals. ­You’re still not ready to act on his employment in your unit. Before taking action that affects his job, you must tell him explic­ itly what you expect of him. You may want to point out that your expectations may be dif­fer­ent from t­ hose of the previous head. This conversation is not only fair, it is mandatory to protect you legally when you do eventually take action. Since you have already concluded that he needs to go, you may have to adjust your own mind­set before you have additional interactions with him. It is vital that your be­hav­ior and your manner be ­those of an even-­handed, objective evaluator, not someone pursuing a personal or discriminatory vendetta. ­Because Johansen’s personnel file contains only commendations and no recent evaluations, your next step should be to tell him what he is expected to do and how and when he is expected to do it, and to make it clear that he w ­ ill be evaluated on w ­ hether he is meeting ­those expectations. As a long-­term employee, he prob­ably has certain employment rights at the university. By articulating your expectations

24

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

for per­for­mance and the standards by which he ­w ill be evaluated, and then confirming all this in writing—­presumably with assistance from h ­ uman resources or l­egal counsel—­you ­w ill be creating documentation that w ­ ill protect you in the event that he decides to complain or file a grievance about your treatment of him. Expectations should be reasonably specific and stated in positive terms (­we’ll explore t­hese ­matters further in Chapter 2). Something like the following would be the first step: Dear Sandor: Let me summarize our recent discussions about your duties in the department and the expectations associated with your position. Consistent with your job description, you are expected to develop the reports required by the college office on time and accurately. ­Because of recent prob­lems, I am instituting a requirement that you submit drafts of the reports to me two days before they are due. This w ­ ill provide time to review them and work with you on any needed changes. The drafts you give me should be complete and accurate, and by the third month from now, no further revisions should be necessary at the time of my review. If you are unclear as to the expected format or content, you should seek clarification well before the due date so the reports can be submitted to the college office on time. You are expected to perform all assigned duties. If you believe that an assignment is not necessary or is contrary to departmental or university policy, you should bring that to my attention, with specific reference to the policy you believe is applicable. My decision as to assignments ­w ill be final. ­Because it is impor­t ant that all parts of the office function as a team, you are expected to maintain cordial and professional interactions with all other members of the department. This means that you ­w ill give ­others sufficient time when making requests of them and ­w ill provide information sought from you in a timely

Embrace Your Fate

25

manner. It is also impor­t ant that you maintain an appropriate volume when talking to other staff members; please do not raise your voice in conversations. Cordially, [your signature]

Evaluations should be directly related to the stated expectations, and should be documented: “Two reports ­were completed on time and one was not; all reports should be on time in the f­uture or pos­ si­ble employment actions may follow.” Sandor Johansen should have an opportunity to respond to each evaluation. Again, we ­w ill come back to this in l­ater chapters. Once you have set expectations, enforce them. D ­ on’t draw a red line and then ignore it. Bear in mind that every­one in the unit ­w ill be watching the way you ­handle this and discussing how you and the institution treat employees. For you to be able to achieve your other goals, you need ­those in the unit to see you as fair and objective in your treatment of a prob­lem situation; you need their trust and re­spect. Treating Sandor with the dignity befitting his long years of ser­v ice ­w ill serve you and the unit well, even if in the end he leaves the department, voluntarily or other­w ise. He ­w ill have allies and friends as well as enemies in the unit—or p­ eople who decide that being on his side is a good way to oppose you and your goals. The more even-­handed you are, the more you treat Sandor with re­spect, the better you w ­ ill fare among ­those who are watching to see what kind of leader you are. You may see this pro­cess of providing expectations, performing evaluations, and letting him respond as insufficiently decisive, or as too time-­consuming, or as a distraction from meeting your goals for the department or from its “real” business. If all t­hese steps produce is the outcome you thought was needed from the beginning—he

26

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

must go—­you may feel frustrated by the slow pace of change. But proceeding in a deliberate way that provides opportunities for him to succeed ­w ill serve you and the unit better in the long run. Precipitous action can have unintended consequences, from loss of staff trust in you to a grievance or even a lawsuit charging you with discrimination. Taking this slowly, and giving Sandor Johansen a genuine opportunity to remedy the shortcomings in his job per­for­m ance, is more likely to serve your goal of making t­hings better in the department by the end of your term of ser­v ice. It is only to your advantage to help him succeed, e­ ither in his current position or elsewhere. If you can salvage an experienced employee, all the better. If he departs, ­others ­w ill have seen you working through this prob­lem deliberately and fairly. Both by earning their trust and by setting a good example for their own be­hav­ior, you w ­ ill have strengthened the professional environment in your department. Keeping this in mind can help you temper your craving for instant results. Giving the person u ­ nder review a chance to bring his or her conduct in line with your expectations is not only fairer to that person, it is fairer to ­others in the environment who are ­doing their jobs with care and professionalism. It is a far better way of proceeding than ­either firing the person abruptly or allowing the prob­lem to persist without intervening. The method I have outlined works for prob­lem groups as well as individuals, though with groups you’ll need an approach that acknowledges preexisting group standards and habits. You need to establish expectations through some advance work of your own. The first step is to reflect about what characteristics are already pre­sent in the unit that you want to reinforce. If your unit generally resolves disputes without personal attacks, for example, work on reinforcing

Embrace Your Fate

27

this positive characteristic. The next time a prob­lem is solved in a faculty meeting, you might say something like this: “I’ve always been pleased to be associated with this department ­because one of our hallmark traits is that we focus on prob­lems, not personalities.” W ­ e’ll return to this in Chapter 7 on troubled academic units. Articulating positive group norms creates tools for dealing with department members whose actions do not conform to the group’s ethos. Thus, if someone resorts to personal criticism of a colleague, you can say, with a sincere tone and a straight face: “One ­g reat ­thing about this department is that we discuss prob­lems without getting personal. I’m very interested in your comments, so ­w ill you please rephrase them so we can focus on your suggestion?” Having laid the foundation e­ arlier by putting this idea into circulation, you w ­ ill prob­ ably see nodding heads around the room when you speak. This nonverbal expression of the group values can be surprisingly power­ful in moderating undesirable be­hav­ior, even in your department’s most difficult members. We w ­ ill return to this idea and ways to develop needed personal scripts ­later. For now, think about the importance of individual and group expectations in maintaining the soundness of a professional environment. AND NOW FOR PROFESSOR MAJOR

The deliberate, step-­by-­step approach to the Sandor Johansen prob­lem allows you to fulfill your responsibilities to the ­people in your unit, to the department, and to the university, not to mention keeping yourself out of grievances and lawsuits. But it d­ oesn’t arm you for dealing with Professor Major’s drop-in visit. Your colleague used a number of potent maneuvers on you, from mixing personal and professional topics to implicitly threatening your success and playing on your desire to do well in your new role.

28

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

First, by coming in ­after regular working hours as ­you’re preparing to leave, Major picked a time when the situation could be made informal. ­Unless you have let it be known that you enjoy talking with ­people ­after five, to arrive so late—­and especially to drop by unexpectedly—is to assert a personal connection to you. Professor Major’s opening conversational gambits carry an undercurrent designed to make you uncomfortable: y­ ou’ve lost status by becoming an administrator, and he’s in a position to help ensure your success. The three items he raises with you—­his teaching schedule, the coffee, and his intentions for his teaching assistant—­reinforce his power play. What they have in common is the point that the rules that apply to ­others do not apply to him. He’s special. Even without the power-­play ele­ments, the desire among academics for special treatment in recognition of their par­t ic­u ­lar qualities and / or status is a theme that ­w ill recur throughout your tenure as an administrator in higher education. Academia is filled with insecure overachievers who—no m ­ atter how high their objective level of achievement or recognition—­fear that t­ hey’re not worthy of their success and that at any moment they may be exposed as frauds. Getting you to confirm their value by granting them special treatment is thus a driving need, and one that you cannot simply ignore or dismiss. If y­ ou’ve ever been puzzled by someone’s insistence on what seemed to you a trivial change or requirement, it may make more sense if you interpret it in this light. If you can learn to recognize this pattern—­which is omnipresent—­and find effective ways to deal with it, you w ­ ill have a secret weapon in your efforts to leave t­ hings better than you found them. Odd as it may feel, you have become an authority figure, one whose opinion ­matters. But to succeed in your new role, you must come to terms with the nature and limits of your authority and become comfortable with it, so you can exercise it with grace and fi-

Embrace Your Fate

29

nesse. So: How do you meet the needs of ­those who are key to your unit’s success while also maintaining an ethical climate, making principled decisions, and treating every­one fairly? What do you do about Professor Major? ARTICULATE THE ISSUES

Stop and think about the central interaction. What are the signals sent by the location, time, jokes, body language, and requests? By arriving at an hour when your workday was supposedly over, Major invaded your private time. By perching on your desk, he invaded your personal working space. He twice mentioned that he supported you for the position, and at least once that ­others ­d idn’t. It is not unreasonable to see his be­hav­ior as an implied threat to your success in the job if you d­ on’t keep him happy. The three items he lists as necessary are all likely to cause you concern. Let’s examine his requests from vari­ous perspectives. Who are the stakeholders, the p­ eople who may be affected by any decisions you make? What policies apply to each of his requests? What pre­ce­dents exist or may be set by your decisions? And how quickly do you have to decide? STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholders are p­ eople who w ­ ill be (or w ­ ill think they are) affected by a given decision. They are t­ hose whose complaint ­w ill be given a respectful hearing. The ­people affected by the teaching schedule are students, instructional staff, and the support staff who prepared and disseminated the schedule and would have to do that work again if you revised it. ­There are issues of equitable division of l­abor in the department as well as access to desirable times and rooms. Presumably your unit has

30

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

some set pro­cess by which faculty members indicate their preferences for which courses they teach and when. If this pro­cess was followed, ­those involved in administering it may have a stake in your response as well. In the coffee ­matter, the group most affected by your decision ­w ill be the staff members who used to make the coffee and who he seeks to have reassigned to do so. But, assuming that your pre­de­ces­ sor’s decision to cancel that expectation was made carefully and ­after consultation, your ruling about the coffee ­w ill send the entire department a message about your willingness to stick to well-­considered policies. (Note the assumption that decisions ­were made carefully; if you believe or find that they w ­ ere not, then treating them with re­ spect may not be a good step. But let’s assume for now that t­ hose who came before you had sound reasons for their actions.) The duties assigned to a teaching assistant concern all faculty and teaching assistants in the department, and possibly outside the department as well. If your campus has ­unionized assistants, ­there ­w ill also be a l­egal dimension. Issues of equity, bound­aries, and educational goals are implicated in the potential use of the teaching assistant for “routine chores.” Why are students on your campus appointed as teaching assistants? Are t­here delineated duties for them in the campus policy manual or handbook? Do teaching assistants receive any academic credit for their ser­v ice? This ele­ment of the prob­lem with which Professor Major has presented you is the most complex and likely to impinge on the largest number of stakeholders. This attitude is also a red flag about other bound­aries that he might—or might not—be respecting with gradu­ate students or o ­ thers holding less power. It signals you to listen and watch carefully in that area in the ­f uture. Once you have identified the stakeholders, it’s a good idea to think about e­ ither consulting them as part of the decisionmaking

Embrace Your Fate

31

pro­cess and / or informing them of your decision before it becomes public. You ­can’t please every­one in the department all of the time, but you may be able to soothe (or prevent) some ­people’s ruffled feelings by soliciting input before you make the decision or by telling them personally about the decision and your reasoning instead of letting them hear about it through the grapevine or in an impersonal announcement. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

What university or department policies govern the decisions y­ ou’re about to make? You need to know what t­ hese policies are. Ask yourself (or better yet, a knowledgeable administrative assistant or business man­ag­er) what policies your department, college, or university has on any of ­these ­matters. If you know or are told of policies, are they written down? Do you know where they are? If you agree to any of Professor Major’s requests, ­w ill you be applying or changing an overall policy or making an exception to a general rule? Can you articulate the basis for your decision? Another way to think about this dimension is to ask yourself which aspects of each issue are u ­ nder your personal control. Is t­ here a procedure you should follow to come to a decision, or ­w ill it be enough to decide as you think best? One benefit of relying upon policies and procedures for reaching outcomes is that it depersonalizes the decisions. Since Major has made such a strenuous effort to personalize your conversation and to put you on the spot, e­ very tool that ­will reduce that aspect of the interaction w ­ ill help you. Both invoking the roles and rights of other stakeholders and applying relevant policies may be to your advantage. For example, Major’s plan to require his teaching assistant to run errands and help with his research may raise not only issues of equity

32

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

within the department but also ­legal or contractual prob­lems. Students might file grievances, and the institution’s rules on appointments and compensation might be v­ iolated. If teaching assistants are paid on a dif­fer­ent scale from research assistants, ­legal issues could intrude. If your assistants are ­unionized, the situation could be even dicier. This may sound grim, but actually it can be very good news. To be constrained by policies can be a g­ reat advantage. No m ­ atter how reluctant Major may be to recognize that t­here are larger issues involved than his individual preferences, you may be able to defuse his animosity against you by reframing the issues to make the contracts and policies the bad guys. Focusing his ire on their deficiencies may take some of the heat off you. If Professor Major qualifies for a research assistant u ­ nder departmental policies, or if you can find—or help him find—­resources for one, he may be mollified for the moment. ­Here’s where one of the main counterintuitive aspects of your new line of work may first rear its head. Even if you manage to satisfy his request, albeit not in the form originally presented, he may still be critical of you and speak ill of the way you handled the situation. This ­w ill be your first taste, if it comes to pass, of situations in which the interaction is not about the topic presented, but about some other sort of need altogether, one that you may never succeed in meeting. I’ll say more about that kind of dilemma ­later in this book. But let’s posit the more probable outcome, which is that you are unable to give Professor Major what he wants. Even if your efforts to shift the responsibility to the policy fail and he blames you personally, you’ll be on stronger ground when he starts complaining about you if ­you’ve framed all the issues in terms of the university’s policies and consulted internally before acting.

Embrace Your Fate

33

PRE­C E­D ENTS

Before acting on any of Professor Major’s requests, stop and think about the likely r­ ipple effects of each of your impending actions. If you give him what he wants, who ­else ­w ill want the same deal? Who ­w ill want previous decisions modified? Can you live with the consequences of extending a par­tic­u ­lar privilege to ­others? How easily ­w ill you be able to deny such requests? How unpleasant ­w ill that be? For example, agreeing to change the class schedule to fit Major’s preference—­especially if his wishes ­were known and considered before the schedule was set—­could stimulate many other faculty members to ask for similar concessions. ­Here’s a useful exercise. Suppose you allow Major to set his own teaching schedule, but you are likely to refuse to grant o ­ thers the same privilege: what words w ­ ill you use to turn them down? Try saying ­those words out loud, imagining that ­you’re denying Professor Minor’s request for exactly the same special treatment Professor Major is seeking. Do they sound convincing? Are they words you could actually say? In that light, think about what ­w ill happen when your decision becomes public. How ­w ill ­others react to it? ­Will they understand and re­spect it, and thus re­spect you? What version of the story w ­ ill the grapevine be likely to carry? Major has the new department head ­under his thumb? The new head c­ an’t stand up to a temper tantrum? Or the head is willing to listen to reasonable arguments? What message do you want to convey as you start your term of ser­v ice? B ­ ecause t­ here w ­ ill be one. You may not get to choose it, but your actions ­w ill definitely influence its content TIMING

How quickly must you make the decisions? For a variety of reasons, you may not want to accede to any or all of Major’s demands. But he

34

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

is likely to apply a good deal of pressure to secure what he wants, and to get it sooner rather than l­ater. What can you do? You need time to think the situation through and figure out what policy, procedure, or princi­ple applies to each issue. So above all, buy time. End the conversation by pleading another obligation—­and then start packing up to leave. Offer Major an appointment to discuss the issues l­ater. When our oldest d­ aughter was small, she coined a term that comes to mind ­u nder such circumstances. When asked to do something she ­d idn’t want to do, she would hold up her hand and solemnly inform me: “Mommy, I’ll do that another l­ater.” What you seek is to defer this w ­ hole discussion to “another l­ater.” What­ever it takes, avoid making any commitments on the spot. Plead fatigue. Mention o ­ thers who need to be consulted. If the professor accuses you of being indecisive, own it. Just ­don’t make any promises. If desperate, try turning the conversation and asking Major about his latest intellectual coup or his travel plans to get him talking about himself. But make and hold the boundary that y­ ou’re not g­ oing to give an answer on the spot. Fi­nally, when your backpack or briefcase is packed, leave your office. Turn out the light. Lock the door. Go to your car. You need some time to think, and to consult. Tomorrow is another day, and ­w ill be soon enough for you to begin consulting with the central stakeholders, building co­a li­tions to support the outcomes the consultations suggest, and preparing to inform Professor Major of your decisions. If you can do just this—­delaying any substantive response to Major’s demands to give you time to consider them, and foiling his power play by scheduling the continuation of the discussion at a time of your own choosing—­you ­w ill have made your first step ­toward a successful tenure. You w ­ ill be on the road to knowing and using your professional persona as a leader.

2

BOUND­A RIES AND EXPECTATIONS Your department shares a recently renovated computer lab with another department in your college. A recurring set of conflicts in the lab is driving a wedge between you and the other unit chair. The complaints center on the conduct of Professor Ranking, a very se­n ior member of your faculty (one you hope ­w ill retire soon). Professor Ranking is proprietary about the lab, having planned and overseen the renovations, though it’s actually used more by students of the other department. He has set up a corner of the lab as his domain and works mainly from ­there. Your colleague and friend, Professor Dorn, the chair of the other department, keeps coming to you, wanting you to do something about the complaints she is receiving from teaching assistants, tech staff, and students in her department who take Ranking’s classes. The complaints describe Ranking’s be­hav­ior as ranging from rude to harassing. They say the situation in the lab is hostile when Ranking is pre­sent, which is virtually always. A complicating ­factor she acknowledges is that one of the staff members who complains most regularly and vociferously about Ranking is himself a difficult personality, prone to overstatement and dramatic be­hav­ior. His complaints are routinely discounted. He and Ranking no longer speak to each other and communicate instead through other staff members. Your dilemma is that Ranking has a lot of se­n iority and prestige in your field (more than you do) and gets high teaching evaluations; no student has ever complained about

36

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

him to you or anyone ­else in your department. He characterizes himself as a “straight shooter” and is critical of both colleagues and students; he agrees he is “tough” on his students, though some would say he is verbally abusive. When you talk to him, he asserts that his style prepares students for the pressure-­fi lled work environments in your field. Many of his past students now hold leading positions in both academia and industry. You do not feel you have grounds to intervene in his teaching technique, beyond general discussions with him about the intensity of his style, which you have done. Professor Dorn is frustrated that you are not taking what she sees as mistreatment of students in her department seriously. Trying to be balanced, you agree to include some questions about the lab experience in surveys and focus groups your department is ­doing for other reasons. The results show that students have concerns about Ranking’s teaching style, but h ­ aven’t felt they could complain b­ ecause he is so well-­ known and respected. Even ­a fter their classes with him are over, students are reluctant discuss their experiences.

Two essential ele­ments of the structure of our professional homes that are often taken for granted are expectations for conduct, and proper bound­aries between the personal and the professional. In the structural meta­phor of your professional home, think of expectations for conduct as the floors and the bound­aries between the personal and the professional as the walls that separate our everyday spaces. EXPECTATIONS

In academia we do not spend much time communicating the rules for successful conduct. While we provide terms of employment and

Bound­aries and Expectations

37

employee handbooks, ­these are rarely examined except when a prob­lem arises and someone looks up “the rules” governing the specific situation. Many disciplines have professional ethics statements— yet they are not consistently discussed with students or among faculty. Mentoring is spotty, at best, in too many institutions. So how and when do our emerging professionals receive guidance in the be­hav­ior expected to succeed in their ­careers? If you find yourself frustrated with or disappointed in someone, it may be worth considering ­whether you have ever let her or him know, in a positive way, what you expect. Have you ever said that you prefer the desks out in the open to be kept reasonably tidy, while the ones in closed offices ­don’t ­matter so much to you? Do ­those whose work you review know your pet peeves about words you think are consistently misused and how properly to use them? How do ­people in your department or group learn which rule applies where? Too often we all run dif­fer­ent scripts in our heads, and your expectations may not be met for the ­simple reason that you have never articulated them. As our society and our institutions become increasingly heterogeneous, it becomes ever more impor­tant not to assume that “every­body knows” what is expected: mind reading is an imperfect form of communication. As the leader, an authority figure, you have an obligation to set clear expectations for responsible professional conduct and bound­ aries. It is your job to ensure that the community for which you are serving as steward receives explicit guidance in ­these areas. To do so, you need to understand what be­hav­ior is expected, and then let the members of your department know—­and act when ­those expectations are unmet or ­v iolated. ­There is a second, harder part of setting expectations: you must also model the desired be­hav­ior. Hy­poc­r isy detectors are among our most finely honed h ­ uman attributes, and “Do as I say, not as I do” is

38

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

not a successful form of mentoring. To create and maintain a sound professional environment, you ­w ill need to think through the messages sent by your words and your conduct. Know yourself in this dimension, too. Direct supervision of o ­ thers is difficult, perhaps especially for academics: it feels arbitrary or too personal to say something like “This ­isn’t right,” so bad situations tend to persist u ­ ntil they explode. One reason is that saying “It i­sn’t right” can sometimes seem to imply “­because I ­don’t like it.” It’s usually easier to say “The funding agency requires it” or “The dean is making us do this” instead of “I think ­there is a better way.” ­Here, too, it’s impor­tant to know yourself. Are you reluctant to state your expectations? If your answer is yes, then this is the moment to start overcoming that reluctance. Right now. Accept that your position entitles, indeed requires, you to set ground rules and to change what you see needs changing. Take responsibility for the authority you hold by virtue of your position. Suppose you are overseeing the writing of a grant proposal, and you want ­every draft to be in proposal format. You must say what you expect. A student who submits a draft in some other format may have a valid reason, or may not. You ­won’t find out if you ­don’t broach the issue while it is immediate and a relatively minor ­matter. If you do not make your expectations clear early on, your frustration w ­ ill increase with each new draft. Your internal understanding may be that the student is incompetent and unresponsive, while the student’s is that you are hard to deal with and do not provide feedback or recognition of hard work. If you let your frustration simmer, it may erupt some day. The target of your ire may (justly) feel unfairly attacked and may be able to cultivate sympathy from o ­ thers or even file a grievance. ­Others who witness your explosion ­won’t see the long buildup, only your apparently disproportionate reaction. Even if you w ­ ere in the right in the first place—­months before—by waiting

Bound­aries and Expectations

39

rather than specifying your expectations early on, you ­w ill have put yourself in the wrong. So how do you deal with a perennially tardy person who is paid to keep certain hours? If your department does not have the luxury of an office man­ag­er or administrative assistant who supervises other staff, it may be up to you to deal with this prob­lem. It’s a ­m istake to interpret what’s happening through your own lens, assuming that the lateness is evidence of a bad attitude or a lack of commitment to the job before you have enough information. Start with a general, open-­ ended question: Ask if ­there’s a prob­lem. Perhaps the person’s tendency to be late stems from a mismatch of daycare starting times, bus schedules, and your office-­opening time and does not, in fact, indicate any form of disregard for the work of the office. Perhaps he stops to check on an el­derly parent e­ very day before work or has a health condition that interferes with his morning routine. Before assuming, ask. If you learn about such a prob­lem, explore ­whether ­there’s any way to adjust the schedule or other­w ise address the issues that emerge. But in the first instance, approach the situation in an information-­gathering mode before you draw conclusions. If a solution does not emerge relatively quickly, the next step is to provide a calm and clear statement of expectations: “We need you to be h ­ ere on time so students who come to our office for assistance ­don’t have to wait and so ­others d­ on’t have to interrupt their own work to cover the desk.” Note how the statement of expectations is tied to the mission and values of the institution. This ­isn’t some personal whim of yours; it relates directly to the work the person does that contributes to the larger mission. ­Because ­people hear and remember conversations differently, and ­because some ­people absorb information better through their eyes than through their ears, confirm your conversation in a short note—­something like this: “I appreciated the constructive tone

40

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

of our conversation about your starting time. As I said, it’s impor­tant that you arrive on time e­ very day so our students can get help when they need it and so o ­ thers do not have to interrupt their own work to cover your duties. You are expected to open the office by 8:30 a.m. ­u nless you have made advance arrangements, approved by me in writing, to be late.” Confirming your expectations in writing ­w ill help lay down the same understanding of the conversation. You ­can’t assume that you ­were heard clearly. Your discomfort with being “the supervisor” may have led you to pull your punches or only allude to the prob­lem and your expectations. The other participant may have been so stressed that the message d­ idn’t stick. Putting it in writing afterward (and knowing ahead of time that you are g­ oing to do so) is a form of discipline that ensures that you have actually communicated your expectations. The written confirmation also reinforces, in a low-­key way, the formality of the situation (this is work, a­ fter all) and the relationship between the two of you. W ­ hether you are comfortable with it or not, you are the authority figure, and it is your job to see that the institutional funds spent on the person’s salary are expended to meet the institutional goals. Fi­nally, in case further action becomes necessary, the note may serve as documentation that you raised the issue, and at a par­t ic­u ­lar date and time. Further action is far less likely to be needed if you treat the situation professionally and formally, though not punitively, from the beginning. If, and only if, the prob­lem persists ­after your early efforts should you start imposing consequences. The consequences you are able to apply w ­ ill be determined by your institution’s policies; be sure you know t­ hose policies and are following them before you take this step. ­There is help to be had in your institution, ­whether from the college, h ­ uman resources, or the ­legal office—­take advantage of this expertise and experience. ­Every consequence flowing from a viola-

Bound­aries and Expectations

41

tion of expectations or rules should first be communicated orally and then confirmed in writing: “This is the third time in two weeks you have been late. As a result, [specify the consequence]. You are expected to be on time to open the office. If this prob­lem persists, additional action affecting your employment may follow.” (In general, good news can be put in writing, but bad news should be delivered in person, even if sensible practice often requires that it then be confirmed in writing.) You ­w ill be surprised how often this ­simple approach yields the desired results, even when it may be difficult to do. A ­ fter all, most ­people, most of the time, want to succeed. Giving them the information, guidance, and support they need—­even when it requires holding a hard conversation—is fairer, and even kinder, than letting prob­lems continue u ­ ntil ­they’re no longer fixable. In addition, it reduces the likelihood of ill-­w ill, complaints, grievances, and even lawsuits—­not a trivial point in this day and age. And if such negative developments do occur, a specific, written rec­ord of your having provided clear guidance and opportunities to succeed w ­ ill be of ­g reat value in helping to contain the prob­lem. BOUND­A RIES

I often turn to the idea of Janus, the ancient Roman god of doorways and gates, when thinking about bound­aries. In his role as guardian of doorways, Janus guards bound­aries, both physical and temporal, so that he is also the god of new beginnings. B ­ ecause most issues of ethical conduct require a clear awareness and understanding of appropriate behavioral bound­aries, oversight by such a god is just what professionals need. May the god of bound­aries bless your leadership. Even though you (in the course of knowing yourself ) have considered and internalized the importance of bound­aries between

42

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

personal and professional roles, who provides this lesson to faculty members? Where do faculty members, especially new assistant professors, receive guidance on setting appropriate bound­aries between their personal lives (which may be close to non­ex­is­tent in some disciplines, given time-­consuming professional demands) and their professional lives? When we give p­ eople authority over o ­ thers who are not very dif­fer­ent from them in age and life situation—­ teaching assistants over undergraduates and assistant professors over gradu­ate students, for example—do we give them guidance about sound professional bound­aries? What messages are sent and received about such bound­aries if, for example, se­n ior faculty require consistently unreasonable hours in the lab, or have students run personal errands for them? Even worse, what happens to the environment for teaching, learning, creativity, and productivity when personal bound­aries are ­v iolated or biases about groups prevent p­ eople in your unit from achieving their potential? If one of the “old guard” in your unit is prone to conduct that makes ­others uncomfortable, it is your job to take it on—­and not counsel anyone that this is just his or her “way.” That is true ­whether the conduct is verbal denigration or identity slurs all the way through violations of physical space and even sexual harassment. And it is true even (maybe especially) when it is a person of high status and visibility in your department or field. It’s a truism that p­ eople in universities feel powerless: under­ graduates are at the mercy of every­one, their teaching assistants (who rarely recognize their power over their students and thus can be ripe for abusing it) feel they are at the bottom of the power curve, assistant professors feel disenfranchised and powerless, associate professors worry about t­ hose who can vote on their promotion, full professors must jockey for position and perks, and department heads know they have very l­ittle real power. But power t­here is, both real and

Bound­aries and Expectations

43

perceived, in all ­these situations. Pretending it i­sn’t ­there ­doesn’t make it go away. Even worse is not understanding the power wielded by a majority group with expectations that “their” way is the right or only way. If gradu­ate students in your department are invested in social justice work, and their advisors think that’s a waste of their time that could instead be spent on their research, it’s your job to raise and air issues about what can and should be expected of your students—­and what may and may not properly be considered in their evaluations. If anyone ever truly thought it was acceptable for a top-­level member to say (true quote) to a student in a very competitive field, “I w ­ asn’t pre­sent when my ­children ­were born, and you ­don’t need to be, ­either—­she’ll call you when she’s done,” that day is long gone. Similarly, respecting how individuals wish to be addressed is a baseline expectation in a diverse environment, and should be consistently practiced by all unit members. Bound­aries and expectations must be set and observed from the top. Be thoughtful about when you send email to t­ hose who work with you, for example: if you routinely send out notes at 2:00 a.m., ­there ­w ill be individuals in your environment who may feel obliged to respond, even if that is not your intention. Not only must you understand the difference between exercising institutionally conferred power for personal and professional ends, every­one in your unit must have the same understanding. Thus a teaching assistant should comprehend that it is an abuse of her power over her undergraduate students to offer extra credit to anyone who lends her a suitcase for her job interviews, regardless of how easygoing the classroom atmosphere may be. An assistant professor should grasp how difficult candor can be for a gradu­ate student who is asked “Are you available to babysit for us this Saturday?” A person with supervisory responsibilities—­a nd especially evaluations that affect

44

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

salary determinations—­should be clear about the lines between official duties and personal ­favors like ­running out to get coffee, updating your personal website, or managing your social media accounts. No ­matter how friendly the office relationships, having a staff member pick up your kids ­after school so you can go to an impor­ tant meeting is a blurring of personal and professional bound­aries, especially if done on the university time clock. It’s true that private universities have more leeway than public ones in terms of what falls within the scope of employment, but personal ser­vices and personal interactions are complicated when t­here are supervisory relationships, ­whether ­those are educational or based on employment. The decentralized and generally informal, even antiauthoritarian, nature of academia tends to send mixed messages about ­these bound­ aries, a situation that makes a keen awareness of and re­spect for them even more crucial than in other workplaces. As well, the large quantities of public money and trust invested in universities—­public and private alike—­mean that ­there are additional responsibilities and constituencies beyond the ones that may first come to mind. All t­hese complexities mean that the clarity provided by crisp bound­aries is beneficial. Good bound­a ries are needed to separate personal interactions from professional decisions. Think about how much harder it is to be fair to p­ eople you ­don’t like than to ­those you do. One of the most successful department heads I have worked with told me that, while he personally liked some members of his department and ­d idn’t like ­others at all, his goal was that no one ever be able to tell which was which by the way he dealt with them. My observation of the department led me to conclude that he was meeting that goal. The consistency of the cordial courtesy with which he treated each and ­every member of the unit provided him with a valuable base from which to make significant changes in the culture of the department. It is

Bound­aries and Expectations

45

harder than you might imagine to achieve this effect, but it’s worth striving for. If you keep an eye on why you have taken on this leadership role and what you stand for in the role, it w ­ ill help you maintain ­those bound­aries, which ­w ill contribute to the overall health of your unit. PRACTICAL BOUND­A RIES TO SAVE YOUR SANITY

Moving from a largely self-­d irected schedule to one often driven by ­others can be a shock. A balance can be hard to achieve in the face of increased email and text traffic, more meetings, and deadlines imposed by the cycle of campus deadlines (bud­get, personnel, promotion and tenure, course staffing, ­etc.). Not only ­will you have to make time to deal with your own goals and tasks, you w ­ ill be making time—­and setting bound­aries—­for the issues and agendas of a range of ­others, as well. The most common advice from t­hose who successfully navigated the transition shares some characteristics: protect time for your priorities; to the extent you can, schedule around your productive and low points in the day; delegate more than might come naturally; set expectations for email response times. Divisions of work time are a subcategory of work / life balance issues more generally. As a person you do, and should, have professional and personal goals beyond your administrative duties. If you do not plan for and build t­ hose into your schedule, they w ­ ill have a way of getting subordinated to the urgent m ­ atters, even if ultimately, ­those are not very impor­tant to achieving your—or your unit’s—­goals. TIME

From the beginning—if you can, when you are first offered the position—­identify first for yourself what m ­ atters to you and what you

46

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

­ ill be balancing in taking on the role. If you value teaching, work w through when you need protected times. For faculty members taking on a leadership role, the ability to continue a research program can be key. In that case, state your desire to continue your scholarly work and propose a schedule that would let you do that, w ­ hether it is working from your home office one day a week, coming to campus at 10:00 A.M. ­every day, or seeking financial support for a postdoc, lab man­ag­er, or extra research assistance. If you can, seek out a place on campus where you can be productive that ­isn’t the departmental office: an assigned carrel in the library, access to a second office (perhaps one not much used), or some other solution that fits you. If you did not negotiate for support for your work impor­tant to you when you accepted the role, then be consistent in setting aside this time from the very first day. Announce to t­hose with whom you w ­ ill work most closely (an administrative assistant if your department has one, your advisory committee, or assistant / associate heads) what your “admin” schedule ­w ill be and which blocks of time you ­w ill not be available short of emergencies. Try to establish an hour or two at predictable intervals that you w ­ ill be accessible for walk-­ins and administrative tasks on a routine basis, and then try to make it well-­k nown and honor it with good w ­ ill. This can prevent both drop-in visits at times that you ­aren’t open to dealing with them and keep small prob­lems from becoming larger ones by providing a way for p­ eople to bring you a question or check in for a conversation e­ arlier rather than l­ater. Personal time tends to erode if you do not protect it consistently. The academic year has predictable rhythms and times that ­w ill be busier than ­others. ­There are seasons that ­w ill make predictable and heavy calls on your time: recruiting, promotion and tenure, bud­get, and the ends of the semesters. Find an official administrative calendar—­ask for one if it’s not provided—­and get due dates on your

Bound­aries and Expectations

47

calendar early: when are your bud­get submissions required by the dean’s office? If you want to request new hires, when are t­ hose due, and in what format? Are annual evaluations required? When? Knowing and planning for the most intense times of the semester w ­ ill help you navigate ­those times more effectively. One of my favorite academic leaders, Larry Faulkner, once told me about what he called “the law of inverse desirability,” which works like this: invitations come in early, we accept them, and our calendar fills. ­A fter the calendar is already filled, invitations for even more desirable activities arrive—­and are hard to turn down. ­You’ve prob­ ably already experienced this. It’s only ­going to get worse. Block time now for your priorities. Forewarned is forearmed. One of the foundational concepts of time management is to map your tasks into four quadrants: impor­tant and urgent; impor­tant and not urgent; not impor­tant and urgent; not impor­tant and not urgent. The category that tends to get shortest shrift in the demands of daily life is “impor­tant and not urgent.” A useful practice is to do a periodic inventory of your to-do list with ­these categories in mind, and then withdraw or drop as many of the “not impor­tant and not urgent” tasks on as you can. At this same time, make appointments on your work calendar with yourself for the “impor­tant and not urgent” category. If you can limit who sees your calendar, do that, as the pressure ­w ill be unrelenting whenever someone sees a gap for a meeting they seek: “I see that you d­ on’t have anything late Thursday after­noon (or Tuesday morning at 7:00 a.m.), so could we just slot this difficult-­to-­ schedule event in ­there?” Make it clear to ­those who have access—­and especially ­those who have “write” access to your calendar—­which blocks of time require checking with you, always, before scheduling something in them. Remember that your schedule ­isn’t just for ­things you have to do; it’s also for t­ hings you want to do.

48

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

If you cannot limit access to your calendar or your institution sets t­ hings so anyone can see when your calendar has openings, immediately block—­for a semester or entire year—­times on a recurring basis to which you assign vari­ous topics that do not telegraph “me time” ­unless you are especially good at your bound­aries and protecting your time already. Give yourself time to do your own research or writing, as well as any critical ­family events: if you hope to attend an impor­tant per­for­mance or game, mark it as early as pos­ si­ble as “busy.” Every­one needs to have a way to decompress and get some distance from issues at work. Assuring that you actually have some time to yourself—­unscheduled time—­w ill help you maintain your balance, creativity, and patience for dealing with challenging issues at work. While the size of your department and its demands ­w ill ultimately dictate how many of your protected times you must cede to departmental business, know from the beginning that you ­w ill be ceding some—­and w ­ ill want to do so. If you did not start t­ hese protocols upon assuming the leadership position, pick a starting date (start of a new year, new semester, month, ­etc.), announce in advance, and begin then. It ­w ill be more difficult to persuade ­others this is how it w ­ ill be from now on, but if you do it, and adhere to it yourself, it w ­ ill be accepted and largely respected. Remember that intermittent reinforcement is the strongest kind for learning: if you make random exceptions, or exceptions for the loudest voices, or for the p­ eople who can guilt you most effectively, you w ­ ill suffer for it over the long run ­because ­people ­w ill keep trying since it works e­ very now and then. If the idea of work-­life balance makes you laugh, reframe how you think about it, and consider what are your work-­l ife bound­aries, and what works for you. Do you need a day a week totally away from devices? Or are you able sufficiently to compartmentalize that building in a walk e­ very day ­w ill help keep you balanced?

Bound­aries and Expectations

49

Be vigilant about your time bound­aries if you want to survive and thrive in your role. Just as it is easier to start a course with strong rules and relax them as you go than it is to start out easygoing and tighten your requirements, so it is with your time. As a person who has made a commitment to serving the institution, and ­others, it is not inconsistent to protect your own wellbeing and priorities. In fact, you ­w ill be more effective if you are healthy and happy. YOUR RHYTHMS

If y­ ou’ve never done the exercise before, chart your time or stop and reflect on when you are the most productive, and when you have less creative moments of the day or week. The times when y­ ou’re most productive and creative should be protected to the fullest extent. If you have the self-­d iscipline to write for thirty minutes a day, protect that time. If that is not your practice, and you know you need at least a certain block of time to get in and out of tasks requiring deep thought and analy­sis, figure out when (time of day, day of week, e­ tc.) you do that most effectively and block out as many of t­ hose times as you can. A successful leader who had a difficult set of prob­lems to address in his unit once told me that he always scheduled meetings he anticipated would involve conflict in the morning when his beta-­ blockers ­were the strongest. Know yourself well enough to know when you are most likely to make decisions you regret—­and ­don’t put yourself in situations that make that more likely. Once y­ ou’ve charted for a week or so how you are spending your time, consider what you see: does the way you spend your time match your goals and priorities? If not, something should change. If you see yourself spending large amounts of time regularly on t­hings that do not m ­ atter to you at all or that are not impor­tant to your goals in accepting your leadership position, reassess. Are any of ­t hose tasks

50

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

items you could delegate? Can you reengineer how you do it to minimize the time you must spend on it? We all fall into habits, and how we manage time is one of ­those. Habits can be amended, and should be, if t­ hey’re not serving you and your role. ELECTRONIC PITFALLS AND MANAGEMENT

Email never quits—­and texts and social media are now added to the load. The very first step to take is to create a personal email address that you never use for university business, if you do not have one already. From the first moment of assuming your new duties (or before!), any time that you receive a personal-­life communication on your university email, be disciplined about responding with a short note that says “Please send all personal email to [address ­here]” and forward it to the personal address. ­Here’s why: The state of the law most places is that anything you do on college or university equipment—or that goes through equipment owned by your employer (read: servers, addresses, etc.)—­belongs to your employer. In plain terms, that means that, subject to institutional policies, o ­ thers may have access to your email ­whether you know it or not. Note that you cannot evade a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by saying you did it in your personal email: you’ll only open your personal email to examination. This may extend even to privately owned devices when you use them for the conduct of college business. Even if you are at a private institution, email you send or receive may be subject to Freedom of Information Act requests if you correspond with ­those in public organ­izations. And if t­ here is a lawsuit or an investigation by law enforcement, you may be required to turn over your email and / or equipment. ­Don’t put t­ hings in email you a­ ren’t happy to have many p­ eople read. Email is not ephemeral or confidential—it is easily forwarded, spoofed, adjusted, and misaddressed. Email travels through college

Bound­aries and Expectations

51

and university servers, and you have no control over when ­those are backed up, or who has access to them. The stories about email mis­haps are cringe-­making: the university official who sent an “all campus” email intended to be a (very) personal description of a sexual fantasy to a partner; the campus l­egal counsel who inadvertently attached affidavits regarding an internal investigation to a large listserv through an addressing slip of the fin­ gers. I once conducted an internal investigation into the allegation that a faculty member had an inappropriate relationship with a gradu­ate student in his group, which he vociferously denied. Unfortunately for him, his unit had an IT administrator who was a bit overzealous, and who, despite the official policy, and despite telling unit members other­w ise, backed up email g­ oing through the department servers e­ very night. The two years of salacious email that surfaced established unequivocally that the relationship existed. Beware the illusion of “private” email. Do not underestimate how taking on a job like this w ­ ill increase the volume of emails and other messages you receive. Develop a system for organ­izing and prioritizing the t­ hings that need the most attention; if it i­sn’t serving the purpose, modify it. Prepare for the one urgent, time-­sensitive message you might miss ­because it is buried ­under dozens of routine and trivial messages you ­don’t have time to read through. Ask for or create a departmental or official email address for all official requests to you in your capacity as chair or head: “philosophychair” or “chemhead.” If you have ­people in your department who h ­ andle specific items (devising the schedule for course offerings for next semester, or the like), get a specific email address created for that task and have a pro­cess to route all email to that address. Even if your department already has an address for specific items (admissions queries, room reservations), create one for requests to the chair or head. T ­ here are ­going to be items for which a rec­ord that survives beyond your term of ser­vice is helpful and you ­w ill be d­ oing

52

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

yourself and your successors a f­avor to have one place where such items are directed. EMAIL

Develop and use a system for triaging your email: ­don’t fall into the trap of responding to the first t­ hing you see and letting it pull you into it. Find a way to filter or review your email so that you know what’s ­there, and respond to it following your priorities, with the most impor­tant first, then the ones that keep the work of o ­ thers flowing, and the clutter last. Or, delete all the clutter first so you ­don’t keep seeing it. The more you can set up filters so you never even see the clutter, the better. Then, consistent with changing what you do, think about and adopt some good practices for your own emailing habits—­ others w ­ ill observe and follow your lead in how you use email. In a new job, the boss told me on my first day that he d­ idn’t read emails longer than one screen. I took that in, and went on with my work. When I finished my first major proj­ect, I submitted it and waited. And waited. Eventually, I timidly went to ask the office man­ ag­er when I might expect feedback on my opus. She asked two ­things: Did you send it via email? (Yes.) Was it longer than one screen? (Yes.) Her response? “He deleted it, then. He d­ oesn’t read emails longer than one screen. Send it on paper, with a one-­page executive summary.” This rule of thumb has served me well for many years. If your email gets too long, rethink it. Minimize business you do electronically. The world of work still turns on email, but you can make your email life less awful if you practice some basic email hygiene:

• Use accurate, descriptive subject lines (not “short question” or “hi”). • Change the subject line when the message string content starts to morph.

Bound­aries and Expectations















• Keep your email messages as short as pos­si­ble: many ­people ­won’t read—or ­won’t read carefully—­a long or convoluted missive. • The longer the message to you, the shorter your response should be: “let’s discuss this in person” or “noted and added to the agenda”; d­ on’t engage in serial novella exchanges; life is too short. • Limit the number of ­people on an email: the more recipients ­there are, the shorter and tighter the message should be. • If ­there is a due date, spell it out in full: Monday, March 15 (add the year if ­there’s any pos­si­ble ambiguity). • If you have specific questions to which you seek responses, number them, and put them up at the top of your email. • ­After ­you’ve written what YOU want out of the email, go back and add some pleasantries: “Dear Ashra, I hope this finds you well. [body of your note] I look forward to your response.” The bandwidth of email is so narrow—no facial expressions, no vocal intonation—­that it is far too easy for ­people to take offense or feel chastised. Make extra effort to be cordial. • When you are not receiving what you thought you asked for, consider w ­ hether you articulated it clearly enough at the outset and w ­ hether a lack of clarity and precision on your part might be part of the prob­lem. • In a charged situation, email exchanges tend to escalate—do not let yourself fall into t­ hese patterns. Insist on a face to face conversation (or, as a fallback, something where voices and, preferably, facial expressions can be read) instead. Never put anything in an

53

54



THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

email, including snappy comebacks or sarcastic retorts, that you would not want to see cc’d to o ­ thers or stored for posterity—or brought up in a grievance case. • FOIA is a power­f ul tool used increasingly by the press. Before you put your fin­gers on the keyboard, imagine anything you write in an email being published online, in the local paper, or disseminated through a listserv.

Being disciplined about the email you send—­length, topics, and tone—­w ill prevent many headaches. ­Couple that with letting ­people know when you ­w ill respond, or expected response times: “I seek to respond to emails within 48 hours when pos­si­ble” or “ I read emails at the end of the day.” If you have a day you set aside for other tasks, put an “away” message up routinely on that day, noting you’ll respond the day ­after. Setting expectations for when / how quickly you respond ­w ill serve you well. TEXT­I NG

From the beginning, if someone texts you on your phone about departmental business, ask to have it sent to email so you have a rec­ord of it and can manage it appropriately. Try to limit your text­ing to specific, preferably ephemeral logistical items. It’s neither helpful to have key information in a text string nor do you r­ eally want o ­ thers trolling through your telephone if the occasion arises. PERSONAL SCRIPTS

In professional life, t­ here are any number of circumstances that arise regularly for which you need to say something—­and t­ hese often come up when you least expect them and are thus unprepared. ­Others are

Bound­aries and Expectations

55

events that you know are coming and are worried about what you’ll say. ­Either way, developing a repertoire of what I call personal scripts—­ words you have developed and practiced in advance—­can make a big difference in how interactions unfold. If you have practiced saying your key scripts out loud, the words are more likely to be accessible when you need them. If you know a hard conversation is coming, figure out what messages you want to convey, and practice the words you’ll use. Try them out on someone you trust in advance to make sure that what you are intending to convey lands that way on the other person. For situations that come up out of the blue, develop basic scripts you can employ. For buying time to think, “let me get back to you on that” or “let me look at my calendar to make sure I could do this well” can help you avoid too hasty a response—or a commitment you regret. For setting conversational bound­aries, “that’s not something I can discuss” or “I need to hear the other side before drawing conclusions” can help avoid inappropriate responses. When giving hard and needed feedback, something like “I am invested in your success; it is my duty to share a candid evaluation of how your dossier ­w ill look to ­others so you can adjust ­going forward” can help get the point across. A phrase like “I see how strongly you feel and I cannot agree with you” can help you hold your ground without being combative. Over time, you’ll recognize more settings where having a set of words ­you’ve practiced w ­ ill be helpful. Keep building your reper* toire of scripts.

* ​My book The Young Professional’s Survival Guide (not just for young professionals) expands on ­these concepts and provides guidelines for developing personal scripts.

56

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

:

MEETINGS BASIC AND DIFFICULT

You have likely attended a lot of boring meetings that wasted your time. When you assume a leadership position, ­don’t preside over such meetings. If you cannot articulate a good purpose for a meeting, find a way not to hold it, or to rework it so t­ here is a purpose. Time is an irreplaceable resource for all, and being respectful of the time of o ­ thers ­w ill be noticed and appreciated. Some of the simplest ele­ments, easy to overlook, are the key to effective meetings: articulating the purpose of the committee or group that is meeting (overlooked more often than you might think); providing a clear charge for the work of the group or outlining its role; a substantive agenda that is provided in advance, along with any materials that ­w ill be discussed—­and then followed; summarizing discussions as they end, including action items and who ­w ill be responsible for each; expressing any deadlines clearly; keeping minutes so discussions and decisions already made are not repeated or revisited endlessly. In short: keep formal meetings focused and task-­ oriented, with rec­ ords kept of commitments, and implement a system for following up. When meetings are remote, with some or all participants dispersed and appearing only on computer, basic meeting hygiene becomes even more critical: have an agenda or discussion topic, goals, and expected outcomes, and take the time to establish some baseline group norms about how the meeting w ­ ill be run. Address w ­ hether ­people ­w ill be called on (and by whom), raise their hands (electronically or by waving), or simply chime in, and ground rules about what is recorded and the uses to which recordings ­will be put. Think about the features of the remote meeting platform and which ones ­will serve the goal of the meeting—­and which are just distracting.

Bound­aries and Expectations

57

COMMITTEES

Your unit’s governing documents (bylaws, statutes, e­ tc.) prob­ably define the purpose and charter for standing committees: find and read ­those governing documents early on. Academic departments usually have advisory or executive committees, promotion and tenure procedures. They often have curriculum and admissions committees. It pays to make sure ­those committees are operating within their charters and institutionally established bound­aries. If you have any questions, ask early: the time to deal with a mismatch in expectations and procedures is before a major prob­lem arises. Find out if you preside at t­hese meetings, have a vote, or are ex officio at them. If you preside, know that it’s your job to provide for orderly, effective meetings. You may also create committees to deal with a range of issues. ­These generally include search committees and task-­oriented groups. Each of ­these needs a written charge (samples that are time-­tested likely already exist: ask someone in the dean’s office for good models) laying out the timeline and expected work product (a written report, a list of the candidates to interview, a recommendation for how to allocate the space in the new building, ­etc.) And then ­there are the ad hoc meetings you’ll have: with ­people who have concerns, complaints, prob­lems, and the other meetings you schedule to deal with personnel prob­lems. DIFFICULT MEETINGS

As you prepare to try to resolve a prob­lem informally, start by finding a way to be calm and centered. Prepare well; think through what needs to happen and in what order. What are the items to be addressed, and

58

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

who should speak first? If you can, arrange for equal numbers of ­people on each side of the ­matter to be pre­sent. If ­there are ­going to be two faculty members, for example, and one gradu­ate student, try to get another faculty member to accompany the gradu­ate student and serve as an advisor throughout the pro­cess. Review your listening skills, and assume your persona as the authority figure. You should be clearly in control of the discussion. Maintain a formal demeanor. Have a written agenda, and begin by setting the ground rules. Introduce the participants, the purpose of the meeting, and the time limit. Keep the discussion orderly and be sure it follows your agenda. If relevant items that are not on your agenda are raised, assign them a place on the agenda or defer them ­until the appropriate time. Speak more slowly and more quietly than usual. (This is a subtle and often unnoticed technique, and it w ­ ill make a significant contribution to moderating the tone of the discussion.) Stop anyone who makes an insulting or offensive remark and ask that it be rephrased to focus on the issue and not the personalities in the room. Call a recess, if necessary, for ­people to calm down. A ­ fter discussion of an item is concluded, summarize the agreement and indicate that you ­will include that summary in minutes of the meeting. The more formal control you exert over the meeting, the less likely it ­will be to escalate into a shouting match. If you feel it spinning out, adjourn and seek guidance from a resource person on campus as to how to proceed. Consider invoking a formal procedure to add even more bound­aries to the pro­cess. While relying on pro­cess, you’ll also want to pay careful attention to the emotional state of the involved parties, including yourself. Even in an informal mediation or intervention effort, allowing emotions to trump facts ­will generally exacerbate rather than improve prob­lems. And, in any dispute, t­ here ­will be a lot of emotion. Gradu­ate students and other ju­nior personnel ­will be worried that voicing concerns may have a negative effect on their ­career. Se­n ior personnel

Bound­aries and Expectations

59

about whom concerns are expressed are likely to be quite angry that the questions ­were raised. All ­w ill be worried about what the pro­ cess ­w ill entail, w ­ hether it w ­ ill be fair, how long it ­w ill take, and what w ­ ill happen to them afterward. Emotions often distort p­ eople’s memories. For this reason, along with the many o ­ thers w ­ e’ve discussed, it is impor­tant to keep careful rec­ords about conversations and meetings, the participants, and the topics discussed. (­There is more on this topic in Chapter 4.)

:

A SPECIAL CATEGORY HOLDING MEETINGS VIRTUALLY / REMOTELY

The coronavirus pandemic provided an immersion learning experience for a broad audience in conducting business using electronic platforms. Remote interactions make it harder to create and maintain a sense of connection and community, and can be especially challenging for group meetings. While some interactions may never revert to the way ­things ­were done in “before world,” for ­others, the experience emphasized just how impor­tant ­those moments of serendipitous personal interaction are for ideas, connection, and consensus building. The ability to moderate remote meetings effectively is likely to become a valuable leadership tool, and best practices w ­ ill continue to emerge as more experience accumulates. Consider even more carefully than you already are the purpose of each proposed meeting and how time ­will be used in it: Is a meeting the best way to share information? Do all participants have the ability (both equipment and internet ser­ vice) to support video participation in real time? Are you expecting input and interaction? How w ­ ill you assure that each voice is heard? In online interactions, it becomes even more impor­tant to set and share agendas and materials to be considered in advance, especially

60

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

when decisions are expected. It can be helpful to establish the practice that t­here ­w ill be a point in each meeting at which each person has an opportunity to speak, and an expectation that they ­w ill. ­Because the voice of a leader ­w ill influence ­others, on topics where many opinions are sought, make it a point to reserve your comments to the end. Be thoughtful about ­whether the chat function in many online platforms is helpful for the purpose of your meeting—it can vary, depending on the purpose of the meeting and the composition of the group. For some groups, having “side chats” can increase division; in ­others, it can help the quiet voices build up the confidence to speak to the larger group, or let ­those voices add pertinent information without having to speak up or interject in an ongoing flow of conversation. To stay current and effective, seek out resources on best practices and periodically solicit ideas and suggestions from your peers and members of your groups from online experiences t­hey’ve had. Above all, do not assume that your experience of leading a meeting reflects that of all participants. Stay flexible and keep learning, focused always on the goal and purpose of the time you and ­others are committing to each interaction. Being respectful of the time and energy o ­ thers are devoting to events at which you preside ­w ill provide long term benefits for your leadership. JUDGE BY FACTS, NOT PERSONALITIES

On the subject of emotions, ­there is a crucial point to bear in mind about your own: ­don’t let yourself base decisions on personalities rather than facts. We all like some p­ eople better than o ­ thers, and we all find it much too easy to start assessing a situation on the basis of

Bound­aries and Expectations

61

demeanor and position rather than facts. When we are in positions of authority we have to distance ourselves from our personal reactions in the interest of fairness. Any person caught up in a prob­lem situation—­whether as the one reporting a concern or as the accused—is unlikely to appear or­ ga­nized or collected when initially interviewed. Second thoughts are common. It is impor­tant to let the ­people interviewed know that ­they’ll be allowed to provide additional information or ask questions ­later, but it is also impor­tant that you not find yourself spending all your time meeting with ­these p­ eople or talking with them on the telephone. Sometimes encouraging such ­people to seek counsel from trusted supporters or friends can be helpful—if they can discuss ­matters with someone (other than you) who is not emotionally involved, they may gain perspective on the situation. H ­ ere again, maintaining certain bound­aries is key: you are not their ­family member, personal advisor, or therapist. The key is to explain the pro­cess and your role in it clearly; repeat the explanation often and stay within the limits of your prescribed role. Be friendly and cordial to all parties, and avoid morph­ing into a friend or confidant when your role precludes it. Expressions of personal support or concern for individuals in obvious pain must be carefully stated. You do not want t­hose expressions to be taken as evidence that you are accepting their version of the facts. Repeated statements of your neutrality and your commitment to a fair and just outcome can help ameliorate this effect. You may detect a theme in many of the case studies in this book: complaints from ­people who seem distraught, or less than credible, or biased, or malicious. It’s one of the realities of the world that a person who comes forward about a serious prob­lem—­even one who ­later on, with hindsight, ­w ill praised be as a whistle­blower—­often appears to be a nutcase or a malcontent. We d­ on’t like ­children who

62

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

are tattletales or adults who are whiners. P ­ eople with complaints, especially ­those who are at the bottom of the power curve, are all too aware of this and also all too aware of the price that whistle­blowers usually pay. It’s a very stressful t­ hing to pursue a complaint against a power­ful person, and it takes a toll. Prob­ably it also takes a special personality type. It’s hard to say how all t­ hese f­ actors interact. Nonetheless, basing your response upon your impression of the person, rather than upon assessment of the facts involved, can lead you and your institution far astray. In short: focus on the information, not the source. At my university, a federal criminal investigator once arrived on campus to investigate an allegation against a faculty member which had been received directly by his agency. In the space of about a month or two, the investigator cleared the w ­ hole ­thing up, found ­there w ­ ere no prob­lems, and went away. The faculty member sought advice about how to have him reprimanded for investigating her instead of the motive of the whistle­blower, whom she considered embittered and malicious. This illustrates the importance of looking at facts, not personalities. The investigator’s job was to determine w ­ hether the allegation had any basis to it, regardless of the motive of the person who made it. The one who makes a complaint can be the most malicious, naïve, or uninformed person in the world, and motive is irrelevant if the ­things he or she is reporting are true. Very often, soon ­after someone raises a concern, o ­ thers ­w ill question his or her motives and stability. Letting yourself be distracted by questions about personalities is counterproductive. It’s your job to keep your eye on the real issue, which is your obligation to determine what the facts are. It’s also worth noting that the formal pro­cess in that situation served the faculty member well in the long run; when the questions ­were raised again in another venue, t­ here was a formal, arms-­length

Bound­aries and Expectations

63

review to refer to that shut the second complaint down before it became an issue. WHAT TO DO ABOUT PROFESSOR RANKING?

You now have information suggesting that your colleague’s concerns about the conduct of Professor Ranking have merit, and are costly to students in your unit as well as in hers. What can or should you do about it? You are the authority figure h ­ ere. A good starting place is to have a conversation with your dean about the situation. Seek your dean’s views—­especially given Professor Ranking’s standing in your discipline that is greater than your own—­and seek referrals to other resources in your university that might be able to help. What options do you have for assigning space to Professor Ranking? For setting expectations that he should not be pre­sent in the shared lab outside his assigned class times? For other assessments of his effects on students? Break down the information you have gathered from your surveys and focus groups and find out w ­ hether ­there are groups of students affected more than ­others by Professor Ranking’s “rigor.” Is it pos­si­ble to interview recent alumni? Can you use the surveys to catalyze another, more formal pro­cess? Is t­here a climate survey that could include the shared lab? Questions to explore include how he is affecting students from backgrounds not like his own, or t­ hose who face other challenges in your environment. In ­today’s higher education context, what constitutes appropriate interactions with students has changed; what used to look like “tough love” or demanding and rigorous supervision is now often viewed within a sense of harassment or abuse, especially when it disadvantages categories of students. It’s not in Professor Ranking’s interests—or your department’s—­for

64

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

his conduct to be addressed only when a video of his line-­crossing be­hav­ior goes viral or ­causes external inquiries. From the feedback y­ ou’re getting, it sounds like your students are afraid: of retaliation, of ­career consequences, of the potential need to take further classes with Professor Ranking. If ­those ­aren’t good reasons to exert your authority and take steps to improve the overall working and learning environment in your department, ­w ill ­there ever be any?

3 COLLEAGUES You are chair of a department with a bimodal age distribution: mostly full professors and assistant professors, with only a few associate professors. Like so many, your university went through a hiring drought during a bad economic time some years back, so ­there w ­ ere years in which you did ­little hiring. During that time, you lost many faculty to better funded institutions. Your university is making sweeping changes in every­ thing from financial management to student recruitment and retention that affect the entire campus. Privately, you like many of the changes, but some of your se­n ior colleagues do not. They like the way ­things have always been and some seem to feel threatened by the changes. You are in a difficult position—­receiving messages from the dean and higher administration that change is required for the f­uture and, at the same time, being told by se­n ior colleagues to do ­things the way ­they’ve always been done. Your se­n ior colleagues think that they can wait the administration out; ­these administrators ­w ill ­either be thwarted by faculty re­sis­tance or they ­w ill choose to leave. You can please no one. It’s hard to get ­things done in the department ­because the se­n ior faculty vote as a bloc against anything that looks like change and the dean and provost w ­ ill not give your department resources ­unless changes are made. The untenured faculty tell you privately they support the proposed changes but feel too vulnerable to speak up in meetings.

A talented administrator I know once told me, in a moment of frustration, that “in my next job, ­there’ll be no personnel!” A large

66

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

majority of the most difficult prob­lems are caused by a small fraction of the ­people in any environment: you’ll spend far more time dealing with them than you ever ­imagined or wanted. Friction inevitably arises when ­people work together, and the academic environment has some special aspects that can complicate an already fraught set of prob­lems. T ­ hose include the star system, tenure, academic freedom, the general reluctance of ­those in academia to be managed, and disdain for ­those in management positions. Professor Major, for example, is a star who likes to throw his weight around. Presumably, one of your goals in accepting this job is to improve your department or college. ­A fter knowing and managing yourself and your bound­aries, it’s impor­tant to have a clear concept of your aims, and to have thought deeply about what constitutes a culture of excellence. When you are dealing with the difficult ­people whose conduct is affecting o ­ thers around them, thinking about that conduct in terms of its effect on the overall environment for working and learning can be helpful in charting your course. If the unit is already strong, creating or sustaining an existing culture means identifying and supporting positive group norms, and encouraging a consistent esprit and common purpose. If it i­sn’t, part of your role ­w ill be to work to move the culture in a more positive direction; ­we’ll come back to that in a l­ater chapter. The landscape of higher education ­today is increasingly differentiated. A leader in a research-­oriented university ­faces dif­fer­ent challenges than one that is in a more teaching-­oriented school. Across the spectrum, colleges and universities have widely varying faculty compositions in terms of who is tenured and who is not, and t­hose very conditions of job security or precarity—to say nothing of significant salary differences—­create some of their own distinct challenges. On the positive side, all kinds of institutions can aspire to excellence; what it means and how it is mea­sured ­w ill differ. What is

Colleagues

67

common across all institutions is that units that are already excellent, or that aspire to excellence, are easier to lead than ones that have lost that aspiration or are mired in impediments to quality. Job satisfaction, motivation, and peer relations all suffer in a unit that does not have a clear sense of shared purpose and achievement. Cultures of excellence do not happen by accident. They take intentional effort and care. CULTURES OF EXCELLENCE

If you think broadly about excellence in the setting of an institution of learning and research, it is more than what is done; it must also encompass how the work is done and what is taught through word and deed. This means that teaching and research must be done ethically, in inclusive, generous, honest working environments that develop and support participants who both enjoy life and build productive, meaningful c­ areers. Colleges and universities have missions that should be known and talked about in their larger contexts of teaching, research, and ser­v ice to expand knowledge, change lives, and benefit society. Gradu­ate education does not only produce specific data and results: it also reproduces and sustains a climate of ongoing research and scholarship, which in turn builds and contributes to the talent pool of the nation and world. Culture refers to how groups of ­people work and live together, and it is s­ haped by under­lying values and norms. That includes communication styles and the tone set by leadership, as well as expectations around how tasks are performed, including work hours and pro­ cesses. Do department members gather regularly for coffee or lunch? Are t­ hose gathering open to all, or l­ imited to some or all tenure-­l ine faculty? Do meetings or mandatory events routinely end in time for ­people with ­children to pick them up by 5:00 or 5:30 p.m.? Is it the

68

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

practice in the unit to nominate unit members, especially ju­n ior ones, for awards and recognitions? Are courses for non-­m ajors seen as impor­tant to informed citizens knowing about the discipline or are they chores for the low-­status and out-­of-­favor? Are major life events (births, marriages, deaths) in the families of departmental members recognized, and is that for all members, or just some? Concepts of “excellence” differ, leading to cultures with varying emphases on collaboration versus competition, autonomy versus in­ de­pen­dence, teaching versus research (and ser­v ice), and methods of guidance and development for students on their way to their c­ areers. Does your environment feature or tolerate questions about the legitimacy of the presence or work of members of your community? ­There is no excuse for tolerating an environment where members must regularly swallow their bitterness or sense of being disrespected or undervalued. Such denigration is antithetical to building cultures of excellence. If it exists unchecked, your department is likely paying the price in recruitment, retention, working environment, and quality of work done ­there. Moments of crisis test cultures of excellence, as they reveal more fully what and who m ­ atters, and what be­hav­iors (or not) are tolerated or accepted. When ­people are anxious, fearful, or uncertain, they turn to leaders for guidance and read clearly signals about “how we act ­here” from steps that are taken, or not taken. If communications about what w ­ ill happen to jobs apply only to tenure-­line faculty members, without addressing adjuncts or staff members, that signals a clear message that only ­those ­people m ­ atter in the environment. Early on in the pandemic, for example, some institutions quickly extended tenure clocks due to the suspension of research—­w ithout addressing what would happen to gradu­ate students or postdoc deadlines and time limits on their support. The institutions where leaders ­were clear about what they knew and what they d­ idn’t—­and set out

Colleagues

69

the princi­ples that would guide their responses—­got strong marks from many of their constituents. Expressing concern and caring for the personal as well as professional challenges faced by members of the orga­n izational community sent messages about who was valued, and for what. A common m ­ istake is seeing t­ hese new challenges and constraints as counterbalances or compromises with the value of pursuing “excellence” rather than an opportunity for rethinking what “excellence” means and how to achieve it. When ­you’re responsible for the tone of the working environment, it’s your job to make yourself aware of how it is experienced by all its members, to take action to cultivate a positive culture, and to address violations. It’s your job to be aware of the differences and to examine practices to produce the working and learning environment that aligns with the mission and goals of your program. T ­ here are a range of dimensions to consider in understanding what it’s like to work in your department. Two especially critical fault lines are roles in the unit and the life experiences of its members. WHO ­M ATTERS?

The gulf in how your department is experienced depending on someone’s role has only widened in recent years with the increasing reliance on contingent faculty. How it feels to be a member of your department ­w ill differ dramatically by status: tenure-­l ine faculty versus adjunct or associate faculty of dif­fer­ent appointment categories (term-­ by-­term versus longer-­term appointments). ­There may be yet another working climate experienced by the staff, and still ­others for the gradu­ate students, which may differ for the undergraduates. If you are new to the institution especially—­though this can be an illuminating exercise even for an old hand—­you might seek out what it’s

70

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

like to navigate the university’s systems as the members of your department must, w ­ hether it’s requesting a room or filing a travel request or reimbursement. ­A fter ­doing such an experiment, one university president led a streamlining of his institution’s application pro­cess, resulting in a significant enrollment increase. ­Because no one had reviewed the result of incremental changes over time, ­there was no appreciation for the full effect on the end users of the same information being requested in multiple (and maddening) ways. The result also made it faster and more efficient for university staff. If you come from within the department, make it your business to inform yourself about the conditions for the adjunct or contingent faculty. Are they included in announcements and opportunities, for example? Are they welcome in the faculty lounge? Are their names and contact information on the department website? Do they have a place to hang their coats or store materials, even if it is only a lockable drawer in a file cabinet? Does your unit conduct meaningful exit interviews that are taken seriously? What ave­nues are available to ­those low on the power curve for seeking advice or support: ­w ill your institution know if ­people are being treated badly? ­Will they do anything about it? Step back and consider what kind of community your unit provides, intellectually around your discipline and as a place where ­people earn their living. Are ­there regular face-­to-­face interactions around ideas and developments in your discipline? Are ­these, in fact, ­actual interactions? Do ­people work mostly from home or interact with each other regularly? Are t­ here a range of mentoring opportunities within the unit: cross-­unit, peer-­to-­peer, or other? What re­spect is accorded for work that is essential and relied upon for a core portion of your mission? For example, if your ser­v ice or introductory-­level courses are taught by non-­tenure-­l ine faculty, are they consulted and do they have input into the content of their courses

Colleagues

71

or the sequencing of the curriculum? Are their perspectives and experiences considered in making decisions affecting them, from scheduling to assignments? The cumulative effects for long-­term employees of dignitary damage from being treated as “less than” can create frictions and prob­lems with far-­reaching effects on the quality of your program. The financial realities that are driving t­ hese changes may well be controlled by ­those beyond your department; ­there are still a range of issues of local tone that you do affect and control. They are worth spending time understanding and then taking actions to address. The working and learning environment may also be experienced differently based on identity and life experiences. Part of your job is trying to understand ­those that ­aren’t the same as yours, and to take their costs seriously. What is your role if you are pre­sent at a seminar when a man’s question is taken as rigorous intellectual debate, and a female postdoc who brings up a related question is dismissed as sidelining the discussion or told “when y­ ou’ve got more experience, you’ll understand the point of this work better?” Are you prepared to be an ally and understand your role in setting bound­aries and tone if you are pre­sent when a student in your department is challenged in a public pre­sen­ta­tion by someone asking “how much of the complex part of this did you actually do yourself?” Does it make a difference in your perception of the situation if the student is from an underrepresented minority? What should you do in such situations, so tense and so unexpected? At a minimum, you must have personal scripts (see Chapters 2 and 4) at the ready for when you encounter violations. A good start would be to explain to the aggressor that, in our department, we ­don’t talk like that. Even better is if you proactively seek out tools to assess the environment in your unit and act upon its results. ­There are resources available to do good jobs of both.

72

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

What advice would you be prepared to give in the following real-­ life situation? At an informal event, a female grad student asks your guidance about how you would advise having handled a situation “some of her friends” experienced at a recent conference: two female grad students w ­ ere sitting at a t­ able having lunch with their male advisors. One of the advisors started a discussion with the other about the sexual preferences of their sex partners, both w ­ omen in the department—­and one of the partners served on the thesis committees of both nonparticipating gradu­ate students. You recall, during this conversation, that your department recently paid for several students to attend this conference and pre­sent their work. You also know that one of them has an advisor whose partner is on the thesis committee of the student seeking your advice “for a friend.”

The faculty members ­here are boors who ­v iolated bound­aries of common courtesy and professional conduct—­not to mention abused their personal relationships. What do you do if, as you suspect, this is not a hy­po­thet­i­cal situation at all, but one that actually occurred in your own department? First, you have been asked for advice and ­ought to help the students develop some skills for dealing with coarse and crude conduct by ­those with power over their ­careers. Given the power dynamic of advisors and students and the apparent obliviousness of ­these two faculty members, the safest ­thing for the students is to develop some personal scripts indicating discomfort without escalating a bad situation. If you can help them do that, while also making it clear that the faculty members’ conduct is out of bounds, that may be the best you can do for them directly. They could try

Colleagues

73

saying something along the lines of: “Too much information! Can we change the subject?” Or “Oof. Let’s go over ­there and talk science.” You may also want to be sure the student knows where in the university she (or her friends) can get advice or explore their options, and how to file a complaint if this conduct continues or escalates. (It is always a good idea to create documentation of this hy­po­thet­i­cal situation and the advice that was offered, including the names of the offices that act on such complaints, as w ­ e’ll discuss more ­later.) Many attributes of creating a culture of excellence are not intuitive, especially around uses of power and authority. P ­ eople with authority can inadvertently silence or harm t­hose with less power through not understanding the effects of their words and actions. This is exacerbated when ­those of less power occupy environments that are unwelcoming to them and meet with p­ eople so completely comfortable in their environments, in which they are so power­ful they ­don’t recognize it anymore. Doctoral students and early stage researchers often enter with high levels of anxiety and insecurity to begin with. Power dynamics, combined with fear of failure, reduce levels of trust among members of the group. Suppose someone in your unit has a large personality, and has done a lot of good for students and the university, but is routinely verbally abusive to ­others in meetings. If you ignore the conduct as “just his bad side,” you are communicating that such conduct is acceptable. If you have a faction that routinely succeeds in pushing through their proposals by being unpleasant, you are teaching that this is the way to “win”—­and in each case, you ­will get more of that conduct from ­others who correctly conclude that it is the way to get what they want. Culture is a manifestation of how individuals behave—­and this means that culture is not something fixed or given. It is something that groups can and do create or change. Building cultures of excellence

74

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

requires acknowledging power dynamics and building trusting relationships between individuals and within groups, as well as forming habits that can help build ­careers. What you do when prob­lems arise ­will play a large role in ­whether you can build an environment of trust and safety rather than one in which p­ eople leave or the prob­lems explode into the public or social media. If you seek to create and maintain a culture of excellence and inclusion, it ­w ill increase your ability to enlist o ­ thers to follow you. IMPEDIMENTS TO GOOD PRACTICE

Some specific features of the academic environment make implementing good practices tricky. First and foremost, the environment is very decentralized: a college or university comprises a multitude of microclimates, some of which resemble feudal fiefdoms. From the culture within a par­tic­u ­lar laboratory to that in a group of offices physically isolated from the rest of the department, you’ll find multiple cultures and a wide range of accepted norms. As if that ­isn’t enough of a challenge, ­these microclimates have a significant temporal quality: they have some ­people who have been ­there “forever” (for de­cades) and ­others who stay only a few years. ­There is an annual turnover in the community’s population. The longtimers may resist change (­they’ve waited out previous department chairs and their new ideas, so they can wait you out, too). Meanwhile, ­because multitudes of students come and go, a major effort at communication this year may need to be repeated next year and the year a­ fter that to have any meaning for the newcomers—­and be crashingly boring to t­ hose who have “heard it all before.” To top it off, while ­you’re trying to communicate goals, aspirations, good habits, and positive expectations, you’ll also be expected

Colleagues

75

to “educate all members of your department” about the latest rules promulgated by the central administration: from how to fill out time-­activity reports to ensuring department-­w ide completion of mandatory online training—­even ­those who ­aren’t with the unit anymore—­w ithin two weeks. And this may all take place in an environment with inconsistent internal communication systems and poorly developed habits of interaction. ­Unless ­you’re very lucky and have acquired your responsibilities in a unit with a tradition of warm collegiality and frequent interchange among its members, it’s likely that some members of your unit do not routinely interact with each other. This lack of connection may be by design or oversight, but if this exists to any significant degree, it may complicate your efforts. Email can help communicate the new rules about mandatory training, yet email announcements alone are unlikely to change ingrained patterns of be­hav­ior. Other features of the academic environment ­w ill also complicate your new job. Some of t­ hose features are academic freedom and tenure, the concept of collegiality, the academic star system, and the perennial prob­lem of scarce resources. ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE

Contrary to what many p­ eople think, academic freedom does not provide a license for any and all classroom utterances, nor license academics to neglect duties or to abuse students or colleagues. The foundation documents defining academic freedom can be found in the “Redbook” of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Central to ­those documents is the concept of corollary privileges and responsibilities conferred upon professors by their membership in the “community of scholars.” The critical freedom to pursue scholarship even about unpop­u ­lar ideas is accompanied by

76

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

certain responsibilities: to “be accurate,” to “exercise appropriate restraint,” and to “show re­spect for the opinions of ­others.” Think of the prob­lem of Professor Strasse. Y ­ ou’ve heard that he has been projecting images of classic paintings by Rubens, many featuring nude ­women, in his calculus class and that he refers to students who object to t­hese visual pre­sen­ta­tions as “cretins” and “ass­holes.” Your last conversation with him on this topic was not very successful. When you told him you’d been getting complaints from students and parents that the pictures w ­ ere irrelevant or offensive, he dismissed the objections as evidence of narrow, provincial attitudes, claimed that the paintings ­were part of his teaching method, and reminded you that academic freedom gives him the absolute right to speak as he pleases in his teaching.

Yet, if you review the Redbook you ­w ill know that Professor Strasse’s claim of the right to speak as he pleases in his teaching is a misinterpretation of the concept of academic freedom. His pejorative characterizations of his students are not exercises of academic freedom, b­ ecause that freedom does not extend to speaking to students in that way. He may be held accountable and even reprimanded for such conduct without any infringement on his academic freedom. As a thought experiment, consider what you would do if an adjunct professor used such images or spoke to students in that fashion. If it’s not acceptable in their classrooms, it s­ houldn’t be for the tenured faculty, ­either. However, y­ ou’re not home f­ree: the insults that violate the requirement to “exercise appropriate restraint” and to “show re­spect for the opinions of ­others” are likely to fall in a dif­fer­ent category from the images he proj­ects in the classroom, especially in light of his claim that the images are related to his pedagogy. The prob­lem of how to

Colleagues

77

deal with Professor Strasse is ­really two dif­fer­ent prob­lems, and you may only be able to address name-­calling straightforwardly with sanctions of some sort if he does not alter the be­hav­ior. (The images are ­going to be subject to rapidly changing norms around climate issues and Title IX and may well be out of your hands. You still cannot ignore them.) You may find, though, that if you can successfully address one bad habit by invoking professional norms, it may become easier to deal with other troubling aspects of the professor’s conduct. Like academic freedom, tenure may shield its holders in certain ways, but it does not give them carte blanche to behave as they please. According to the Redbook, the tenure system is designed to ensure unfettered scholarly inquiry—­“freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities”—­and to give professors a degree of financial security. ­Here are key sections of the statement: Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of ­either the individual teacher or the institution as a ­whole. The common good depends upon the ­free search for truth and its ­f ree exposition. Academic freedom is essential to ­these purposes and applies to both teaching and research. Freedom in research is fundamental to the advancement of truth. Academic freedom in its teaching aspect is fundamental for the protection of the rights of the teacher in teaching and of the student to freedom in learning. It carries with it duties correlative with rights. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial ­matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom ­because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.

78

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be ­free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show re­spect for the opinions of ­others, and should make ­every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.

Tenure gives faculty members procedural protection against arbitrary institutional action—it does not protect ­those who abuse their positions. To throw up one’s hands and accept bad conduct on the grounds that tenure makes any other action impossible is a cop-­out. At the same time, campus controversies over such m ­ atters can lead to other actors defending bad be­hav­ior, not ­because they approve it, but ­because they fear an erosion of academic freedom rights for themselves and o ­ thers. Professor Strasse’s be­hav­ior is not an exercise of academic freedom or f­ree speech, and the internal consequences are not the only ones on the line. The chances are good that, if you do not manage this situation now, you may well soon be attempting to respond to a viral explosion about it when students or their advocates take to social media. It is worth thinking deeply and clearly—­and catalyzing some discussions in your environment with o ­ thers and your leadership—­ about where the bound­aries of institutional relationships and responsibility lie. What is your reaction when a faculty member of your institution (­whether in your unit or not) makes controversial (or worse) comments in public settings? Can you identify when the in-

Colleagues

79

stitution has a stake? (Hint: one time is clearly when ­people are using their institutional position or power as their platform.) Can you distinguish cases in which they are legitimately exercising their right to hold controversial views and publish about them? Knowing which institutional policies address ­these difficult issues and being able to articulate the princi­ples on which they rest is time well invested. “COLLEGIALITY” AS AVOIDANCE

Professor Strasse’s denigration of his students is not an exercise of academic freedom. However, this is not the only objection you may encounter to the idea of taking action against faculty members’ bad be­hav­ior—or even to just gathering facts in such a situation. While it comes in many guises with many names, the prospect of expressing judgment about the actions of a colleague—­even when lines are being crossed—­can face re­sis­tance. (­Unless you have the opposite prob­lem of having one or more colleagues who are happy to demonize ­those who disagree, and take to social media to do it. More about that l­ ater.) Conflict aversion often expresses itself as being an expression of faculty in­de­pen­dence or collegiality. Once, years ago, I was asked to ­handle a letter that arrived while the university provost I worked for was out of town. In two typed pages, the head of a university department reported that a faculty member had threatened to kill him, and asked for the provost’s protection. I called the department head and suggested that ­there ­were ­people in the university whose job was to protect other ­people—­and that the word did begin with a “P”—­but that it w ­ asn’t provost, it was police. He responded: “Do you know how uncollegial it would be for me to call the police on my colleague?” I asked him how collegial it had been for his colleague to threaten to kill him.

80

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

It is not unusual to hear that taking on prob­lems rooted in personal conduct might not be “collegial.” I’ve been told at one time or another that it w ­ ouldn’t be collegial to discuss safety concerns raised by the apparent drinking prob­lem of a visiting faculty member who taught in a lab with high-­pressure equipment ­because drinking was an issue of “personal conduct.” I’ve heard respected academics express grave concern about the propriety of reviewing a colleague’s work in the face of significant evidence of shoddy (at best) or fraudulent (at worst) data, on the grounds that “it’s simply not collegial to sit in judgment of a colleague” or “we ­don’t do witch hunts ­here.” Other times, I’ve seen reflexive distrust of administrators lead to defenses of colleagues even when the defender privately agrees the conduct is wrong. Collegiality does not mean tolerating any and all conduct in a professional setting. It does not support ignoring bad conduct, especially be­hav­ior that is detrimental to the health, safety, inclusion, or productivity of o ­ thers in the environment. So if colleagues urge you to protect Professor Strasse’s teaching style b­ ecause addressing it ­wouldn’t be “collegial,” you need to think through and have a firm understanding (one that you can communicate persuasively and with some back-up by authority) about what collegiality and re­spect for the in­de­pen­dence of faculty encompasses and what it does not. The academic enterprise depends upon trust and the robust exchange of ideas. The protocols that have evolved to protect t­hose values must not be twisted so that they shield abusive or exploitive conduct. The community has a right to function, and each of its members must contribute to that functioning through an educated awareness of what does and does not support ­those values. It is your role as an authority figure to ensure that members of your department have such an awareness. It is also your role to assure that the academic stars in your midst support and extend the mission of your institution, not detract from them.

Colleagues

81

ACADEMIC STARS

The star system is alive and well in universities. The recruitment of a big name can help put a university on the map, bring significant funding for research, or make a media splash and impress donors. Such stars are much sought ­after by other institutions and retaining them can be a challenge. ­Those a tier down from true supernovae (and sometimes even the comets and meteors who are burning out) can also command considerable attention and resources. If t­hese ­people are by chance insecure overachievers, their need for reassurance ­w ill frequently prompt them to seek special privileges befitting their “special” status. Have you encountered the faculty member who insists on meeting personally with the provost or president on a semi-­regular basis to describe his latest proj­ects and give advice about university governance? Usually, he seeks the first meeting by suggesting that, owing to the inability of his department head and / or dean to understand him (and his value to the institution), he ­w ill have to begin considering outside offers, albeit with a heavy heart due to his allegiance to the institution. A ­ fter that first meeting, ­unless the provost or president has good bound­aries and ­g reat personal charm, f­uture meetings ­w ill be necessary “­unless you ­don’t find my modest suggestions to be of any help. . . .” This form of emotional blackmail is often successful by the way it can distort the policies, procedures, and institutional decisionmaking structure. Of course, such meetings may cost nothing but time: being courteous and respectful ­toward valuable intellectual assets is only common sense and may enhance the leader’s understanding of the discipline. The rub comes in what topics are discussed, and ­whether ­these ­little chats come to supplant meaningful departmental or college oversight of the faculty member. All too often, the faculty star manages to make the provost or president the only person in the

82

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

institution to whom he has to report, and to consider himself unaccountable to anyone ­else. In some instances, they ­w ill use t­ hese conversations to try to circumvent or even undermine and badmouth their unit leader. If you have a star in your unit who does not seek such reassurances or special treatment, stop reading right now and review what ­you’ve done recently to express your appreciation—­don’t forget to count your blessings. If you ­haven’t rewarded this ­humble creature recently, find something nice you can do for him or her and do it immediately. Far more numerous are the other sort to whom you must constantly respond or about whom you constantly worry as they solicit external offers to improve their lot in the university. An aside: If y­ ou’re constantly caught in the escalation game—­ asked to match the level of salary or perks in outside offers—it might be worth thinking about ­whether your institutional policy is clear enough about how often this game can be played. Your star (and ­others) w ­ ill still receive the offers and play the game, and you may be able to reduce the frequency if ­there’s a rule, especially if it comes from one or two layers above you. Chances are, it w ­ ill benefit the entire institution to have a clearly expressed (and followed) rule about how often offers are met. In terms of preventive management and good institutional habits, reflect upon how faculty members w ­ ill spend their time if the only way to get a significant raise is to receive an outside offer. Does such a system create an incentive to concentrate upon teaching, research, and ser­v ice? Of course not: if the ­reward a person receives is built upon external offers, even a smart person—­one, for example, with a PhD from a major research ­u niversity—­can figure out that the highest return for time spent is to solicit job offers. If you sense that your star seeks special treatment for the sole purpose of gauging your esteem (­today), it’s worth trying to cultivate a

Colleagues

83

mindset of putting any privileges you consider granting into a context of the institution’s values. That is, think about how you can frame what­ever you are giving your star so that anyone e­ lse in the department who reaches the same level of achievement ­will receive the same treatment. A good example of this is the policy at Berkeley that Nobel Prize winners have reserved parking spaces. Inevitably, you w ­ ill have to make compromises to propitiate a star. When this happens, try to align t­hese compromises with institutional values, and to express them in ways that, as much as pos­ si­ble, level the playing field for all ­future stars. What perquisite offered by your institution might be analogous to Berkeley’s reserved parking spaces? Try to link the privilege or reward granted to a documented achievement: recognition by a professional society, publication of a tenth book, ­etc. Framing the reward this way—­Star A got Special Treatment B ­because of Achievement C—­w ill reduce jealously even among ­those who ­w ill never achieve at that level ­because the granting of the privilege is aligned with the values of the institution. Of course, you’ll need to be prepared to provide Special Treatment B to anyone who delivers Achievement C, so choose your framing device carefully. D ­ on’t run out of parking spaces. Professor Strasse, in the situation described e­ arlier in this chapter, is claiming special status that is neither protected by academic freedom nor aligned in any way with the institution’s best interests. To reward his be­hav­ior by ignoring it to the detriment of the students in his classes is the opposite of this advice to seek to align special treatment, where necessary, with the value system of your institution. Do your best to cultivate appreciation among all members of the department of the benefits that the achievements of each member confer on the ­whole. Stars can shed light: celebrate accomplishment and frame it as good for every­one. One of the most corrosive t­ hings that can happen to a department is when its most successful members

84

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

and t­hose most beneficial to the department and institution are resented by their colleagues. This can happen even if they are not personalities who demand special treatment, though it tends to be more common in ­those circumstances. A group with a predominance (or even just a critical mass) of members who resent the best among them is destined for a rough time, with a likelihood of a downward trend in quality: if it becomes known (or even just suspected) in your field that high achievers have difficult daily lives ­because of the resentment of ­others, potential stars ­w ill be less e­ ager to join your faculty. Thus, framing the accomplishments of the stars in terms of the benefits they bring the unit as a ­whole is good for the stars (as it acknowledges and articulates their importance to the institution) and good for the atmosphere and functioning of the department. Do this carefully, so you are not just adding to the star’s leverage for the next round of demands. If you do it well, you ­w ill encourage the star to take pride (bask, even) in benefitting the department, and you ­w ill establish a foundation from which to argue l­ater that a new form of special treatment that might be detrimental to the unit is not in the star’s interests, e­ ither. As an example, suppose that Professor Stellar attracts more top-­ quality students than she can ­handle alone. You’d welcome the influx of so much talent in the department, but you ­don’t want students to arrive with unrealistic hopes of working with Stellar and then become disappointed and disgruntled. It pays to think hard about how you can structure the student experience so that the star can still serve as a draw, and can also divert some of the applicants to other faculty members. This is a non-­trivial issue, which requires both management of perceptions and adroit logistical sleight of hand. Strategize carefully and lay the groundwork well in advance of launching such an endeavor. It can be a high-­risk, but also a high payoff, venture.

Colleagues

85

Ele­ments to manage include the star’s thinking, the faculty’s perceptions, and the ­actual experience of the students. Let’s consider the last item first: you’ll want the students to feel that in your department they receive an exemplary welcome and a first-­class education with a good placement ­after graduation—­plus access of some sort to Professor Stellar or at least her courses. If you can pull that off, every­one can emerge a winner. Stellar ­w ill feel impor­tant for attracting students and magnanimous for being a good citizen of the unit, other faculty and the overall unit w ­ ill reap myriad benefits from the presence of talented students, and the students ­w ill be pleased with their experience. As the department’s reputation for good students rises, it ­w ill attract more good students, its ratings are likely to improve, and so on. Of course, if Professor Stellar lords it over ­others, or other faculty treat the students as Stellar’s cast-­offs, this situation may be detrimental to quality. To avoid such a negative outcome, you need to prepare in advance to manage the department’s perception of whose idea the ­whole experiment is (hint: not yours), and to package the proposal carefully to each of the participants. For Stellar, you want to package the proposal as a chance for her to help the department: she can be the rising tide lifting all boats. The packaging w ­ ill also have to deal with the fact that for this good deed, she ­won’t receive individual acclamation. You may want to work on subtle ways to convey the idea that the truly superior intellect is so secure that it does not require public acknowl­edgment for ­every act. Or, you may want to emphasize the individual benefits that ­w ill accrue to her if the profile of the unit rises, while many of the potential demands on her time ­w ill be diverted to ­others. If you can manage to tie all of this to some tangible benefit you know she is seeking, all the better.

86

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

For the rest of the faculty (and ­here’s a delicate bit), you can pre­ sent the proposal as an opportunity to redefine the pool of students from which the department draws and to rethink the organ­ization of the student experience. Plant the concept of raising the student profile well in advance and get the unit as a ­whole to adopt it as a goal. Let it be someone e­ lse’s idea. Restructure admissions and the first year of gradu­ate experience to include rotations so that the students get to work with a number of faculty members. Start a jointly staffed seminar. But work on making the drag on the star (hassling with too many applicants all the time) into a benefit for the unit as a ­whole. And let the star feel privately pleased about the improvements. Initiatives of this nature can be risky. It’s pos­si­ble that your packaging of the situation w ­ on’t convince your star or o ­ thers on the faculty to see ­things your way. But such initiatives also have the potential to yield payoffs not achievable in any other fashion. If the issue i­sn’t the quality of students, you may be able to highlight your star in a seminar series, or in fund­rais­ing. Maybe your star would be good at—­and feel good about—­charming potential donors into endowing a fa­cil­i­ty that every­one in your unit could use or pursuing some other high-­profile activity that would benefit both the star and the rest of the department. It’s well worth spending some time thinking about ­things in this inside-­out way. RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS

­ very academic institution always has more in mind that it wants to E accomplish than its resources permit. Most unit heads feel “poor” and particularly feel that they do not have enough funds to reward and recognize p­ eople appropriately, or are constrained by negotiated agreements or university policy. What­ever your resource base, hold

Colleagues

87

in mind how much most ­people want to be seen as successful and to receive approval. As an academic leader, you control resources that indicate success and approval. Many of ­these are not monetary in nature, and they can even be intangible. If you orient yourself to thinking of such rewards as forms of remuneration as real as salaries, and you learn to use them strategically, you w ­ ill dramatically expand your area of positive influence, even in times of difficult bud­gets. What are the signs, in your unit, of a faculty member in ­favor? If someone is a rising star, is she invited to serve on the seminar committee? Included in dinners with faculty candidates? Asked to the dean’s sherry party? Introduced to visiting celebrities? Is his picture featured on the department web site, newsletter, or email blasts? Is her name on her letterhead? ­These are just a few of the perquisites that can count as coin of the realm. For faculty of lower status, contingent or non-­tenure track, just being able to attend faculty meetings or receive regular departmental bulletins would be a recognition of their membership in the unit. Many cost you ­little or nothing, and have a big impact on the faculty member. And you can bet that ­every member of your faculty, all the staff, most of the gradu­ate students, and a fair number of o ­ thers in your unit’s orbit know where each and e­ very person stands in the pecking order as indicated by the intangible rewards. During times of resource constraints and institutional reductions, the intangibles ­matter more than ever. Universities have remarkably few levels of ranks, and the productive faculty members achieve them fairly early in their working lives: the first promotion comes six or seven years out of the postdoc experience (increasingly) or gradu­ate school, and the next (final) promotion within ten years ­after that. ­Unless your university has a robust supply of endowed chairs or other awards, the remaining rewards are almost all external to the institution and / or intangible. You should,

88

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

of course, be sure to spend time and effort on nominating your good ­people for external recognition, and you should also award and withhold the intangible signs of ­favor in a strategic and purposeful way. ­Don’t have many such signs? Create some. Start a “tradition” of buying a new office chair or fancy monitor for the year’s most prolific publisher or the faculty member with the most diverse group of gradu­ate students. If you cannot afford a physical purchase, make a special bulletin board or put an orange sticker by the person’s name in the faculty roster in the main office or on your website. Make a genuine visit—­not as part of evaluation, simply to learn more about their work—to the labs or offices of faculty members. Recognize critical ser­v ice work by featuring it in a departmental newsletter. Equally—or maybe more—­impor­tant is that you never, never, never give that intangible reward to someone who is not contributing to the articulated goals and values of the department. The intangibles are more impor­tant than ever in times of uncertainty and when p­ eople are not able to gather. Consider what signals your unit is sending about its priorities and values: Is the most valued work featured on web pages? Are you sharing information evenly about the princi­ples and values that govern choices? Is ­there a place for ­those willing to consider changes—­even hard ones—to contribute to the pro­cess? Are opinions solicited? Choices and their implications laid out? One dean who saw major changes coming in the funding of the disciplines in his college made it a point to share funding and bud­get trends in ­every meeting, even when ­there ­were no pending, immediate decisions to be made. By bringing bud­get information to ­every single meeting and being open about the big picture, the dean educated members of the college about the changes in the larger environment and became more willing to consider change—­and many began making individual changes that cumulatively had a large effect.

Colleagues

89

Even when you do not know how the end game w ­ ill play out, transparency about the situation, the choices to be made, and the variables that ­w ill go into the decisions ­w ill assist with understanding, if not buy-in. Place information in the context of how the ­future ­w ill look, with as much realistic hope as pos­si­ble. When good p­ eople are affected by bud­get cuts, do all you can to provide dignity and re­ spect throughout the pro­cess, and offer what support you can in helping them in their next steps; even when it is painful to see their emotions, engage personally with them and offer your thanks for their ser­v ice. What­ever happens, though, do not let resource constraints be a reason to overlook bad be­hav­ior, even by ­those who are contributing resources. Seek out t­hose who are being constructive and form, as a good friend and colleague refers to it, “a co­a li­tion of the willing” to build a reshaped ­future. Keep in mind throughout how much personalized, meaningful, sincere praise means. Practice creative recognition of actions and contributions that make ­things better, even on the smallest scale. And, consistently withhold voluntary praise and recognition from the bad actors. It’s harder than you think, and also vastly more effective than you may anticipate. AND NOW FOR PROFESSOR STRASSE

What does all this discussion of the special challenges of the academic environment have to do with ­handling the prob­lem of Professor Strasse? Y ­ ou’ve already talked with him at least once about the complaints from students and parents about his intermixing of classic nudes with his calculus lessons and his less-­than-­civil responses to the students who objected. Now, it’s time to escalate your response.

90

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

First, be sure you ­aren’t sending him any mixed messages about his conduct. Withhold what­ever rewards you properly can while the ­matter is pending (seek ­legal or policy advice before ­doing this). Since you have received a number of complaints about his interactions with students, make sure you do not place him on your admissions committee or other interview committees. If he has asked to move to the newly equipped, high-­tech classroom, do not grant his request while ­these ­matters are unresolved. ­Doing so would send the wrong message: that he can generate complaints, wave off your concerns, and still get what he seeks. All too often in academia, leaders think they are sending discouraging signals, when in fact, they are sending mixed or reinforcing signals for be­hav­ior that is detrimental. Be alert to the messages your actions are sending and align them so they are consistent. You may or may not have sufficient information about the complaints against Professor Strasse. Seek support from your administrative structure about the proper ways to document student and parental complaints and bring them to a faculty member’s attention while still protecting student privacy, and what, if any, procedures must be invoked or discussed with the students. Strasse has the right to receive and to respond to the complaints u ­ nder any concept of fairness; now is the time for him to have the chance to do so, in writing. If, as is frequently the case, students (or their parents) are concerned about retaliation, sort through the complaints and see if any of them are from students from previous terms whose evaluation and grades are already complete. Is ­there a way to seek a representative sample of their experiences that could be informative and potentially useful? Use your institution’s prescribed pro­cess (policy and procedures can be your friends) and start sending consistent messages that you take t­hese ­matters seriously, and that respectful interactions are

Colleagues

91

not negotiable items in your environment. It’s perfectly reasonable to withhold the annual teaching award from a faculty member against whom more than fifteen complaints about abuse of students are pending—if you follow the proper procedure in so d­ oing, and if you have documented and pro­cessed the complaints in accordance with that procedure. If existing procedures do not allow you to withhold the award, consider w ­ hether you can, in good conscience, sign the nomination papers, or w ­ hether you w ­ ill simply forward them without your signature. Consider the symbolic as well as the explicit messages communicated by your acts. This situation may not resolve quickly. At the same time, acting on each ­matter, imposing consequences systematically, documenting them, and not rewarding bad be­hav­ior ­will have a cumulative effect. MOVING THE DEPARTMENT FORWARD

Let’s return to the opening scenario. Your se­n ior colleagues in their re­sis­tance to change have on their side inertia and their votes on tenure cases, as well as their ability to make departmental interactions uncomfortable. Your untenured colleagues are fearful of speaking up, with good reason. Your task is to build co­a li­t ions and seek to change the environment, no easy tasks u ­ nder the best of circumstances. The first t­hing to know is that this is a team sport, not an individual endeavor. Figure out who might be on your team. The first questions to consider are which changes hold potential benefits for which members of the department. Is t­here a shared interest among some members, perhaps along research fields or methods, for instance, in new courses that might fit into some of the new campus curricular innovations? If you can build a positive co­a li­t ion, perhaps by finding specific interests that could be addressed through new course possibilities—­especially if you might be able to secure

92

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

some campus funding if your unit has a proposal—­it’s pos­si­ble you might be able to build a co­a li­t ion that crosses lines of age and rank. Not so coincidentally, that might introduce some fracture lines into the solid voting bloc the se­n ior faculty have maintained ­until now. Think creatively and broadly h ­ ere: do an inventory of the interests of each faculty member. If you d­ idn’t do this when you took up your new responsibilities, consider a listening tour of the department, visiting each faculty and key staff member in their office or lab. Warn ­people in advance that y­ ou’re ­going to do this, perhaps by mentioning it at a faculty meeting. If you do it for some, do it for every­one. Set expectations that you w ­ ill listen, not make decisions. You are taking in information so you can do your job supporting the work of the unit more effectively. Ask each person the same two or three open-­ended questions: What most excites you about the work y­ ou’re d­ oing? What would help the most in achieving your goals? What stands in the way? (If you can work it in, two additional useful questions are: Are our faculty meetings a good use of your time? What would make them better?) Listen to the answers intently. Make notes ­after each visit and then look for themes and common threads. While ­you’re ­doing that, see if you can find one or two rules or pro­cesses that are annoying ­people in the department and that are susceptible to change: perhaps a procedure that has become unduly cumbersome, or is outdated, maybe not even necessary anymore. You may hear about a pro­cess that gets ­under the skin of a lot of p­ eople that you may be able to change. A common example is something that has, over successive pro­cess revisions, come to ease one staff member’s life at the cost of extra time of many other unit members. Is ­there a new university online system that takes excessive time from a number of individuals, say a system for entering reimbursements or ordering textbooks or grant submissions, that you can rearrange

Colleagues

93

staff duties to reduce? You ­w ill buy tremendous good will if you can find even one time-­saver or reduce one continual irritation. Make sure the staff member who takes this on understands how valuable it is and do what­ever you can to have two or three p­ eople (at least) express appreciation for the relief provided to the staff member directly. Calendar a reminder to yourself to thank the person now and again for their ser­v ice to the department. If you can, do so publicly now and then. Make the rounds and connect the improvement to other change efforts to insert the idea that not all change need be negative or costly. Think about who among the ju­nior faculty could be in the strongest positions to join a co­a li­tion: Are ­there any among the untenured faculty who are voices of reason, have very strong dossiers, would be hard to oppose for tenure, or are already u ­ nder consideration and whose cases have already moved past your departmental vote? Does your college or university have a tenure pro­cess that considers cases on their merits even if voices in your department unwarrantedly oppose them? Can you and the dean ensure a level playing field if ju­n ior faculty speak up? Meanwhile, think about how your departmental meetings go when the new initiatives from the campus are discussed. Is it pos­ si­ble to make over your meeting procedures to streamline them and make better use of the time of your faculty? Time is the irreplaceable resource and no one has enough. If you have heard a common set of themes about faculty meetings in your individual meetings, raise them. If not, think about a set of procedures that might reduce time (and unpleasantness) at faculty meetings. Look through the advice on ­r unning meetings in Chapter 2, and make sure that your group meetings are devoted to the kinds of t­hings that happen best in groups—­not the worst. Focus on making sure that meetings contain substantive, grounded discussions based on information provided

94

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

in advance. Focus on pos­si­ble action items and decisions, not just open debate. Reduce time for on-­the-­fly ideas (“Oh, remember? All new topics need to be proposed in time to be on the agenda that goes out a week in advance of the meetings. I’ll note that for next time.”) and always discourage ad hominem comments or attacks. Consider ­whether you can build a co­a li­tion to move the department to secret ballot voting on as many items as pos­si­ble: if it becomes the new normal, that can help reduce the cost—­for all—of speaking up and facing opprobrium or retaliation from the old guard. Take a plan for shifting the overall culture to your dean and enlist the dean’s help, making it clear that this is to help move the department in the direction of the dean’s and provost’s (and president’s) new initiatives. Ask for assistance: it could be supporting some joint appointments (with voting rights!) of existing or new se­n ior faculty who have personalities that might help dilute the mix of personalities opposed to change in your department, finding an out-­of-­the unit critical task force for one of your intransigent se­n ior faculty to be involved with full-­time for a while, or even making the case for a new se­nior hire. The goal is to change the environment by affecting the mix of voices at your faculty meetings. Be creative. Bear in mind what may happen to your department if it is only oppositional, if the campus-­w ide initiatives are not ephemeral or likely to pass with the next se­n ior leadership change. The department ­w ill become more and more peripheral to policy and bud­get discussions and more likely to be acted upon rather than have a voice in changes that affect its f­uture. ­Whether they feel it or not, your pre-­tenure faculty are the ­future of your department and your field. Do all you can to support their success at the highest levels: make sure they have a network of mentors, not just one assigned, pro forma figure. Set up peer mentoring in your department or campus for p­ eople at the same level to share tips

Colleagues

95

and information. Inside your field, help your ju­n ior colleagues to create networks. Do what you, or colleagues, can do to introduce them and their work to key figures in the field who are likely to be called upon to assess their work at tenure time. Help support their attendance at key conferences, and nominate them for events where their work can get visibility. The stronger the ju­n ior faculty are professionally, and the more you are their ally, the more likely you are to achieve an internal departmental atmosphere and critical mass of support for building a strong ­future. That’s the essence of your role. Support and maintain a culture of excellence so that all members of your unit, students and faculty alike, can achieve at their highest levels of productivity. Your department, your college, and the world need their talents.

4 COMPLAINTS Your undergraduate studies director tells you that students have been complaining about a certain class all semester. The number and quality of the complaints are unpre­ce­dented in her experience. The class is taught by Professor Holdover, who has held the rank of associate professor in your department for twenty-­t hree years. His teaching evaluations have been average to low for some time, but the new complaints are unusual. The students say that he often lectures for as much as forty minutes before mentioning any material relevant to the class. The course is required and it is a prerequisite for another required class next semester. The second course is taught by one of your top teachers, who is both dynamic and very demanding. The students worry that they are not learning enough from Professor Holdover’s class to do well in the next one. You have also heard from one of your gradu­ate students that a gradu­ate seminar taught by Holdover is “a complete waste of time.” ­Today, three undergraduate students come directly to your office from Holdover’s class. They reported that the professor took offense at something a student said and began berating the class in a very loud voice for being “impertinent, ignorant, and irredeemable.” He told them they ­were wasting his time and that he could no longer lecture to students who clearly could not grasp the material. He then adjourned class for ten minutes, wrote an exam, and delivered it. It covered the next three weeks’ worth of material, and the students are very concerned about its effect on their grades. They think Professor Holdover was drunk or other­w ise impaired.

Complaints

97

It’s a well-­kept secret that administrative work is a lot like raising ­children: if you recognize that it’s your job to set the tone and the bound­aries, look to the long-­term outcome, and exercise patience, ­things go more smoothly than if you let your frustrations show. If ­you’re cheerful and optimistic, and figure that most prob­lems can be solved, ­people around you ­w ill pick up that attitude, too, and the prob­lems are more likely to be solved. LISTENING WELL

Good listening is particularly impor­tant when ­people are making complaints. In addition to ensuring that all participants are talking about the same t­ hings (not a trivial concern, as you w ­ ill know if you have sat through meetings where each person who speaks seems to focus on a dif­fer­ent issue), listening carefully is a way of acknowledging that every­one has a right to be heard. P ­ eople who feel they are being heard are more likely to be receptive to your responses, even when you cannot give them the answers they want. You can defuse many situations by devoting time at the beginning to being sure you accurately and fully understand what each person is saying. Thus, when someone brings you a complaint, apply your complete repertoire of listening skills: use effective listening to elicit the ­whole story, and echo it back to make sure you understand it before you make any response or formulate any actions. (­There is more on this in Chapter 5.) You may think this advice falls into the “easier said than done” category—­and it is critical. SETTING BOUND­A RIES

Remember the god Janus and the importance of good bound­aries? Bound­aries ­matter at least as much when you are an authority figure receiving a complaint as in other aspects of your job. You w ­ ill need bound­aries for time, topics, and confidence.

98

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Many ­people ­w ill seek your guidance about prob­lems that you d­ idn’t cause and may not be able to fix. If you have the time to spend listening, that’s g­ reat. It’s more likely that you’ll need to set limits on the time you devote to such discussion. A useful practice is to make clear at the outset that you only have a certain amount of time to listen right now, and that another meeting can be arranged if necessary. Offer a starting and ending time for that appointment period, too. If you are in the ­m iddle of something when someone comes to you with a prob­lem, or if you have other obligations and cannot meet immediately, do not hesitate to ask the person to set a l­ater appointment. Express interest in the topic, and say you want to discuss when you have time to give it your full attention; then excuse yourself. One good way to bring an in-­person interaction to a close is to stand up and walk the person out of your office. (If that ­doesn’t work, consider a visit to the rest­room—­especially if bathrooms in your building are gendered and the person ­doesn’t use the one you do. Only once in my entire c­ areer have I been followed into a w ­ omen’s room by a man.) Failing that option, if the situation is becoming dire, consider putting on your coat, g­ oing to your car, and d­ oing an errand, or at least driving around the block before returning to your office. In conversations in other settings, from email and phone to online meetings, it is useful to have on hand some prepared words—­ personal scripts—­you have used and practiced to bring ­things to a close. In meetings or telephone calls, especially if you anticipate difficulty disconnecting, announce a time limit up front. “I’m booked tightly ­today, so I can only talk ­until 11:30. Let’s see what we can get done in the time we have.” Or just, “I’m sorry I d­ on’t have more time t­oday.” In email, it can be helpful to reflect understanding of the content, indicate that the topic has been thoroughly explored, and ­either indicate disagreement or signal closure of the topic. “Thanks, got it.” “It sounds like we have dif­fer­ent views on this.” As always, if

Complaints

99

your conduct is extending the email exchange, adapt your own conduct: ­don’t respond as frequently, respond only briefly, or not at all. Beyond time-­based bound­aries, it’s also useful to develop a concept of topical bound­aries. Be wary of confusing personal and professional roles. You can be cordial and warm without offering or ­receiving confidences that are more appropriately shared with friends, ­family members, or therapists. If ­people come to you seeking advice on personal issues refer them to resources such as the campus counseling ser­vice; do not take on the advice-­g iving role yourself. In turn, establish your own good bound­aries and keep your personal prob­ lems out of the workplace, especially when talking to t­ hose who are lower than you on the power curve. Bear in mind when you are receiving a complaint the importance of collecting facts as you listen. As appropriate, ask what evidence is available and get copies of what­ever the person has brought to show you. As you do so, however, take care not to violate another kind of boundary: do not convey the idea that the person should go forth and act as an in­de­pen­dent investigator ferreting out information. It must be clear that you are taking the information as part of your complaint-­receipt pro­cess, not deputizing the complainant to go on a fact-­finding mission. Fi­nally, practice bound­aries around privacy and confidences. Unhappy p­ eople ­w ill sometimes tell you ­things you (and they) l­ater wish they ­hadn’t. (How much did you ­really want to know about her ex-­husband’s peculiar sexual habits?) When that happens, you may have an impulse to talk about their situation with someone ­else, ­either to help you work out a good approach to the situation or simply to express your amazement at the range of h ­ uman conduct. Curb that impulse to the maximum pos­si­ble extent. If you must seek counsel, find the most discreet person you can, preferably someone outside your immediate professional context, or someone who has a professional

100

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

obligation to keep the confidence. Academic departments are very small communities, and even veiled comments can travel over the grapevine in ways that w ­ ill be damaging both to the person who offered the confidence and to your own reputation. Cultivate a reputation for trustworthiness by keeping confidences. The more you establish trustworthiness in this key re­spect, the more it w ­ ill redound to your advantage: p­ eople who are trusted are more likely to be able to introduce innovations and effect change. ­There is some information, though, that you cannot keep confidential, no m ­ atter how you come by it, and the sooner you can come to terms with this unpleasant real­ity, the better. ­There are laws and institutional policies that w ­ ill set bound­a ries on confidences you cannot re­spect, as well as some professional ethical mandates. If your role requires you to act upon what you hear—­for example, if someone tells you that ­human subjects are being mistreated in an experiment (a real example out of my own past), or that one member of your department is being sexually harassed by another—­make it clear to your in­for­mant that you w ­ ill be unable to keep that information confidential. Say whom you must tell and why. Offer to protect the source only if d­ oing so is truly within your power. More often than ­w ill be comfortable for you, it may not be. KEY SENTENCES AND PERSONAL SCRIPTS

A longtime colleague of mine prepares for ­every contentious meeting by knowing what her first sentence is g­ oing to be. If she knows that, she says, she can wing it from ­there. Over time, I’ve built on this concept to encompass the idea of building a repertoire of personal scripts ­we’ve visited already. While you may not know which complaints ­w ill arise when, you can count on complaints coming to you. Personal scripts for complaints are thus impor­tant to consider before

Complaints

101

you need them. Say Josip Kal, a staff member, comes to you with a complaint about Professor Chandler: “What action do you seek from me?” If Josip is distraught or extremely upset, you may need to keep repeating this question. If his first reaction is overstated or unrealistic, you may need a variation that can help ground the conversation in real­ity. “What action that is within my power to grant are you seeking?” The goal is to set bound­aries on both your time and the topic, as well as to focus on the desired outcome. You may be surprised at how ­little he actually wants from you or how ­simple the prob­lem is to resolve. If the person simply seeks to be heard, and neither wants nor expects you to take action, it is best to confirm that directly. Often, talking through the prob­lem w ­ ill help the person recognize a way to approach the prob­lem him-­or herself. If, however, Josip does seek action from you, elicit the clearest pos­si­ble statement of what he wants. In that case, a second sentence, or script, is often useful.

to you, I need to find out what the other ­people involved have to say. I ­will get back to you ­after I have done that.” This is an application of one of the most critical guidelines for ­handling complaints, namely that you should never act ­after hearing only one side of a story. (And sometimes, no action at all is the best response.) T ­ here are at least two sides to ­every story. You can stress that you have no reason not to believe what Josip told you, and that you have an obligation to hear more, from Professor Chandler and anyone ­else involved, before deciding what to do. Fair warning: this is not an appreciated or liked real­ity. You may get pushback asking if ­you’re accusing the person of lying. (“I just told you what happened! Are you calling me a liar?”) If that happens, stay calm and point out “JUST AS I LISTENED CAR EFULLY

102

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

how fairness demands reciprocity: “Just as I would never act on a ­matter affecting you without speaking with you, I w ­ ill not act on a ­matter affecting Ryan without speaking to Ryan.” Give Josip some indication of when you expect to get back to him, and if gathering the information takes longer than you expect, notify him of the delay. Ignorance breeds pessimism, and while you may know the cause of the delay is benign (you teach all day Tuesday and have a commitment that eve­ning; Chandler teaches all day Wednesday, rushes from class to the airport, and ­doesn’t return ­until Monday), Josip, waiting in some anxiety for a response, may be imagining many malignant reasons (you ­don’t believe a word he said; Chandler has clout in the department and is badmouthing him . . .). “You need to do what you need to do.” Some variation of this sentence is a good response to a person—­say it’s Josip Kal again—­who threatens to sue the university, or you, or every­one you ever met. Emphasize that you remain willing to work with the person to resolve the prob­lem within the department but do nothing that indicates that you are ­either afraid of or seeking out a lawsuit; simply make the bound­aries of your ability to act as clear as pos­si­ble. It is not your job to provide advice or counsel to someone wishing to pursue l­egal options, or even to consult on w ­ hether to obtain l­egal advice. Explain that you ­don’t h ­ andle l­egal complaints and see if ­there are other items that you and Josip can constructively discuss. A useful script is to acknowledge that seeking l­egal recourse is that person’s choice, and that, if ­there is a prob­lem, ­there are none more interested in correcting it than you are. Offer another entry point if the person is somehow uncomfortable with you, perhaps an ombuds office or grievance officers. Call the university’s l­awyer to explain the situation as soon as the meeting is over if you think ­legal consequences are a real possibility.

Complaints

103

GUIDELINES FOR H ­ ANDLING COMPLAINTS

With t­ hese scripts internalized and ready for use, h ­ ere are the guidelines for h ­ andling complaints: ­Don’t take it personally. Do not get defensive when p­ eople complain, and do not jump to conclusions about their c­ auses or solutions. When someone—­let’s say it’s Professor Dalton this time—­comes to you with a prob­lem or complaint, explore ­whether she actually seeks any action from you (remember the key sentences or scripts) or ­whether talking with you ­w ill be enough for the time being. Thank her for reporting the prob­lem—­and be sincere about that: it’s better you know about it than you ­don’t, even if it turns out to be a misunderstanding—­and then set about collecting the facts. Keep your demeanor cordial and courteous. Aim for understatement, not emphatic rhe­toric. If you find yourself tempted to say “That’s the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard,” bite your tongue, and ­don’t speak ­until ­you’re translated your response into something softer and more appropriate to your role: “I am not sure I understand this; ­will you explain it again for me?” Remember that in your leadership role, you may need to ­handle issues you would prefer ­weren’t your prob­lem. While some issues may go away if ignored, the serious ones rarely do. And ­those are almost always more easily resolved when caught early. Thus, you need to find out what Professor Dalton is seeking as eco­nom­ically as pos­si­ble (in time as well as emotional energy), determine who is the appropriate person to act (if action is called for at all), and use the second ­ atter . . .”). Then key sentence (“I must find out how o­ thers perceive this m go on to the next step, one I’ve mentioned before. Never act on a complaint without hearing (at least) two sides to the story. Most complaints and prob­lems stem from dif­fer­ent perceptions of the same situation or subsets of the same facts. Arm yourself with as

104

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

complete a sense of the circumstances as you can get before you commit to a course of action. Do not accuse ­people when you ask; simply inform them in a low-­key way that a prob­lem has been brought to your attention and you seek to collect basic information on it. What “every­body knows, nobody knows.” This is a corollary to the preceding precept. If Professor Dalton tells you about a prob­lem and asserts that “every­body knows” it is happening, this is a good time to start asking what she herself knows about it, and also for dates, times, places, and the names of other p­ eople who have relevant information. It is remarkable how many widely known “truths” have no factual basis, and are instead rooted in an adult version of the kids’ game “telephone.” That’s the game in which one person whispers a sentence to another, who passes it along to the next, u ­ ntil the last person in the chain says it out loud: rarely is the final version very similar to the original sentence. Be wary of anything “every­body knows.” When in doubt, leave it out. If the sentence about to come out of your mouth begins “I know you ­won’t like hearing this, but . . .” or if your better judgment tells you not to say something, ­don’t say it. This rule also applies to written communications. Short is better than long in contentious situations. The more words you offer, the more ­there is to nitpick. Emphasize facts and decisions, ask quiet questions, and avoid explanations of motives. Never attribute to malice that which incompetence or miscommunication ­will explain. We are far too quick to attribute bad motives to o ­ thers: most of the time, bad t­hings happen through inattention, inaction, or miscommunication. (Social psychologists have a wonderful term for this—­the “sinister attribution bias.”) This is especially the case in email or social media interactions, where the inflection, tone, and body language that can soften words in person are absent. Quite

Complaints

105

often, when it first appears someone is being offensive, it turns out we ­haven’t understood the entire context or intent. The first step when concerned about a situation is to ask for clarification, “Is this right?” or “I’m not sure I understand; can you help me?” or “How does this fit with our decision to do X?” Another useful technique is to repeat back what you have heard the person say u ­ ntil ­you’ve got it right. Remember your listening skills? Bring them out now. Sometimes, miscommunication is complicating the situation. At other times, more rarely in my experience, something is truly amiss and requires action. Asking first, and applying the golden rule (“Do unto o ­ thers as you would have ­others do unto you”), ­will together resolve an extraordinary number of apparent prob­lems. In t­oday’s heterogenous world, a slight amendment to the golden rule may also help you out: “do unto ­others as you would have them do unto you, and do it in a way that signals re­spect to them.” Say what you’ll do and do what you say; set the time frame. Once y­ ou’ve de­cided upon a course of action, even if it’s just to talk to vari­ous ­people to gather information, follow through on it. Nothing ­will compromise your credibility more than to make commitments you do not fulfill or to declare bound­aries you do not enforce. Just as some parents unintentionally train their c­ hildren to have temper tantrums in grocery stores by offering them a candy bar if t­hey’ll calm down, you too ­will train ­people to behave inappropriately if you show them that by ­doing so they can get you to bend or break announced rules. For example, e­ very now and then, you may encounter a person who has become a committed filer of grievances—­who seeks ­every pos­si­ble waiver or exception and makes e­ very rebuff the basis for a formal grievance. If, out of exhaustion or a wish for a s­imple solution, you grant an exception or waiver to such a person when you normally would not, you may find that you have simply reinforced

106

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

the habit of filing grievances, and made your job harder, rather than easier. In the absence of facts, p­ eople make them up. Remember: ignorance breeds pessimism. That is, when p­ eople are distraught or worried, they usually imagine ­things that are worse than the real­ity. ­Don’t leave them hanging, waiting for a response, for long periods of time. (The definition of a “long” period of time ­w ill vary proportionately with how upset the person is.) Form the practice of telling p­ eople what steps you w ­ ill take; when you w ­ ill get back to them; and that you ­w ill notify them if your concept of the time frame shifts. Then stick to your word. You may also want to invite the person to contact you if circumstances, including their own anxiety levels, change in any way before you are scheduled to respond. Keep notes. You ­don’t have to transcribe meetings word for word, but when p­ eople complain to you, you should have some reasonably orderly system for noting the date, who was pre­sent, the gist of the information presented to you, and any action you promise. The longer you leave m ­ atters unrecorded, the more creative l­ater renditions w ­ ill become. Contemporaneous notes are much more useful than subsequent re-­creations. If a prob­lem escalates and comes u ­ nder scrutiny from an external agency or becomes the subject of a lawsuit, ­these notes may ­later be made public or be given to o ­ thers through freedom of information acts, laws permitting employees to inspect personnel rec­ords, or the discovery pro­cess associated with lawsuits. That possibility does not mean you s­houldn’t take and keep notes; it merely makes it all the more impor­tant that the notes be confined to factual ­matters. ­These notes are not the place to rec­ord stray judgments or editorial comments about the complaint or the p­ eople involved. An attorney representing a university in a sticky case once told me about a department head’s notes of a pivotal telephone call that contained comments

Complaints

107

like “what a jerk!” and a drawing of a firing squad. Do not put yourself in such a position. Another form of note is useful as well: It’s a good idea to send the person with whom you met a short note—on paper or by email—­ confirming that the meeting occurred and sketching out what was said. It might read something like this: “Thank you for coming to see me. I found it useful to hear about your concerns. As I said in our meeting, I ­w ill seek more information about this situation b­ ecause I had no previous knowledge of it. I expect to get back to you by next Thursday. If ­there is any change in this schedule, I’ll notify you.” Trust your instincts if you are fearful. When you feel anxious about dealing with a situation, pay attention to the feeling and call upon someone from the appropriate university office for advice and / or help. ­There are many kinds of discomfort and anxiety that attend the ­handling of complaints: the general unpleasantness, not knowing what to expect, the hard conversations that may be involved—­the list is long. I’m not talking about a general disinclination to take the next step or even dread of the coming meeting. What I’m talking about is being afraid, ­whether for your safety or for that of someone ­else. Fear is a visceral and primitive instinct. If you are afraid, trust the instinct and do not suppress it out of worry that your concerns might be groundless. Sometimes, fear stems from otherness or unpredictability. If you are uncomfortable with someone b­ ecause they are dif­fer­ent from you, or are acting in ways you had not expected, this does not necessarily mean they are dangerous or mean you harm. It is worth understanding what is causing you fear and to act accordingly. The consultation I’m advising can help you differentiate that phenomenon from something far more serious to which you should pay attention. I once served as the hearing officer in a situation in which the grievant kept diverting his testimony to the multiple qualifications

108

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

on dif­fer­ent weapons that he had earned during his military ser­v ice. ­A fter consulting with the university’s police department and learning that he had a license for firearms, I made sure that e­ very subsequent meeting took place in a building that had security screening at entrances. It’s not foolish to worry when someone talks to you about his attack dogs or is physically or verbally threatening. ­Don’t take a chance. Most academic institutions have p­ eople whose job it is to deal with such prob­lems and ­people, who ­w ill be able to help you—­but only if you call upon them. No one w ­ ill think less of you for asking, and it is far better to be safe (or even to feel foolish) than to be sorry. Some prob­lems require formal pro­cess. ­There are some situations you should not try to ­handle informally or on your own. Virtually all formal personnel actions (reprimands, discipline, terminations, and so on) fall into this category, as do areas in which you are a mandated reporter. For t­ hose ­matters, seek advice from the professionals in your institution who have responsibility in the relevant area, ­whether they are l­awyers, ­human resources staff, or other administrators. Beyond that, use formal pro­cess if the situation or prob­lem has any of ­these characteristics:



• it includes ­people who are extremely volatile, • features unusually large power differential—­for ­example, a starting student is complaining about the conduct of a star faculty member, • has deep roots (when ­people start to tell you about it, the first event they want to describe is five or ten years ago), • the allegations, if true, are serious or possibly criminal, or • involves sexual relationships.

For vari­ous reasons, situations like ­these are so complex and so fraught with possibilities for bad outcomes that you ­w ill benefit from the application—­a nd protection—of prescribed procedures. Soon ­after, or even before, beginning your new job, it’s impor­tant to fa-

Complaints

109

miliarize yourself with applicable rules and procedures and to get acquainted with the resource ­people on your campus. T ­ hose helpful ­people may be in an employee assistance program, a h ­ uman resources office, a counseling center, the dean’s or the provost’s office. Find out who they are and what they have to offer before you have a serious prob­lem on your hands. Take a witness with you. ­There are also circumstances in which you should not meet with a person one-­on-­one. When ­people are ­under stress, the presence of a third party can help you keep the tone balanced and provide an additional recollection of the conversation: even innocuous statements made in such circumstances have the potential to be mis-­or over-­interpreted. It pays to have a third participant at a meeting when emotions are r­ unning high, when you are delivering bad news, when the individual with whom you are meeting is volatile, or when you have reason to think the person has selective hearing. If ­you’ve found, with a par­tic­u­lar person, that saying “I ­can’t make any promises, but I w ­ ill look into the situation” turns into “You promised to change that,” then do not meet with that person alone again. If someone has a history of turning against ­those who have tried to help (for example, by filing charges against them), then d­ on’t meet with that person alone. Have a witness to what was actually said—­and both you and your witness should take notes at the meeting or immediately afterward. Be careful whom you invite as a witness. Confidentiality is impor­tant to consider as well as how the person complaining ­w ill perceive your choice. Another administrator is a good choice—­a ­human resource professional, for example. RETALIATION CHARGES

Complaints of retaliation comprise a substantial category of lawsuits against universities. In such cases, even if a complaint is ultimately found to be with or without merit, the person who brought it may

110

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

still sue, claiming that he or she was mistreated as a result of filing the complaint. This puts an extra burden on you to warn all participants in ­these situations that they must not have any interactions with the complainant while the complaint is pending, or during the review or investigation pro­cess. This ­w ill run c­ ounter to what the accused person wants to do, which is to confront the accuser right away. Your job w ­ ill be to make sure that no action that affects the status of the person bringing the complaint happens without l­egal review and blessings. This is much harder than it sounds, ­because not only does this mean that you w ­ ill have to review personnel or student actions—­ reassignment, termination, dismissal, discipline, or the like—­that may have been ­under way when the complaint was filed (and that might well have triggered the complaint), but you may also need to calm down your department members and educate them about the danger of being drawn into the proceedings if the complainant perceives they are making nasty comments, mean looks, and so on. As with so many aspects of ­these prob­lems, ­there are some fine lines: I recall a w ­ oman complaining that her coworkers w ­ ere retaliating against her ­because they ­didn’t invite her out to lunch with them ­a fter she filed discrimination charges against a popu­lar supervisor who had taken disciplinary action against her that was widely supported. This is not retaliation: the other employees had the right to associate as they saw fit (they w ­ ere not paid over the lunch hour). If any of them had supervisory responsibilities for the ­woman, though, it could have been seen as retaliation. It is absolutely essential that the person against whom the complaints are filed does nothing that is seen as hostile or adverse to the person who complained. The more you can maintain the status quo regarding the complainant ­until the pro­cess is over, the better. If changes that affect the person who files the complaint must be made, make them only with l­egal advice.

Complaints

111

IS REHABILITATION POS­S I­B LE?

If a review of a person’s conduct yields a finding that rules have been broken, especially if the violations are serious, it is critical to assess the violator’s attitude before deciding what action to take. Educational institutions should believe in the values of forgiveness and rehabilitation, and should apply them in a clear-­sighted way. In many circumstances, you may feel an intuitive identification with the violator, especially if that person is young, has much in common with you, or has received many years of advanced training. Your impulse ­w ill be to preserve the person’s ­career, if pos­si­ble. As you consider your pos­si­ble actions, keep in mind the dangers of false or misguided compassion. Of course it makes sense to give extra chances to the young, especially in an educational institution— and compassion is misguided when it shields ­people from the consequences of their own bad choices and bad be­hav­ior (especially when the bad be­hav­ior is repeated), or when it penalizes someone ­else. Granting an extra chance to a person with marginal qualifications or achievements is likely to leave a more qualified person without a seat in an educational program or a chance at a tenured position. Misguided compassion is also likely to cost time and money. Remarkably often, a person who is granted an exception against good practice and good judgment ­w ill become a repeat customer. By the time you fi­nally do draw the line with such a person, the prob­lem ­w ill be much more difficult to h ­ andle than it would have been if you had applied the rules even-­handedly all along. Even worse, allowing exceptions to well-­designed rules may, over time, make ­those rules unenforceable, and it may open the institution to claims that exceptions are granted arbitrarily or in a discriminatory fashion. If a rule is so harsh in its effect that t­hose in authority are constantly seeking

112

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

ways to avoid enforcing it, it is far better to re-­examine and revise the rule than to apply it on an ad hoc basis. Make it your business to stimulate the re-­examination pro­cess leading to a revision of the policy so outcomes are more nuanced and appropriate. Besides scrutinizing your own impulses, you must also consider four questions about the rule breaker’s attitude before deciding how lenient or how punitive to be:







• Does the transgressor understand the offense? That is, does he understand what the rule means, why it exists, and why it ­matters that it was broken? Or is the transgressor’s response that the rule did not r­ eally m ­ atter, or that it only applied to o ­ thers? • Does the rule-­breaker accept responsibility? Or does she claim that her action was someone ­else’s fault—­that the administrator, the student, the colleagues, or the system imposed so many pressures that the rule had to be broken? Without ac­cep­tance that she is responsible for her own conduct, rehabilitation cannot take place. • Has the violator expressed remorse for breaking the rule, or taken any action to prevent recurrence or to apologize? Or is he mostly sorry he got caught? • Has the wrongdoer taken any steps to make up for the wrong?

While t­here are clear cultural components to our expectations in t­ hese circumstances, in American society and many o ­ thers, second chances predicated on this being a teachable moment require that the person takes responsibility, expresses remorse, and describes how rehabilitation / change w ­ ill occur in the f­uture (how I w ­ on’t do this again), and where pos­si­ble, provides recompense. Think of ­these as the “four Rs.” Thus it is impor­tant that the transgressor make a state-

Complaints

113

ment that is clear on all four of t­ hese grounds. It might be something like this: I made a serious ­m istake when I omitted data points from my preliminary report. I’m sorry I did that, and I am especially sorry that it caused so much trou­ble for the lab. I have learned not only that my notebook m ­ atters, but that how I communicate with my colleagues and collaborators is also an impor­tant part of my work. I ­w ill follow your recommendation [specify ­these] for changing the way I work. I know I cost every­one a lot of time, and I ­w ill work over spring break to try to help us catch up.

Anything short of that kind of clear statement—­especially if it includes components like “But ­others did the same ­thing” or “The lab was such a mess that I c­ ouldn’t help it”—­does not bode well, and in fact likely indicates that if you chose leniency, you may be inviting recidivism. If a transgressor fails to accept responsibility, express remorse for violating a rule, or cooperate in offering recompense, a rehabilitation plan ­w ill be a waste of time. In that situation, the institution should consider imposing a meaningful penalty, with the goal of reinforcing its overall ethical environment: the message to all department members should not be that crime does pay, ­after all. In all of ­these situations, think about what a college is trying to achieve from the perspective of its multiple constituencies. In its educational mission, it must do more than provide topic-­specific instruction and training. Undergraduates care about the totality of their experience, especially on residential campuses, including being consistently treated with re­spect. Gradu­ate education must provide the tools for students to undertake a complex transformation from being consumers of knowledge to becoming creators of knowledge. This requires personalized guidance throughout a student’s time at the

114

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

university. Faculty and professional employees d­ on’t just care about their paychecks, they also seek in­ter­est­ing colleagues, good facilities, and intellectual stimulation. All employees care about fair and even-­ handed treatment. External constituencies seek value for their investments in the institution (­whether through state allocations for public colleges and universities or through national research funding across all universities), and they seek accountability. Alumni want to be proud of their home institution, not see its scandals in the news. The list could go on. This multiplicity of constituencies means that it is worthwhile thinking in a very broad sense about what constitutes an ethical environment, and how to meet ­those expectations. The good news is that a ­little common sense goes a long way in dealing with prob­lems, especially if you apply this chapter’s tips and guidelines consistently. When you lapse, d­ on’t beat yourself up; accept that you goofed and fix what can be fixed. Think of it this way: the job is hard ­because it’s hard, not ­because ­you’re defective. And as part of your new expertise at maintaining such bound­aries, try not to take the prob­lems home with you. PROFESSOR HOLDOVER’S TEACHING

So what can you do about Professor Holdover’s ramblings and erratic be­hav­ior in the classroom? ­There are a number of issues and stakeholders to identify in this situation before you proceed. ­There are educational issues, questions of the academic freedom of a tenured faculty member, fairness, and complex ­matters of pro­cess and questions of pro­cess and questions of applicable policies. The first order of business is to decide what to say to the students who have come to see you, as they are likely to press you for commitments or assurances before they leave your office. They ­w ill be concerned about retaliation if Professor Holdover learns they are

Complaints

115

complaining, and they ­will also want to know what you ­will do about their grades in the course. While you can seek other sources of information about the prob­lems in the course, it is likely that the professor w ­ ill have to be told their names at some point in the pro­cess. You need to say something to prepare them for this eventuality; d­ on’t give them the impression you’ll keep their identities confidential. ­A fter y­ ou’re sure y­ ou’ve heard all their concerns—­using your best listening skills—­you’ll need personal script number two, in which you tell them you need to talk with ­others before you can act. Give a time and date when you w ­ ill meet with them again, and do your best to leave them feeling reassured that you w ­ ill be getting back to them. Among other ­things, you’d like to be sure they leave the ­matter in your hands for at least a short period before they start taking their complaints elsewhere. You w ­ ill want to confer with the undergraduate studies director—­and fairly quickly, as in this situation you must prepare to meet with Professor Holdover as soon as pos­si­ble. You should consult with your campus contact for ­legal or h ­ uman resources issues, as the students raised a pos­si­ble issue of substance abuse or impairment, which is a red flag for getting ­legal advice before acting. Prepare in advance for your talk with Professor Holdover, ­because you w ­ ill want to keep the first conversation focused on your agenda and not be deflected to other topics, such as the students’ shortcomings. What w ­ ill your first sentence be? How w ­ ill you open the conversation? As soon as you mention that students have expressed concerns, you are likely to encounter righ­teous indignation and a demand to know exactly who is complaining. So, while that fact needs to come into the conversation at a fairly early stage, it’s a good idea to work on rapport-­building for a few minutes at the beginning of the conversation. If you start by asking how the semester is ­going, you may elicit helpful information. Maybe his conduct was a cry for help in

116

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

some way; maybe h ­ e’ll tell you that he’s not feeling well, or open the topic of his classroom be­hav­ior himself. You ­will be surprised—­and helped—by what you learn if you listen before you talk. If your opening does not elicit information, use your prepared and practiced personal script about the complaint, as well as words for your response when he asks who is complaining. The practice is essential, both for your access to the words in the face of high emotion and for assuring the words you have chosen convey what you intend: practice with someone who ­w ill tell you if ­you’re being too indirect. If you are willing to provide the names, (and have told the students you may do so), do so and go on. If you’d rather not reveal the names at this point, be prepared with exact words for your refusal. E ­ ither way, it w ­ ill be up to you to ensure that the conversation does not get hijacked by Holdover’s outrage at how bad the students are or his determination to uphold standards of excellence in the face of their (and / or your) mediocrity. As part of your preparation, you w ­ ill have ascertained what rights and options you have for observing his teaching (in some places, observation without permission w ­ ill be a gross violation of the institutional culture or even contracts) or other­w ise gaining more direct information on what occurs in his classroom. It may be that your institution’s rules on capricious grading w ­ ill give you some leverage, if you confirm that he indeed administered a test on material that had not yet been covered in class. The particulars of how you ­w ill proceed may be dictated by local policies and procedures, but you must find some way of collecting information while respecting Professor Holdover’s rights and still protecting the education of the students. You should also be sensitive to the students’ fear (and the real possibility) of retaliation and warn Professor Holdover not to act in any way that could be perceived as being retaliatory ­towards his students.

Complaints

117

In the real-­life version of this case study, Professor Holdover’s initial response was one of total denial: he ­d idn’t have a prob­lem, the students did. The college where he taught had proscriptions against classroom observation of a tenured professor and policies that prevented any action against him in mid-­semester without a hearing, which would have taken so long that the students’ needs would not have been addressed. The head of the department and its executive committee, acting together, devised a novel solution. Since they ­couldn’t observe his class directly (they changed their departmental policy on this in the following semester), a member of the executive committee volunteered to teach another section of the course. Students ­were informed that another section of the course had opened (without any indication of cause), and would meet at the same times as Holdover’s section. Each student was offered the opportunity to transfer to the new section—­and all of them did so. Only then did the professor acknowledge that he’d been having some prob­lems and agree to see his physician, who discovered that he had suffered a series of small strokes. The executive committee rounded up more faculty volunteers to offer tutoring sessions on the missed material, and Professor Holdover went on disability leave. Sometimes, you’ll need to be creative in collecting information or devising solutions. And you’ll always need more than one version of the story and to be on firm procedural grounds before you act.

5 NEGOTIATION Your department has been hit hard by bud­get cuts and it is hard to sustain your curriculum and gradu­ate program without strain. You are struggling with morale since ­you’ve had to reduce copying allocations, cancel your seminar series, start charging faculty for use of some software, and stop buying equipment of any sort. At least ­you’ve gotten permission from the dean to open a senior-­level search (the dean w ­ ill pay for the line), and y­ ou’ve won a hard-­fought b­ attle for your faculty to be eligible for funding from the campus pool for scholarly travel. You have a meeting in ten minutes with Professor Honcho, the head of another department that occupies the building that adjoins yours. This “nontraditional” hire was brought in with g­ reat fanfare and at g­ reat expense; he holds an endowed position and has more personal discretionary funding than your w ­ hole department. The donor is big on “reforming” higher education, and has given many speeches lauding Honcho as one who ­w ill lead the entire university from its outdated PC ways. You have heard only negative reports about Honcho’s arrogance. The topic of the meeting is a request you have repeatedly turned down to relinquish your only large, high-­tech classroom for use by Professor Honcho’s department on Thursday after­noons in the 4:00–6:00 p.m. time slot. This room is heavi­ly used after­noons and eve­n ings ­every day of the week, and usually on weekends as well. Two months ago Honcho’s assistant called to ask you to let his department use your room for its showcase seminar series. This series draws a lot of big-­name speakers from outside academia, such as CEOs and journalists,

Negotiation

119

and gets much attention. Since the room was fully booked for classes, you c­ ouldn’t grant the request. Since then you have been bombarded with email and phone calls, first from Honcho’s assistant, then from the ­g reat man himself. He has suggested that you move your Thursday after­noon classes to his department’s building so the highly vis­ i­ ble seminars can be held in the high-­ tech classroom. No one has claimed that the seminars actually require the high-­tech facilities; the argument is just that it would make the university look good for the activity to be in your better-­ looking room.

The most impor­tant skills for any administrator are effective, professional communication and influencing techniques. You may have the best ideas in de­cades for your department, but u ­ nless you can bring ­others along with you, you might as well have none. You’ll find that much of your leadership life is one negotiation a­ fter another, and negotiation requires effective listening, speaking, and influencing skills. Why? ­Because being heard, being understood, is a surprisingly strong and basic ­human need that is all too rarely met. Listening to ­others, and shaping your own verbal and nonverbal communication to be effective, sends a signal that you do hear and understand. You ­w ill be far more likely to influence o ­ thers in your daily negotiations if they feel heard by you. We all negotiate e­ very day, with our families, our friends, and our colleagues, although we may not realize that we are, in fact, negotiating. How did you decide where to have lunch with your friends last week, or where and with whom to have Thanksgiving dinner? ­Unless you have an unusually compliant set of friends and relatives who always agree with you, you participated in some form of negotiation each time.

120

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

­We’re more accustomed to thinking about negotiation as a part of our work lives: we think of u ­ nion contracts, arrangements with sponsors, or landing the new faculty member without breaking the bud­get. Very often we think of negotiations as someone ­else’s job—­the ­lawyers or the technology transfer agents or the ­human resources department. But think about how many p­ eople you interact with daily who ­don’t see eye to eye with you, or who want something from you. Each of ­these interactions is a negotiation. WHEN NOT TO NEGOTIATE

Before we get too far into the critical concepts and skills that underlie building on your negotiation prowess, stop and think about when you ­don’t want to negotiate. Go back to the concept of formulating goals for your term as a leader and your overall ­career. What pattern of relationships are you creating? When is it to your advantage to use your powers of persuasion, as well as to let p­ eople influence you, or bargain you down or up? In what situations do you— or should you—­consider your decisions nonnegotiable? For example, let’s assume that you have some funds to hand out and are allocating them yourself rather than delegating the task to a committee. When responding to requests, it’s worth bearing in mind the difference between requestors. If you lowball the timid faculty member who is in awe of your (perceived) authority, he is unlikely to attempt to negotiate with you. Instead he may accept your small grant and leave feeling crushed or resentful, or he may attempt to scrape by without sufficient funding, thus possibly defeating the entire purpose of the grant. At the other end of the spectrum, if you negotiate too much with the wheeler-­dealer on your faculty, you may have opened yourself up to a lifetime of having e­ very decision second-­ guessed and wheedled.

Negotiation

121

Similarly, t­here are times ­we’ll talk about in more detail when you must assume your leadership persona and be clear that you have made a final decision, and are not negotiating. W ­ e’ll come back to ­these topics in l­ater chapters. It pays to think carefully about when you are willing to negotiate and when you want to send the message that what you say is what you mean. If, in your college, ­there are certain issues around which negotiation is the norm (stipends for taking on burdensome duties, say, or bud­gets for special events), then, in t­ hose situations, make the most extreme yet principled first offers you can, in a way that is not insulting and leaves room for horse-­ trading. Let the o ­ thers win something. But never negotiate over issues on which you expect your decisions to be accepted as final—or, much like the parent who rewards a temper tantrum in the grocery store with a candy bar, you ­will train p­ eople not to trust what you say. NEGOTIATION SKILLS

The most impor­tant ­thing to know about negotiating is that it is a skill, and can be taught. ­There’s a tremendous body of knowledge about the theory and practice of negotiation, and much of it is easily understood and applied. At base, an able negotiator is simply anyone who can influence the outcome of interactions with other ­people. Under­ standing the dynamics of negotiation, the importance of advance preparation, and some of the basic skills can help you be that person. CHANGE YOUR BE­H AV­I OR

The good news and the bad news about improving your skill in negotiation are the same: in order to influence o ­ thers you must change your own conduct. Think about it: in a highly charged situation, the only ­factor you truly control is your own be­hav­ior. And changing your be­hav­ior—­for example, learning to curb your impulse for direct

122

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

confrontation in f­avor of patience and a low-­key approach—­can have a power­ful effect of the outcome. You can work on changing your approach. The goal: learn to influence o ­ thers without making them lose dignity, face, or good will. When you approach interactions this way, the most notable feature of your success may be that no one ever notices or is able to articulate the change, while t­hings move more smoothly and with less friction and at less cost to you. Think of the most defensive, least responsive person you deal with regularly. Summon up your most recent truly unproductive interaction with that person, one that left you fuming or thinking of what you should have said even hours ­later. Now, replay this situation, and try to recognize the key points in the dynamic as it ­developed. This time, instead of engaging the same way you did before, stay calm and commit yourself to do nothing more than ask questions for at least the first two or three minutes: Not charged questions like “Have you changed your mind about the such-­and-­ such?” but questions designed to elicit information and move the interaction off what­ever point of conflict has stalled it: “Can you help me understand that policy a ­little more clearly?” “What goal is this helping us meet?” Try saying less and listening more, and watch what happens. Adopting this kind of approach is part of assuming a professional role consciously and with a clear understanding of its requirements and bound­aries. Your role as department head requires that you set the tone, including establishing consistent expectation for successful and appropriate professional conduct, and that you provide sincere compliments for conduct that meets ­those expectations. The catch is that you must be comfortable being the authority figure—or at least be able to act as if y­ ou’re comfortable in the role. (Do not m ­ istake taking a hard line or coming on strong for being

Negotiation

123

strong. This is not a World War II movie.) To be the authority figure in the antiauthoritarian academic world takes a special touch. To do so in a positive, not dictatorial way is even trickier. All the more reason to examine your own be­hav­ior ahead of time and consider the persona you’ll need for your professional role as leader for your department. You can learn a ­g reat deal about how to be an effective leader by reading books on effective parenting. If y­ ou’re not a parent and prefer not to read about being one, the dog training lit­er­a­t ure is also a good place to learn the skills you’ll need. I am not suggesting that you treat your colleagues and subordinates like c­ hildren or dogs. You read books about good parenting or dog training ­because they teach you how to modify your be­hav­ior and to build effective communication skills with someone who cannot read your mind. They suggest practical ways to improve your listening and observation to ensure that your words and actions send a consistent message. Have you ever seen parents who, when their child misbehaves, keep saying “Ju­n ior, stop that or you’ll be in trou­ble,” but ­don’t take any action? The child, not surprisingly, ignores the admonitions and continues to misbehave. Your voice, too, is likely to be ignored if you d­ on’t use the communication skills the best books in t­ hese areas teach. CHOOSE TO LISTEN

The single most power­ful way to increase your influence on o ­ thers in your daily negotiations is to learn to listen more effectively, more intensely, and more genuinely. Like other changes in your be­hav­ior, this is something you control entirely, and it’s a change you can make on your own, which o ­ thers may not notice even while they respond to it. But it can have far-­reaching effects in your professional life.

124

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Before we go on, let me say that it’s easy to read what follows and nod your head without r­ eally absorbing it. You’ll prob­ably recognize some of the ideas as ones ­you’ve seen before but never tried. If you r­ eally want to thrive as an academic leader, slow down. Actually practice some of what’s suggested ­here. Think about it, then practice it some more. Improving your listening skills is hard work and requires continuing (frequently tedious) effort ­because we d­ on’t listen very well, especially if we think w ­ e’re smart. Instead, we “listen ahead” (jump to conclusions) while ­people are talking, prepare our rebuttals, think our own thoughts and generally skim over the surface of conversations. We reinforce our habit of not listening by social conventions in which we speak to one another but have no intention of listening. “Hi, how are you?” “Fine, and you?” We often give ­people dif­fer­ent levels of attention depending on their status. You prob­ably listen more carefully to the dean than you do the parking lot attendant—­and without question, p­ eople low on your pecking order know you d­ on’t r­eally listen to them. But how effectively are you listening even to the dean? Listening is more complicated than it seems. We can think faster than ­people speak. Americans talk about 120–150 words per minute, but we can comprehend speech even at 400–500 words per minutes. That leaves a lot of time in any conversation for wandering off instead of truly attending to what the other person is saying. In consequence, we leap to a lot of conclusions and think we know more about what o ­ thers are trying to say to us than we actually do. Try an experiment: initiate a conversation with a friend on a topic about which you disagree. Spend the first two minutes listening carefully without taking notes, not responding, and making only “passive listening” responses to draw the person out: “­Really?” “How so?” “Tell me more about it.” At the end of the two minutes, tell the friend that you’d like to be sure you understand his perspective, and

Negotiation

125

repeat the points he made. Revise what you say ­until he agrees that you do understand. Now tell your friend what you ­were ­doing, and if he is still game, reverse roles and this time you be the speaker. If y­ ou’re like most p­ eople, you’ll find that listening, when you know in advance that you’ll have to repeat the other person’s points, is much more work than holding forth on your own views. How often do you listen to o ­ thers with that level of concentration? For most of us, it’s not very often. Start small, and consciously work to adjust your listening, especially in conversations where you are the party with greater authority or power. Concentrate on what the speaker is saying; make eye contact and signal that ­you’re listening by nodding and “uh-­huhing.” Do not jump in. Do this especially with ­people you do not like, as you are far more likely to have telegraphed your disagreement to them than to t­ hose you do like. When interaction starts to become contentious or involve disagreements, try the “two-­m inute technique,” ­doing nothing but listening at first and then repeating the other person’s views before you talk about your own opinion. “Let me make sure I understand what ­you’re saying: your view is that . . .” Just the small change in your approach to conversations can have far-­reaching ­r ipple effects in the way p­ eople react to you. And that’s without applying any mirroring techniques which can also decrease the friction in your daily interactions and improve your ability to influence o ­ thers. Mirroring involves becoming more aware of body language—­ your own and that of o ­ thers. Make it a habit to watch and think about the body language you see in meetings and other workplace interactions. See if you can pick out someone who is “closed” or opposed to an idea by the way she’s sitting (arms crossed, pushed back or turned away from the ­table), and choose that person as a target for special

126

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

listening. See if the listening alone makes a difference in her body orientation to you or to the rest of the group. More often than not, it ­w ill. Beyond just listening with closer attention, try matching the way you sit in a one-­on-­one conversation with the way the other person is sitting, see if this signal of being in accord facilitates communication. Also try mirroring the person’s style of speaking: if she tends to use visual language (“I see what you mean”; “Can you picture it?”), use similar meta­phors or the same approach when you speak. If she uses aural language (“I hear you”; “Let me hum a few bars for you”), adopt that kind of language yourself. But i­sn’t this manipulative? I­sn’t it phony? It can be. Much depends on the attitude you bring to it. If you are merely pretending to listen, as a way to manage or manipulate ­people, their hy­poc­r isy detectors ­w ill pick that up. If, though, you sincerely seek information from them—­and you prob­ably know less than you think you do about exactly what their views are and what motivates them, and almost certainly you know less than you think about the life experiences that brought them to that point—­you ­w ill not telegraph superficiality. The catch is, you truly have to listen. You have to pay attention to what ­others say, and you have to pro­cess it through your brain, not just act as if y­ ou’re listening. By giving ­others the gift of attention, you not only seem more congenial to them but are very likely to learn something you ­d idn’t know that is useful. If nothing ­else, you buy yourself more time to think. ASK QUESTIONS

You are in a situation where you must say no to a request, and y­ ou’re annoyed by the gall of the colleague who is pushing the issue. You are privately attributing the request to selfishness, shortsightedness, or malice. This not only is a negative way to approach this transac-

Negotiation

127

tion, it is likely to pollute your ­future interactions with the person. Instead, step back mentally and ask questions to elucidate both your colleague’s position and the interests in it. (I’ll have more to say l­ater about the importance of focusing on p­ eople’s interests when negotiating. For now, a quick definition: positions are what ­people want, and interests are why they want them.) Start with very s­imple, open-­ended questions, the kind recommended by high school journalism teachers: Why? What? How?

• Why do you want that? Why does that solve the prob­lem? • What are your concerns? What, exactly, is the prob­lem? • How does this address your interests? How does it affect ­others?

Consider that you cannot truly understand a situation if you ­don’t know ­these basics—­and do not substitute your surmises for information provided by the other person. Ask. Apply your listening skills when the person replies. Follow the advice of the negotiation guru William Ury: strive for a real curiosity about the other person’s perspective—­especially if you think you already know all about it. Put aside your preconceptions. Force yourself to slow down and use what the parenting books call “active listening.” In active listening, you repeat portions of what ­others say to be sure y­ ou’ve heard it correctly. If you d­ on’t like the formulaic “So I hear you saying such and such,” simply echo a few key points o ­ thers have made, or say something like, “Let me make sure I understand what you mean” and then briefly rephrase what y­ ou’ve heard. (This is also a good way to cut off a tirade: p­ eople ­aren’t likely to be offended if you interrupt them for the purpose of making sure you understand their point, and if you can repeat their point accurately—­even if you then add some points of your own.) See if you can repeat not just the person’s request but also the reason

128

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

and basis for it. If you can, you’ll have accomplished an impor­tant step in negotiation tactics by focusing on interests, not positions. DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Good listening is necessary but not sufficient: you could become a ­g reat listener and still cave in ­every time you listen. Beyond changing your own be­hav­ior, working on your listening skills, and asking questions to gather information, the ­really crucial ele­ment of negotiation is preparation. We are all too prone to wing it. A prepared negotiator is a more effective negotiator. We all have varying degrees of comfort with conflict (if you are negotiating, you have some kind of difference or conflict with the other person) or disagreement or haggling. But since you are g­ oing to be negotiating w ­ hether you like it or not, do what you can to become more effective than you are now. Careful advance preparation can dramatically increase your chances of getting the outcome you want. We’ve already discussed part of your preparation: knowing yourself; becoming more aware of your role as an authority figure and your goals for your role and your term of ser­v ice. Another key step is to recognize when an interaction is a negotiation and not just one more hallway conversation. When someone comes to you and asks for something you ­haven’t thought about yet, ­don’t want to give, cannot give, or even ­were planning to give but not ­under ­these circumstances, y­ ou’re negotiating. When you know in advance that ­you’re ­going to have to negotiate (say, with the dean about the bud­get), you prob­ably do some homework, getting the facts and figures together and marshaling your arguments. Thorough preparation involves more than that. Not only must you know what you want (and what you could live with) and why,

Negotiation

129

you must make a conscious and concentrated effort to find out about the interests of the other party to the negotiation. What is motivating the dean? What are her interests? Think about the pressures she has to deal with. What makes her look good? What is easy for her to grant if she d­ oesn’t have the money y­ ou’ve requested? What are her stated goals? How can you frame your wants or needs as t­hings that ­w ill contribute to her goals? How does what you want fit into her big picture, with all the requests she gets from ­others? If you ­haven’t given careful thought to her interests in this situation, you are not prepared for the negotiation. The same is true when a person wants something from you: if you have not thought about that person’s interests, you are not prepared. Suppose a faculty member asks you to change the classroom assignments so he can teach in a par­tic­u­lar room. You may think you know what is motivating his request. You may not. Ask him. Prepare some questions in advance. Once you know the why b­ ehind what he’s asking, you can go on to prob­lem solving that addresses the under­ lying interests he has articulated. And then ­either you’ll find a solution (or an ac­cep­tance of the situation), or perhaps you’ll find that he’s shifting the grounds for his request and is now presenting dif­ fer­ent reasons. If you see that happening, you may want to (with good humor) suspend the discussion u ­ ntil another day to give him time to think about what he ­really wants and why. Putting yourself in the other person’s shoes and imagining the situation from his perspective is vital to your preparation for any negotiation. This effort may feel alien. Practice u ­ ntil it feels natu­ral. You ­can’t ­really know the flaws in a position ­until you fully understand the position and the reasons ­behind it. Think it through on your own; prepare questions to elicit more information; ask the questions; and listen to the answers.

130

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

IDENTIFY INTERESTS

One of the most impor­tant ­things to learn about negotiation is to focus on p­ eople’s interests rather than their stated positions. Disputes that get hung up on positions can easily escalate into aggressive power strug­g les. If you cultivate the skills of steering conversations back to interests, your professional life w ­ ill go more smoothly and your interactions ­w ill be more productive. You already know the key to d­ oing that: asking questions and listening to the responses. Effective negotiators ask more questions than less effective negotiators do. In par­t ic­u ­lar, effective negotiators use questions to elicit o ­ thers’ interests. ­There are two main types of negotiations. In the distributive or “win-­lose” type, one issue (usually money) is at stake, it’s divisible, and the parties have no long-­term relationship with one another. Most of the negotiations in our daily and professional lives are the other sort: integrative negotiations, in which more than one issue is at stake, continuing relationships exist between the parties, and the parties may assign dif­fer­ent values to the issues. In such circumstances, per­sis­tently focusing on interests—­asking many sincere questions to draw out the whys of the m ­ atter and to understand the perspective of the other part—­leaves much more room for what have come to be known as “win-­w in” situations, in which both parties feel they have gained something from a negotiation and the relationship is preserved. Once you know the whys of an issue—­people’s reasons for wanting what they want—­you can fashion a solution that responds to ­those reasons that both sides may find more palatable than continuing to clash over something irresolvable. Let’s go back to the request from a faculty member to change the room assignment of one of his seminars. You know he is not willing to teach at a dif­fer­ent time, and you know the room he pre-

Negotiation

131

fers ­w ill not be available at the time of his seminar, ­because it ­w ill be occupied by a course from another unit of the university that has priority over your department. Or b­ ecause the room accommodates up to sixty students, and large classes have priority over seminars. Or ­because it has high-­tech equipment and thus is reserved for courses that actually use the technology, which his d­ oesn’t. Or for any of a multitude of other reasons. Before you throw up your hands and say “Sorry, not pos­si­ble,” ask questions. What it is about the room that appeals to him: proximity to his office b­ ecause he has to carry heavy materials to class? The layout of the room? Once you know what pedagogical (or personal) needs the room would serve for him, you can start focusing on working together to solve his prob­lem: What if we let you use the department’s rolling cart to get your heavy items to and from class? Or what if students helped you carry them? What if you could use the conference room for your seminar? What if you could help plan next year’s remodeling of the classroom ­you’re assigned to? What if we increased the enrollment in your seminar or you taught another class to more students, thus qualifying to use the larger room? ­Don’t go into this conversation with a closed mind, assuming that his reason for wanting the room is petty or invalid. And ­don’t go into it with the attitude that the room simply i­sn’t available, so the issue is closed. What­ever his motivation, if you can shape the conversation as one in which you are seeking information so that the two of you can try to solve the prob­lem together, you can give the interaction a positive tone. Even if he ­doesn’t get the room he wants, he may get something ­else that ­matters to him, and if he feels you have genuinely listened to his concerns, he w ­ ill leave your office with more positive feelings about you and the outcome than if you simply convey the message “No, I c­ an’t let you use the room, and you should stop asking.”

132

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Accomplishing the shift in mindset from “I’m g­ oing to win” to “How can we both come out of this interaction with ­things we need?” is a major conceptual move and an essential one. When I teach negotiation to law students, I spend the first third of the semester working on resetting their adversarial mindset to one in which they seek ways to resolve disputes and make deals that let both parties feel at least somewhat positive about the outcome. If you practice this approach ­until you are good at it, you ­w ill discover not only that you’ll find acceptable solutions to many prob­lems—­a nd also that simply hearing ­people out respectfully and being willing to work with them ­w ill make some prob­lems go away. As Roy Lewicki, a leading scholar of negotiation, points out, a negotiation at its most basic level is a conversation. It occurs between two or more p­ eople who have some kind of conflict or difference, and who come together voluntarily with at least a mild preference for a negotiated resolution. In a negotiation both parties expect some give and take: research shows that ­people feel better about the outcome of a transaction—­even when it is not the outcome they wanted—if the other party made some concessions from the starting point. ­Because negotiations are conversations, in any negotiation you must attend to and manage the intangible, relationship-­based ele­ments as well as the issues ­under dispute. Intangibles include feelings about “winning,” saving face, the pre­ce­dents involved, levels of trust, reputations, concepts of fairness, and so on. If you are not aware of t­ hese issues beneath the surface, you w ­ ill be at a disadvantage in the interaction. STAGES OF NEGOTIATION

Yes, negotiations are conversations, but they are structured: they go through a series of specific stages. (I follow the sequence articulated by Charles Craver, a specialist in l­egal negotiation who was one of my teachers when I was in law school.) While you may have an

Negotiation

133

i­mpulse to jump right into the haggling stage (the give-­a nd-­take ­bargaining), t­ here are three other stages that you should take care to go through first, even in interactions with ­people you know well. Opening Stage: Honey, Not Vinegar

The most overlooked part of a successful negotiation happens at the very beginning. At this point your goal should be to build rapport and set the tone for what follows. You want to chat pleasantly for a short time before bringing up anything substantive. Establishing a ­human connection at the beginning is crucial to positive outcomes. It is a fact of h ­ uman nature that we give more to p­ eople we like than to ­people we d­ on’t like. Think about it: How hard do you find it to agree with someone you have disliked for years? It’s usually much harder than agreeing with someone you like and re­spect. When we like ­people, we find it less threatening to explore novel approaches or to be open to new ideas, so prob­lem solving is easier. If you can keep in mind that, especially in the long-­term professional connections that often characterize university departments, the relationship m ­ atters as much as the individual issue, you’ll be ahead of the game in persuading ­people and ­doing well in negotiations. Cultivate likability. Cordiality is often undervalued in this world, where too many p­ eople think the most effective way to achieve their goals is through aggressive conduct. Stage Two: Collecting Information

­ fter ­you’ve established (or reestablished) the ­human connection, you A have yet another step to take before the bargaining begins. This is the time to find out what the other party wants, and most impor­tant to discover the whys. It may seem counterintuitive, but the key to resolving prob­lems often lies in the differences we bring to the t­ able: differences between

134

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

the parties in values, priorities, and needs create fruitful ground for prob­lem solving, or, in negotiation terms, for making the pie bigger for every­one. Take the classic distributive (win-­lose) negotiation: buying a car from a dealer you do not know. E ­ very extra dollar you pay is an extra one in the dealer’s pocket. You may dread haggling over price and have a history of simply paying what­ever the dealer asks, or offering what­ever Consumer Reports or online sources say is the average consumer price for the car. You may imagine that the pie is a fixed size and that the dealer ­w ill do the cutting and serving, leaving you with the smallest piece. This is the kind of negotiation in which d­ oing your homework r­ eally ­m atters and your listening skills ­w ill get a good workout. Stage Three: Value for Both Parties

To convert the negotiation between you and the car dealer from a distributive one into one with integrative (win-­w in) ele­ments, seek information about the dealer’s interests (other than getting as much money as pos­si­ble) and figure out where you and the dealer have differences. The goal is to add issues to the negotiation to make the pie a ­little bigger for both of you. So, for example, if you look up when car dealers must pay taxes on their inventory, it’s reasonable to assume that they are more motivated to sell the cars on the lot just before that date. In many states, this is due quarterly, so the last few days of a quarter are good days to be offering to pay for and drive a car off the lot. If you notice that the dealer has a surplus of cars of a certain color, and if you care more about price than about color, ­you’ve discovered a difference that may expand the pie further: the dealer may be able to unload a color that ­isn’t selling well, and you may save some money. Sellers often ex-

Negotiation

135

ploit buyers’ cravings for immediate gratification: you can take a car that’s on the lot right now, but you’ll have to wait for one with the features ­you’ve listed. That’s a difference in valuation of time. So, for example, if you walk into the showroom knowing that the car dealer’s inventory taxes are due in a few days, and if ­you’ve seen a large number of black cars on the lot, your knowledge of the dealer’s interests may give you some leverage for reducing the price. What other interest might the dealer have? If y­ ou’ve bought other cars from him in the past, your negotiation has moved out of the classic one-­issue distributive model, ­because the two of you have a longer-­ term relationship. That’s an additional issue that makes the pie bigger. As you make conversation with the sales rep, ask questions and listen to the answers: do they have slow days in their shop or other headaches your sale might address? Now let’s translate this into the academic environment. Think about recruiting a new faculty member. In addition to money, what do you have to offer that she might value? If ­you’ve done your homework and listened well in your interactions, you should know something about her. If ­you’re just starting the pro­cess, be sure to ask open-­ended questions (“What are you looking for in your next position?”) and listen to the answers. Keep track of the questions the recruit asks you (take notes!) and see if you can discern a pattern. Is the focus on colleagues? Facilities? What it w ­ ill be like to live in your town? The difficulty of moving? Do what you can to gather information about the person’s interests, and then frame your recruitment in terms of t­ hose interest. Your own interests are relevant too, of course, but they ­aren’t the ones that ­w ill drive her decision. So it’s a good idea to frame your concerns in terms of complimentary t­ hings about her (we all like to hear sincere and relevant praise), such as how well her work in her subfield fits with the department’s plan to build strength in that area. Similarly,

136

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

the more you know about the recruit’s interests, the more you can create value for her by providing information and opportunities that ­matter to her. Even if you ­can’t match the largest financial package she’s considering, if your approach is tailored to the interests she has expressed, you may still be able to attract her to your campus by emphasizing the good schools for her ­ children, proximity in the building to a colleague she wants to work with, the ease of getting work done in your department, and the topnotch local r­ unning club where she could train with other serious marathoners. Stage Four: Horse-­Trading

You are ready for the haggling part of the negotiation only a­ fter you have established rapport, gleaned as much information as you can, and i­magined ways to increase the size of the pie for both of you. Only then is it time to get down to dividing up the pie. Again, put the other party’s interests first when deciding how to word your offer: frame what you say in terms of the interests she has expressed. Be honest about your own interests, and remember that arguments expressed in terms of her interests ­w ill be more persuasive. Many of us would like to believe that our positions are based entirely on facts and rational analy­sis, and therefore that the way to persuade o ­ thers to come around to our point of view is simply to assem­ble a cogent enough argument. But if any of us actually do believe this, ­we’re deluding ourselves. We are all influenced by our feelings about ­people involved, public positions ­we’ve taken previously, and a variety of superstitions and prejudices. ­Here I’ll give you a few handy concepts that have arisen from research on negotiation. One useful idea is known as anchoring. It turns out that numbers ­people hear during a negotiation, w ­ hether relevant or not, tend

Negotiation

137

to stick in their minds and affect their perception of the value of numbers that come up l­ater. In a famous experiment by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, college students w ­ ere asked to estimate the percentage of African countries in the United Nations ­after watching a roulette wheel stop at pre-­set numbers. Even though the numbers on the wheel clearly had nothing to do with the estimation task, ­those who saw the wheel stop at a higher number estimated larger percentages than ­those who saw the wheel stop at a lower number. ­Because negotiators tend to anchor on irrelevant information, you must be vigilant. One irrelevant number that often infects negotiations is the first offer that ­others make to you, and it can unduly influence your sense of what a good outcome could be. Your homework before a negotiation should include a clear-­sighted analy­sis of the value of the negotiation, not only to you, but to the o ­ thers involved as well, using what­ever benchmarks you can find that indicate market value or value in your environment. Another in­ter­est­ing tidbit from the research is that ­people are much more satisfied with outcomes when they feel that they have influenced the results. For example, in simulated negotiations to ­settle a personal injury case, ­those who received a first offer of $2,000 but eventually settled for $12,000 ­were happier with their settlements than ­those who w ­ ere first offered $10,000 and settled for $12,000. The outcomes w ­ ere the same, but ­those who felt they had managed to raise the original offer more dramatically felt better in the end. If ­those with whom you are negotiating feel ­they’ve had an effect on the outcome—­rather than being unheard or ineffectual—­they ­w ill feel better about themselves, the pro­cess, and you. ­These insights into the way our brains deal with numbers w ­ ill be useful as you prepare for certain kinds of negotiations. In vastly oversimplified form, the advice that flows from them is that, if you have good information on the issues and their market value (or their

138

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

value in your environment), it is often a good idea to make the first offer rather than wait to hear the other side’s offer before speaking. ­These insights also suggest that in such a situation one should make the most optimistic first offer that can be justified on a principled basis. In contrast, if you do not have complete and trustworthy information, especially about the other party’s interests or values, try to elicit a first offer, but d­ on’t let an extreme number anchor your own thinking. (Not sure how to elicit a first offer? Try asking. You’ll be astonished by ­people’s willingness to answer direct questions.) ­Don’t take ­these suggestions as hard-­and-­fast rules though, as each negotiation has its own complexities, and you’ll need to tailor your strategy to them. Naturally t­ here are many f­ actors to consider in deciding w ­ hether and how to follow this advice. The first and foremost should be your relationship with the other party. Bear in mind that if you develop a reputation for being an extreme bargainer you’ll lose both your personal credibility and the value of anchoring. So you d­ on’t want to overdo it, or go beyond acceptable bounds for your situation and your setting. (You might say the idea is to make the most extreme first offer that’s not obviously extreme.) If your dean feels that you approach ­every encounter as a winner-­takes-­a ll contest, without considering the longer-­term context in which you both operate, you’ll be at a disadvantage in ­every negotiation with the dean. The Final Stage: Confirm Your Agreement

Do not forget, at the end of your negotiation, to restate, aloud, the deal you believe ­you’ve made. It is remarkably easy, even when y­ ou’re working hard to be explicit, for differing assumptions to lead to miscommunication. Before you conclude the transaction, say something like this: “I’m so glad ­you’re joining us. As I understand it, then, you’ll

Negotiation

139

be starting this August when the office next to Jamilla’s w ­ ill be ready for you. ­We’ll pay your moving expenses, and [specify what ­else ­you’ve agreed to do]. Have I left anything out? I’ll confirm all the details in a letter, of course. I r­ eally think this is a place you’ll be able to get g­ reat work done and join a g­ reat r­ unning club, too.” Now is the time to clear up any misunderstandings to prevent your carefully negotiated deal from unraveling l­ater. This is also the stage at which to ask if ­there’s anything ­else that would make the deal better for the other person. It’s entirely pos­si­ble that something she values would be easy for you to provide. She may ask if ­you’re willing to call the parking division to get her name on the waiting list right away. She may wish her u ­ ncle could be invited to the next alumni event in his town. If so, finding out about it and adding it to her piece of the pie may make a difference in her feelings about the negotiation, pleasing her far more than it incon­ve­ niences you. This may also be the moment when you can discover ­whether she’s willing to concede something that m ­ atters to you. (“Sure, I can get my ac­cep­tance back to you before Friday if having it in hand would help out with the dean.”) What­ever you do, even if you feel ­you’ve won an overwhelming victory, ­don’t gloat. You want the other person to feel good about your deal, if for no other reason than to prevent retractions. If ­you’re negotiating with someone with whom you’ll be interacting in the ­future—­whether you like each other or not—­it’s even more impor­ tant to let that person leave the negotiation feeling good about it, not ground into the dirt. BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER

With a revised way of thinking about negotiating, improved listening skills, a commitment to thorough preparation, and some knowledge

140

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

of the structure of negotiations, you are ready to start putting the pieces together. The myriad negotiations of your work life require you to master another professional skill, layering it over your instinctive reactions. Another concept from experts on negotiation ­will be helpful ­here and in every­thing you do: reframing. We all do this when we say “Look on the bright side” or seek the silver lining. The way we frame events in our mind is pivotal: Is this a gain or a loss? Is it pos­si­ble to see this as a victory instead of a defeat? Is t­ here some common ground we ­haven’t identified? Is t­here a way to make lemonade from this pile of lemons? You can choose how to characterize adversity, conflict, differences, and m ­ istakes—­and your attitude ­will influence ­those around you. Use reframing to think yourself and ­others into more constructive approaches to prob­lems. Imagine ­you’re in conflict with someone. ­There are two polar ways to conceptualize the situation. One possibility: the other party is totally off base, confused, neurotic, stupid, or just generally wrong. Another: it’s pos­si­ble that the other party might have a point, and that you could be mistaken or have misunderstood. The real­ity is prob­ably some combination of the two. Whichever it is, you are in an unpleasant interaction and—­remember—­the only be­hav­ior you can control is your own. So, however strongly you wish the other guy would see the error of his ways, what you get to choose is how you act and what you do. The good news is that the way you act can have a dramatic effect on the outcome of the interaction, so first, work to defuse aggression by using good listening skills, making sure the other party feels heard and valued, and second, use problem-­solving, integrative negotiation techniques. You are ­going to work to build trust, ask questions, share information (in order to get information), and brainstorm together. You ­w ill search for interests (why the other is seeking a par­tic­u ­lar goal) instead of positions. You’ll depersonalize the prob­lem by focusing on

Negotiation

141

it, not on the personalities: “This is a hard prob­lem,” not “­They’re unreasonable jerks.” You’ll find ways to reframe the conflict that emphasize areas of agreement, and use “and” more than “but” when you restate ­matters. Now, to weave all ­these skills into a seamless w ­ hole, think back to how impor­tant it is to know yourself. What do you know about your approach to conflict, and what works best for you? Are you a competitor? An avoider? To thrive as a person whose professional role is to work with ­others, you need strong insight into your own preferences and styles for dealing with conflict. We all have dif­ fer­ent comfort levels with conflict and dif­fer­ent reactions when challenged. ­There’s no one right answer in this area. The key is to know yourself well enough to avoid situations where you blow up or shut down, and to recognize the tactics used by ­others in a charged situation. More than anything e­ lse, you need to be able to adjust your own response to the situation in which you find yourself, so that they serve your goals both immediately and in the longer term. It does no good to indulge in the quick gratification of slash-­and-­burn rhe­toric, freezing someone out, or making the perfect cutting remark if d­ oing so damages your relationship or your ability to achieve the goals ­you’ve set for yourself and your unit. ­Will the momentary triumph compensate for compromising your effectiveness as a leader? If the moment is sufficient for you—­perhaps it pays back for years of slights or accumulated ill ­w ill—­then know that and be satisfied. On the other hand, if you have your eye on a bigger goal, summon up what it takes to forgo that triumph and focus on the problem-­solving negotiating persona y­ ou’ve been cultivating as part of your leadership package. Or, if all ­else fails, terminate the interaction so that you can return to the pie-­expanding, integrative negotiations another day. ­Don’t ask the impossible of yourself . . . ​just preserve possibilities.

142

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

PROFESSOR HONCHO’S SEMINARS

As you prepare for your meeting with Professor Honcho, your goal is to think clearly and creatively about the situation and to find ways to make it into a problem-­solving negotiation. Let’s start by stepping back and considering the role in which you are dealing with Professor Honcho: are you responding to a personal affront in the high-­ handed way he and his assistant have interacted with you, or are you responding in your role as the head of your unit, seeking to do what’s best for the good of the w ­ hole? If ­there’s a chip on your shoulder when you think of this hotshot’s assumption that he can trespass on your department’s territory, take it off before the meeting begins. You are most likely to be effective starting with the assumption that the other party is rational and can be constructively engaged. In the first place, chances are that it’s true. In the second place, d­ oing so puts you in a stronger position with other parties involved, if it turns out that y­ ou’re not dealing merely with a Professor Honcho but a Professor Bully—­later, w ­ e’ll talk about the concept of the third reader—­you’ll want a paper rec­ord that shows you as on the high road, and reasonable throughout in your interactions with him and his staff. You may long to wax indignant about putting the university’s educational mission ahead of shallower concerns like publicity. You may picture yourself giving the newcomer a much-­needed lesson in institutional values and tradition. Acknowledge ­these impulses to yourself as part of your preparation, just d­ on’t take them with you to the meeting. Think about ­whether, in winning the b­ attle, you might lose the war. And think about ­whether conceding this par­t ic­u ­lar b­ attle might help you win any ­others. At the moment, you have something Honcho wants, and he might be willing to do something beneficial for you in return. Suppose, though, you stand your ground and refuse to let

Negotiation

143

him use the room for his seminar series. If in response he uses some of his department’s considerable resources to remodel a space in his own building, pretty soon he w ­ on’t need anything from you, and ­he’ll no longer have any reason to do you any ­favors, now or in the ­f uture. Alternatively, if you approach this encounter as a negotiation, you may be able to use it to create value for your department. Change your be­hav­ior (knock that chip off your own shoulder). Do your homework. Know what you want and why; look at the situation from Honcho’s perspective; make a list of questions to ask him. Then, ­after ­you’ve listened for a while, advance some of your interests and see if ­there are mutually beneficial ways to proceed. For example: if he has access to resources that your department does not, are t­ here ways his department (or resources) could help out your department’s educational mission? Maybe he could purchase AV or other new equipment for the unremodeled rooms your department would need to use to hold classes if you give up the pretty room, and your department could keep that equipment? Or, they could invite some seminar speakers that your department would love to have but can no longer afford, in a certain number of shared events per year? It would be better than the none you presently have. Could they accord access to the software your department can no longer afford to your faculty? Do they have videoconference equipment your faculty could schedule to use? Are ­there any interdisciplinary collaborations to explore between your two units that h ­ aven’t before been considered? Maybe t­ here are other ideas that ­will emerge, if you give him a chance to talk with you. He’s prob­ably not totally immune to how ­others have perceived him in his time at your university. Maybe, if you give him a chance, you’ll actually find something to like about him. If so, and if you approach this as a negotiation involving give and take and differences

144

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

in values, you may be able to improve your department’s situation. You ­won’t find out if you ­don’t try. Henry Fonda’s character in the 1957 movie 12 Angry Men sways eleven initially opposed jurors—­a ll ready to convict and anxious to escape the small and stiflingly hot jury room—to his point of view. He d­ oesn’t do it by lecturing or trying to persuade them; he starts by letting them talk, by listening, and by making sure he understands their perspectives. Then he wins them over one by one. When repeatedly challenged about w ­ hether he believes the young defendant is innocent, he says “I d­ on’t know” or “I just want to talk about it.” By not taking a position, he leaves room for discussion. Track down the film—as dated as it is in lighting, production qualities, and its cast of all white men—­and watch it with an eye to the astute sense of h ­ uman nature demonstrated in action. The techniques used by Fonda’s character are worth studying, and are affirmed and explained by research in social psy­chol­ogy. He lets p­ eople come to their own conclusions by asking questions and giving them room, and he does so without dominating the conversation. It’s a masterly illustration of many of the techniques that are most effective at influencing ­others. Watch it more than once.

­ on’t let it be about you. D Focus on the princi­ples, the prob­lems, and the goals. ON E CONCLU DING WOR D OF A DVICE:

6 BULLIES You are now the head of a large unit in which you have been a faculty member for many years. ­Until you became head, you ­were not fully aware of the prob­lems with one of your colleagues, Professor Choler. Now that you are head, you feel besieged by complaints from department members about his treatment of them. You remember, over the years, having received Choler’s periodic email messages—­sent to the ­whole department—­ complaining about one m ­ atter or another, but since most of them d­ idn’t affect you directly, you paid ­little attention. You also knew that Choler could be unpleasant at faculty meetings, but he ­d idn’t attend very often, and most of his complaints w ­ ere ruled out of order. Now, however, both the messages and the conduct at faculty meetings have become your business. In his typical email message, Choler describes a prob­lem, personalizes the fault to a single individual, and recommends a solution that usually involves humiliation, if not discipline, for that person. The ­people he targets (or, in some cases, their u ­ nion representatives) are the ones complaining to you and demanding that you take action. In addition, a few faculty members have asked you to “get this email ­thing ­under control” ­because they ­don’t want to be both­ered by any more of his messages. At meetings Choler uses the same general tactic, usually ­going ­a fter a par­tic­u ­lar person with strong language and in a loud voice. This makes some p­ eople so uncomfortable that they ­w ill not attend a meeting if they see him in the room. His victims have been known to leave meetings shaking, or even in tears, a­ fter his verbal assaults.

146

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Reviewing the collection of email messages, plus the other letters Choler sent to your pre­de­ces­sor, you have noticed a pattern to the situations. Generally, he identifies a real prob­lem. For example, his complaint about cumbersome and slow pro­cessing of travel reimbursements was accurate, but his assignment of blame to a business office staff member was (in your opinion, and certainly according to the staff member and her ­union representative) disproportionate to the prob­lem and to her role in pro­cessing the paperwork. Once Choler picks a target, he rarely lets up u ­ ntil that person leaves the department. ­There is no evidence in the department files that any of your pre­de­ces­sors has ever spoken to Professor Choler about his email tirades or his conduct in meetings.

Have you ever had a guest with an uncontrolled child or pet? The most intractable prob­lems in academia have the same characteristics: someone r­unning loose in your environment who does not stay within the prevailing concepts of acceptable be­hav­ior. I’m not talking about be­hav­ior that is merely unusual or eccentric; in a university, especially, odd is okay if your work gets done and you d­ on’t interfere with the ability of ­others to do theirs. I’m talking about someone whose refusal to play by the generally accepted rules c­ auses trou­ble for the rest of your department. They take up a disproportionate amount of your time and attention. If you have not encountered this kind of troublemaker, use what follows as a form of inoculation against any such prob­lems that might ­later infect your unit. Some difficult p­ eople are merely irritants: p­ eople learn to avoid them as much as pos­si­ble, and the overall working environment is not badly compromised. But a person who targets ­others, makes threats (direct or indirect), insists on their own way all the time, or has such a hair-­trigger temper that colleagues walk on eggshells to

Bullies

147

avoid setting it off, can paralyze a department. In the worst cases, this conduct can create massive dysfunction as the department finds itself unable to hold meetings, make hiring decisions, recruit new members, or retain valued ones. When I first got involved in helping department leaders cope with such ­people, my colleagues and I used concepts and approaches we gleaned from studies of bullies. When we started, the lit­er­a­ture was largely restricted to bullies among c­ hildren and adolescents, and the most useful concepts we found ­were related to “bully-­proofing” elementary schools. In the years since then, a lit­er­a­t ure has emerged focusing on adult bullies, including t­ hose in the workplace; interestingly, ­these works merely reinforced the approach we refined using our own experience and the concepts we found from our original explorations of research focused on c­ hildren. The bullies I have encountered—­and helped to neutralize—in the academic environment come in many forms, from classic aggressors who rely on verbal or even physical intimidation to degrade and humiliate, all the way to ­those who pre­sent themselves as victims as a way of forcing o ­ thers onto the defensive (“You offended me and I’m entitled to special treatment to make up for it”). In academia and other settings populated by “knowledge workers,” other often-­ encountered kinds of bullies include ­those who abuse their power over the educations and ­careers of ­others, “memo bullies” (­those who send regular missives to a mailing list often including t­hose outside the department or even the institution), and “insult bullies” who are destructive verbal aggressors. Academics tend to be assertive and verbally skilled, and they proj­ect their power in obvious and more subtle ways. The #MeToo movement has revealed that higher education is not immune to ­people who cross lines in unacceptable ways that violate all kinds of bound­aries, including identity, sex, race, ethnicity, and gender.

148

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

A word of caution: Before you categorize someone as a bully, ask yourself a set of rigorous questions: Is the conduct situational ­because that person is u ­ nder stress from unusual events? Is the conduct out of character for the person? Has something changed recently? Could the wrongs the person is attributing to mistreatment actually be systemic or the result of bias? Just ­because someone complains about mistreatment in a way that makes you uncomfortable does not mean they are wrong. An assessment that the person is wrong can lead you and your institution badly astray if you have not had an objective consideration of the facts of a situation. Be cautious especially about thinking you have a bully prob­lem when what you may have is institutionalized injustice, which could be your job to help redress. Their way of calling it out may not be your own, but the substance of their complaint is legitimate. CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLIES

What­ever their approaches, bullies are ­people who are willing to cross the bound­aries of civilized be­hav­ior that inhibit ­others. They value the rewards brought by aggression and generally lack feelings of guilt, believing that their victims provoked the attacks and deserve the consequences. They misuse power, ­whether from position, physical size, or the strength of their personalities. Their willingness to say t­ hings and act outside accepted norms of professional conduct prompts ­others to avoid them, which means that, in the workplace, bullies are likely to become effectively unsupervised. If you think about the constellation of qualities that characterize bullying be­hav­ior, and especially the effects of that be­hav­ior in an environment that si­mul­ta­neously prizes collegiality and in­de­pen­dence, and in which many members are conflict-­averse, it’s not hard to see why many tend to withdraw instead of taking on over-­the-­line conduct of colleagues.

Bullies

149

Remember the e­ arlier discussion about stars? Sometimes your stars ­w ill have bullying characteristics, but more often, the most serious prob­lem bullies are not the major stars in your unit. ­They’re simply ­people who have frequently gotten what they wanted through their outrageous conduct—­a nd have even been rewarded for it in vari­ous ways. If your bully is, in fact, a star whom it would be costly to lose, you’ll need to proceed with extra caution, and it’s your job to think about the good of the community as a w ­ hole: even stars must not be allowed to cause fear or impede the productivity of o ­ thers. In the worst case of an unsupervised bully I ever saw, a worker in a university’s physical plant who had a habit of making direct threats (“I have guns hidden all over campus”) was assigned a job with no set hours, no duties for which he was held accountable—­and the use of a university truck that he took home e­ very night. His supervisors w ­ ere (understandably) afraid of him, and they d­ idn’t want to take the risk that he would turn on them. It took a concerted team effort over many months (and a transfer to a dif­fer­ent unit with dif­ fer­ent supervisors through two levels of responsibility) to bring this employee back into a situation where he was actually performing work in exchange for his paycheck. (It d­ idn’t last long, though. He was arrested a­ fter an incident in his personal life, and took up residence as a guest of the state.) Across all categories of employment, bullies become unsupervised: I’ve seen office staff, faculty members, and business ­people who ­were so unpleasant to deal with that they ­were neither given the same duties as o ­ thers in their environment nor held accountable for the duties they did hold. My former colleague Dr. Paul Joffe, a clinical psychologist who facilitated many of our workplace problem-­solving teams, did much of the early lit­er­a­ture review and brought the concept about bullies to our working group. One of the major insights he brought us is that ­there are two major types of bullies: aggressor bullies and victim

150

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

bullies. I mentioned this e­ arlier. Aggressor bullies fit the usual idea of a bully: they threaten to beat you up if you d­ on’t give them your lunch money. Victim bullies, in contrast, demand your lunch money ­because of some harm they claim y­ ou’ve done to them. Think of someone ­r unning into you in the schoolyard, then asserting that you should give him your lunch money b­ ecause you knocked him down and made him tear his pants. That’s a classic victim bully. While many workplaces have bullies, institutions of higher education may be especially vulnerable to them ­because of some of the distinctive characteristics of academia. First, bullies flourish in the decentralized structure of colleges and universities: the isolation of so many microclimates, from laboratories to small departments, creates many opportunities for a bully to run roughshod over colleagues. The bullies of academia typically manipulate the concepts of academic freedom and collegiality with flair, and their colleagues are not well equipped, and not trained, to respond to their maneuvers. The propensity of bullies to misuse t­hese central academic concepts only adds to the importance of being well grounded in ­those concepts yourself. If you have a firm understanding of what academic freedom is and (just as importantly) is not, you’ll be better positioned to respond to t­ hose who try to distort the concepts for their own ends. Another reason p­ eople in academia are generally unprepared to deal with bullies is that bullies are relatively rare. It’s worth thinking about them as fitting into the category of “low-­incidence, high-­ severity” prob­lems. This concept can be applied to a variety of situations that arise in academic settings, especially in personnel ­matters. A low-­incidence, high-­severity situation is one in which the prob­ lems ­don’t arise very often, but when they do they are so serious that they can threaten the integrity of the environment. Bullying falls into this category. Research misconduct also falls into this category, and so do other serious violations of laws and regulations (see Chapter 9).

Bullies

151

For ­these infrequent yet serious-­when-­they-­happen prob­lems, it makes sense to focus on preventive and educational efforts rather than waiting to cope with each prob­lem as it arises. For research misconduct, that means ensuring that ­there is plenty of discussion about positive standards and expectations, as well as information and assistance to provide tools for ­those encountering ethical dilemmas. Just as we do not expect students to acquire their substantive expertise by osmosis or mind-­reading, we should not ask them to absorb professional or ethical standards without direct formal and informal instruction. For prevention of bullying prob­lems—­including misuse of power over o ­ thers to cross personal bound­a ries w ­ hether through words or action, often around gender and identity—­creating and maintaining an environment in which respectful professional interactions are expected and reinforced is the most power­ful approach. When unprofessional or uncivil conduct does occur in the workplace, it’s impor­tant to nip it in the bud immediately. The tone of the response should be nonconfrontational: “Oh, I’m sorry, maybe we forgot to tell you that we ­don’t act that way ­here.” ­Others may have the luxury of avoiding and not dealing with bullies: as a responsible leader, you do not. Dealing with the prob­lem head-on and promptly is critical, starting as early as pos­si­ble in your tenure. If the prob­lem is longstanding before you take office, the more you act consistently and clearly from the beginning to address line-­crossing be­ hav­ior, the better. If you experience the conduct in person, that’s one ­thing. If accusations are brought to you about the conduct of a member of your department, more steps are needed. Before taking any action against a person accused of violating the rules, you ­w ill of course seek out and use the proper college policy and mechanism to investigate the charges. If the investigation substantiates them, it is essential that you (or the institution, depending on the policy) impose sanctions. If

152

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

someone is verbally abusive to staff or threatens physical vio­lence, the appropriate penalty must be imposed. Other­w ise, you send the message that the conduct in question is acceptable. Avoidance is one of the basic responses to conflict (­others include denial, appeasement, negotiations, mediation, and “­because I say so”), and it can be a sensible response, especially when the issues are relatively small, of fleeting duration, and of ­little lasting consequence. Avoiding engagement with an issue is a positive reaction to someone’s momentary venting when ­you’re pretty sure the issue w ­ ill pass. It’s a particularly good strategy at the end of the semester during the “silly season,” when every­one is ­under stress. But avoidance is rarely the right response when a person has shown a pattern of threatening or escalating conduct or when an impor­tant princi­ple is at stake. If t­hose responsible for supervising problematic employees hesitate to ask legitimate questions within the scope of their duties (“Do you have the required receipts for this expenditure?”) for fear of ­triggering temper tantrums, a person of higher authority should be brought in to enforce the regulations. Any other response—­such as simply accepting the be­hav­ior or slinking away in the face of the histrionics—­only erodes the trust of t­ hose who work hard to do the right t­hing. Similarly, ignoring or tolerating inappropriate conduct at work sends the message to all ­those who do behave professionally that the way to prosper may be to misbehave, not to follow the rules. ­There are few faster ways to nurture a toxic working environment. HOW TO H ­ ANDLE A BULLY

I once got a request from a department administrator (let’s call him Arya Meiya) for advice about how to deal with a visiting faculty member (and let’s call him Raymond Cooper) whose contract was to expire in just two months. Cooper had been verbally explosive all

Bullies

153

year, so ­people had learned to tread ­gently around him. But recently his volatility had increased, and a collaborating research colleague, Lee Finley, had begun to feel unsafe around him, fearing that his extreme verbal aggression could become physical. Meiya wanted to know what he could do—if anything—to get to the end of the semester without serious incident. The first step was a real­ity check that ­there was a­ ctual misconduct involved. That is, what had Cooper done, when, and where, and had t­here been any third-­party witnesses to it? Did the conduct rise to the level that it would be concerning from anyone? To put it bluntly, had Cooper actually done something or w ­ ere Finley’s concerns exaggerated ­because of Cooper’s size, background, or personal characteristics? A key lesson ­here is not to react automatically to accusations of bullying without more information and context. We verified that t­ here ­were examples of specific conduct that crossed lines. I asked Meiya how he had responded to Cooper’s e­ arlier explosions. He had done nothing. This was not good news, but it could have been worse, as I am often told something like “Well, that’s just the way he is, so w ­ e’ve tried to give him what he wants and not make him mad.” Nevertheless, the hands-­off approach was not ­going to solve the prob­lem. On the topic of the visiting Professor Cooper, I asked w ­ hether and how Cooper had been informed that his outbursts w ­ ere causing concern. “Well,” Meiya responded, “every­body knows” that this kind of be­hav­ior is unprofessional. I advised calling Cooper in, nonetheless, and putting him on notice that his conduct was unsettling to his colleagues and students. He might have a very dif­fer­ent version of events. I reminded Meiya that mind-­reading is an imperfect form of communication, and that he’d be ­doing both Cooper and the intimidated collaborator a ­favor by letting Cooper know—­ unequivocally—­that he was expected to control his be­hav­ior and to

154

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

conduct himself professionally in all interactions with colleagues, students, and staff. P ­ eople who are acting out need to be told clearly that ­there ­w ill be consequences for uncivil be­hav­ior. Other­w ise, ­they’ll have l­ittle incentive to exercise self-­control. Meiya acknowledged that this made sense. But what could he say, and how should he say it? Academics seem to find it particularly difficult to raise troublesome topics, especially ones involving the personal conduct of a colleague. Over the years, I’ve learned to recommend a three-­step pro­cess: First, try to identify and describe a pattern in what y­ ou’re observing. In this case, the escalating explosive verbal conduct is the pattern, and Cooper needs to be told that it intimidates ­others. Second, sketch out a general strategy. In this case, the strategy is to send the message to the offender that this sort of be­ hav­ior is not welcome in this department or this university. Fi­nally, it is essential to outline the points you wish to communicate and practice how you’ll say them. Having identified the pattern of the prob­lem and chosen a strategy, Meiya and I discussed the points he should cover in a conversation with Cooper and pos­si­ble ways to phrase them. In par­tic­u ­lar, we rehearsed personal scripts for his opening lines and worked to put the concepts into his own voice, finding words and approaches he could make his own. Let’s say you are in Meiya’s position: the department head faced with the volatile Cooper. The points to make in your talk with Cooper are, first, that his be­hav­ior is disturbing to ­others; second, that you are serious about maintaining a nonthreatening work and learning environment; and fi­nally, that you refer all threats and acts of vio­lence to the campus police. (Some universities have official written policies that can be used to reinforce that last point.) You can tell Cooper, calmly and clearly, that you have learned from vari­ous students and staff members that he has seemed increasingly frustrated and has often been heard shouting abusively at ­others and invading

Bullies

155

their physical space in ways that left them fearful. State quietly and clearly that this conduct is alarming and disturbing to ­others, and not appropriate in this department—­a warning that he is approaching, and has crossed at times, a boundary that must not be crossed. Be sure you convey the message that you expect him to change his be­hav­ior so that it conforms to expectations in your department and institution. You can then express a sincere desire to be able to write a positive recommendation for him in his search for his next position. ­A fter the conversation, send a cordial and factual letter restating the gist of what you said. Some ­people’s eyes work better than their ears, and you want to be sure Cooper gets your message. You also want to establish a paper trail. The letter should be short and sweet and say something like this: Dear Ray, Thank you for taking the time to talk with me this morning. I appreciated your responsiveness in our conversation about effective ways to work in our department. As I said, I have been told that you regularly seem frustrated and that you have been heard shouting on a number of occasions recently. While we all encounter frustrations, the frequency and level of your outbursts have been alarming and disturbing to other members of the department. We expect every­one in our unit to contribute to a collegial and professional atmosphere, and this means maintaining an appropriate distance from ­others, volume level, and forms of expression suitable for professional interactions. Thank you for your attention to this situation. [your signature]

­A fter the conversation and letter, let’s hope no further action ­ ill be necessary. If, however, Cooper’s conduct does not revert to w the upsetting-­but-­tolerable category ­u ntil his departure, your next

156

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

response ­w ill be to ask ­those experiencing his alarming conduct to call the campus police when it occurs. No one should have to work in an environment in which their physical safety is in jeopardy. However, even ­those who fear his conduct may become physical may be reluctant to call the police (“I d­ on’t want to get him into trou­ble”), so working through the issues (explaining that he’s getting himself into trou­ble, that this is part of creating and maintaining a safe learning environment, e­ tc.) may be required. If necessary, you might need to arrange to be pre­sent at times and places where he works so you can be the one to call the police yourself. It may help to have a consultation with the police department first and work through what their response policy is for such situations and what it ­w ill entail. Then, when called, the police interaction ­w ill supply a bit of what my colleagues and I came to call “blue therapy,” involving a conversation with a uniformed (and trained) peace officer. On the basis of past experience, I’m guessing that, should the need arise, the interaction with the police ­w ill be both educational and therapeutic for your visitor’s tantrum habit. This prob­lem is relatively straightforward and amenable to correction ­because it is of recent origin—at least in your department—­and ­because you have more leverage over a visitor than over one of your tenured faculty members. Since Cooper is about to move on to another short-­term position, your recommendation, or your opinion of him as relayed by word of mouth, is likely to ­matter. The chances are quite high that he has a history of similar be­hav­ior at other places, and he may have found that many institutions ­don’t check references when hiring or that most of the places he’s worked in the past ­won’t mention this conduct, even if asked for a reference. Letting him know that you take references seriously may well have an impact. Then again, it’s pos­si­ble that, precisely b­ ecause he is a short-­termer, he ­won’t see the need to adapt his be­hav­ior. In that case, “blue therapy” is

Bullies

157

likely to be the most effective response and it w ­ ill have the side benefit of showing other department members that ­there are consequences for out-­of-­bounds be­hav­ior. ­There are any number of complicating f­ actors that could arise in your meeting with Cooper: What do you do if you do find that the accusations are exaggerated or colored by prejudice? What do you do if the feared person is se­n ior tenured faculty and blows you off— or blows up at YOU? What do you do if it is “victim bullying”? What do you do if you find that Cooper does have legitimate reason to be frustrated, even if his mode of expression is inappropriate? Or if Cooper says, “This is how ­people in my culture express themselves”? Work your way through t­hose systematically: what are the issues, what policies apply, what questions should you be asking, and who in your institution can you turn to for resources and assistance? Even with added layers of nuance, it is still clear the be­hav­ior (if substantiated) must stop; Cooper cannot continue this way, even if he feels ­there are good reasons for his angry outbursts. CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT

The key to changing a chronic bully’s be­hav­ior is to change the environment. Think back to the advice in Chapter 1, about that basic mindset to bring to leadership positions. Most ­people want to be liked, or at least to be successful, and to be respected in their profession. Even bullies have t­hese characteristics in the main, and many of them have not been made sufficiently aware of the destructive effects of their actions. Of course, some ­people are quite calculating about getting their way through such conduct, and ­we’ll talk more about them l­ater. But for bullies across the spectrum, most have never been confronted with the consequences of their actions, nor have even been told that their conduct is not well-­regarded in their environment.

158

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Why? For the reasons discussed ­earlier: ­others in the environment are conflict-­averse; it d­ oesn’t feel “nice” or collegial to raise the issue; coworkers have learned to avoid any be­hav­ior likely to trigger the bully’s temper. They have learned (or been trained) to be passive bystanders, not active participants in protecting your unit’s culture. Thus your task is to change the environment to begin attaching natu­ral consequences to unpleasant be­hav­ior, and most of all, to remove any rewards it has yielded. Eventually, you w ­ ill hope to equip and engage ­those previously passive bystanders to become “upstanders” to protect their colleagues and themselves. This is the essence of the hard work to come. Think of it as changing a parent’s response to the child’s grocery store tantrum from a candy bar to some signal of disapproval. The form this disapproval takes can vary, and it takes conscious thought, planning, and some co­a li­tion building. In the early stages, especially, making the changes can involve incon­ve­n ience to o ­ thers; one of the steps a parent may need to take in combating the temper tantrum in public is to leave the public setting, even if that means the shopping is left undone. But any parent who has faced even one such public event knows the salutary effect of holding the line. D ­ on’t cave in. Let’s say you have a faculty member who is abusive to the department’s staff. He brings them work at the last minute and expects it to be done right away, regardless of their other duties. He insists that his work get priority and generally is unpleasant enough that one of the staff ­either moves his work up in the queue or stays late to do it. His approach has always gotten him what he wants, and both the staff and ­others whose work gets delayed to propitiate him are unhappy—­and they are complaining to you. The first step w ­ ill be to tell him that his conduct with the staff is upsetting and is not appropriate. You ­w ill need to provide guidance about proper protocols for interactions and establish guidelines for

Bullies

159

reasonable work turnaround periods. Count on him to test your commitment to your stated position: the most likely response is that he ­w ill call you on the new deadlines by submitting something late in which you have a stake (like a high-­stakes grant application) to force you to choose w ­ hether to enforce your rule or back down. If you can anticipate this eventuality and put up safeguards against it first—­ charging his funds for extra help to f­ ree up departmental staff to meet his deadline, for example—­you’ll be ahead of the game. Alternatively, you could change the way he is permitted to use the resource the staff represent: you could assign one point of entry for his support requirements, such as bringing his work to you (in a small department) or to a se­n ior staff member with a robust personality. Again, anticipate that his first level of response ­w ill be to test how serious you are. You should only choose new rules you can and ­w ill stand b­ ehind, and you should be prepared to take some incon­ ve­n ience or pain as a likely consequence of standing firm. While the goal is to make changes in the environment that remove the positive reinforcement the bully has been receiving for his or her actions, d­ on’t try to change too many f­actors too fast, especially in a situation where the bully has been holding sway for years. The corrective changes involve moving the bound­aries closer to the acceptable range incrementally and gradually. A confrontational showdown serves his interests more than yours. So ­don’t try to change every­thing at once: focus on what r­ eally m ­ atters. Is it the shouting, the insistence on having his work done before ­others’, or the last-­ minute nature of the demands? Pick one and start trying to change it. Stick with it u ­ ntil you achieve your goal. What if the conduct is less directly aggressive? Consider the individual who declines to attend a scheduled evaluation meeting ­because “­those meetings trigger me.” One option is to stop ­doing evaluations; another is to offer a range of choices for how the meeting

160

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

­ ill take place: permitting the person to bring a support person w (simply to be pre­sent, not to participate); setting a time or place that ­w ill help reduce the stress; providing an outline in advance of topics to be discussed. The evaluation w ­ ill take place, though of course you are willing to adapt to reduce what is often an unpleasant fact of work life for many. What you are not ­going to do is change that it is a requirement that an evaluation occur. Once in the evaluation, your job is to provide feedback and set expectations ­going forward. For unit members in dif­fer­ent roles, this may take dif­fer­ent forms: a staff member represented by a ­union is likely to be working u ­ nder dif­fer­ent evaluation criteria than a tenure-­ track faculty member, and ­there are still professional norms and expectations to convey. This can get complicated when the response contains a systemic or po­liti­cal critique: “You are intolerant of my way of expressing myself. Your comments are trying to silence me or normalize me to your dominant group’s preferences.” Remember the caution at the beginning of the chapter: the first time this comes up, consider seriously w ­ hether t­ here is a larger environment issue, a misunderstanding, or injustice at play. If you have done so, and believe t­here is a real conduct issue to address, it’s your job to make it clear that is not your intent: “I do not believe that I am trying to normalize you or silence you. My intent is to describe how what you said landed on a person who is no longer interested in assisting you with this proj­ect, and to find a better way to express what you wish to say.” Stick with the be­hav­ior, and how it landed on the receiver, and if the giver wants to move ahead in the situation it’s useful to understand the impact on every­one. Once again, your job is to stay calm, think about the larger unit culture and effects on o ­ thers, and seek to provide consistency and fairness across the unit.

Bullies

161

IF NOT YOU, WHO?

All this sounds like a lot of work, and you may be asking yourself why you should bother. Especially if your term as chair or head is relatively brief—­say a three-­year rotation—­and you’ll soon go back to the faculty, why should you take the trou­ble to deal with a bully who may be difficult and unpleasant? Why not just find coping mechanisms and live with the situation? You could do that. Many ­people do. In fact, if you have an entrenched prob­lem of some duration, it’s pretty much guaranteed that your pre­de­ces­sors took this route. So why not continue that tradition? Life is pretty short to buy trou­ble, ­after all. Before you decide, t­here are two impor­tant ­things to consider. The first is that it’s not hopeless—­you can make a difference. True, taking action ­w ill not be without cost. That brings us to the second point. What w ­ ill be the costs of inaction? Bear in mind that it’s not just your personal discomfort or safety that’s at issue. Many of the victims are relatively powerless—­which is often the point. You, on the other hand, are in a leadership position for a reason. How many victims—­d irect or indirect—in your environment are suffering from the bully’s be­hav­ior? Direct victims are easy to see: ­they’re the ones who get up and run out of meetings (or ­don’t attend in the first place), the ones who bear the brunt of the bully’s attacks and insults. In your calculus about ­whether to act, ­they’re prob­ably already included, and perhaps ­you’ve thought of ways to make it easier on them. But what of indirect victims? What are your students, for example, learning about how faculty members behave? What is happening to the ju­n ior faculty, or to the staff members: are they afraid to speak up or participate fully in the life of the department? Who may have good ideas but ­doesn’t dare to express them? Are ­there

162

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

p­ eople you expected to make contributions, or to succeed, who are not d­ oing so? Is this b­ ecause of some failure on their part, or is t­ here perhaps something about the environment that is impeding their success? Are you at risk of losing (or have you already lost) promising scholars you wish to retain? If shrinking from dealing with the bad actors in your midst is creating an environment hostile to underrepresented groups you are actively seeking to recruit or retain, you may be d­ oing serious damage—­and opening yourself and o ­ thers to l­egal action as well. Do not underestimate the corrosive and debilitating effect an unrestrained bully can have on the work life and climate of a department. Look around and see what the untenured members of your department are enduring and what ­they’re learning about how established professionals in your field treat one another. Is this the message you want them to absorb, or even worse, a model they might start to emulate? Think about it: ignoring inappropriate conduct in your professional environment has long-­term negative consequences. If you have rising stars, they likely have options for where to work. Is the environment unpleasant enough they are open to offers—or, worse, are out soliciting them? What about the other valued members of your faculty? Are they looking for other options? How well is your unit able to attract and retain quality staff? It takes more than one person to change an environment. That’s why changing the culture is just as impor­tant as your personal interventions. While someone must take responsibility for articulating the positive norms of the group, the most successful approaches involve a small, critical mass of colleagues (say three or four ­people) who are prepared to react in reasonably consistent ways to conduct that breaches group norms. The idea is to ensure that t­here is a response to each and e­ very instance of be­hav­ior that violates t­ hose norms, even if it is as low-­key as merely labeling the be­hav­ior troubling. Peer in-

Bullies

163

fluences can sometimes be more effective than statements or actions from an authority; both should consistently support and reinforce each other. When I was in high school and enmeshed in the politics of a clique of girls, a particularly mature member of the group had a knack for defusing cattiness by quietly saying “That hurt my feelings. I feel ­really bad now.” She ­d idn’t make ­these observations accusingly or with anger, but as ­simple declarations. I still remember my amazement at her ability to be so real in the moment, and also at the apologies she trigged. Genuine responses to nastiness are power­ful. Suppose your group interactions tend to clever putdowns, but your bully pushes the bound­aries and is venomous where ­others are good-­natured. If the target or anyone e­ lse in the group responds, in the pleasant tones the group normally uses, “Ouch, that one ­really hurt,” or even “That’s not nice!” the painful comment is marked as beyond the accepted bound­aries. D ­ on’t follow the comment with hectoring or accusations, but instead let it stand on its own. Noting each over-­the-­l ine remark in this low-­key fashion can be remarkably effective. It moves the group from shared, unspoken discomfort to modeling a socially acceptable response. A stronger stance may be called for when the verbal bullying occurs in a more formal setting. Especially if ­you’re presiding, it’s impor­tant that you not permit personal attacks to occur in the guise of department business. Immediately ruling the remarks out of order and inviting the speaker to rephrase them to focus on the substance, not the person, is appropriate. W ­ hether you like it or not, p­ eople look to you in situations like this to intervene and to set a tone. When you ­don’t, it changes how ­people see you. Admittedly, you risk turning yourself into the bully’s target when you do this. This is where coalition-­building comes into play, and where it’s vital to be firmly within the group’s accepted bound­aries when you respond.

164

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

­ on’t overreact or make yourself the prob­lem: be sure your comD ment is quiet, firm, and phrased politely. D ­ on’t let yourself be labeled as the bully, especially when dealing with victim bullies. Making such changes can be daunting. It takes advance planning and practice. The most critical ingredient is a calm and assertive approach that is neither punitive nor aggressive. The real­ity is that bullies—­people who value the rewards brought by aggression—­have a higher tolerance for conflict than the rest of us, and are likely to respond to signs of aggression by escalating their own aggressive be­ hav­ior. They have likely been practicing this be­hav­ior for a long time, and have reaped rewards from it. Their escalation w ­ ill rapidly surpass the coping abilities of even fairly strong individuals. As a result, staying positive, calm, and clear is central to succeeding in ­these situations. WHAT IF THE BULLY IS YOUR BOSS?

Dealing with bullying be­hav­ior within your department is difficult enough, but it’s even harder to cope when the bullying is done by someone with supervisory authority over you. Unfortunately, ­there are no easy solutions to this prob­lem, which comes up disturbingly often. First you need a careful diagnosis of the patterns of conduct ­you’re seeing, their seriousness, and how many ­people they are affecting. If what you perceive as inappropriate or unprofessional bullying is directed primarily or solely at you, and it’s severe, not something you can grin and bear, your best bet is prob­ably to cut your losses and leave. If y­ ou’re isolated in that kind of situation, u ­ nless the bully is very near the end of his or her c­ areer, the costs to you from staying are likely to be vastly disproportionate to the benefits, no m ­ atter how

Bullies

165

strong your commitment to the institution. This is especially the case if your bête noir is relatively recently appointed and basking in official ­favor. If the prob­lem is more widely shared and / or acknowledged, you still must exercise g­ reat care and caution, and should still consider ­whether you’d be better off leaving. The nature of authority in organ­ izations means that ­you’re facing an uphill strug­g le in which you may well come to be seen as the prob­lem. T ­ here are constructive steps that can be taken, but they are far beyond the scope of this book and require ongoing delicate calculations, the essence of which, at e­ very turn, must be w ­ hether it’s more costly to you to persevere than to move on. RESPONDING TO PROFESSOR CHOLER

The most striking t­ hing about Professor Choler’s be­hav­ior is his consistent arrogation of authority to himself that belongs to ­others. Not only does he accurately point out prob­lems in the per­for­mance of ­others who do not have a reporting relationship to him (that is, for whom he is not a part of the evaluation or supervisory chain), but he takes it upon himself to “punish” them. To change the environment so as to affect his conduct, you w ­ ill need to reclaim your authority as the leader of the department, and you w ­ ill need to draw bound­a ries around his ability to affect the working conditions of o ­ thers so detrimentally. Steps to take before talking directly with him depend upon the structure of your institution and department, and an essential step is to have discussions with your dean and your executive committee to clarify lines of responsibility. This could provide a good foundation for what you w ­ ill need to do next. It might even be useful to raise the issue in a faculty or

166

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

department meeting, perhaps framed as a review of departmental operating policies, or as a discussion about how to make meetings a better use of the time of all who attend. Once y­ ou’ve affirmed that your authority over the members of the department (and especially the support staff ) is generally acknowledged, it’s time to have a face-­to-­face conversation with Professor Choler. Since part of your agenda is to reclaim your authority, it’s impor­tant for this meeting to take place in your office, at your request. You should consider in advance ­whether to limit the discussion to a single topic—­a stronger show of authority on your part—or w ­ hether you wish to cover other topics as well. Some of this ­w ill depend on your own comfort level and upon other circumstances in the department. Have you already met with all faculty members individually (in their offices), for example? Are you familiar with Choler’s ongoing work and professional situation? Do you have other business pending with him? It’s worth thinking through ­these items before you begin. In general, your message ­w ill be conveyed more strongly if his interaction with the staff is the only topic of that meeting than if other items are also covered. Other topics may be useful, though, if your sense is that, with Choler, the best way to approach your main topic w ­ ill be to lead up to it slowly and gradually. Take one more step before the meeting: review Choler’s emails and identify his rhetorical patterns; pick out several themes or words he uses repeatedly. Think about ways to frame your message in which you can employ ­those words in a positive way. Echo his own favorite phrases back to him. Let’s assume that “efficiency” and “effective” are words that recur in his missives. When you meet, start with the positive aspects of his actions: he is perceptive, he is committed to efficiency, and he seeks to improve the way your department works. ­These are praiseworthy traits. You might mention the example of the cumbersome reim-

Bullies

167

bursement system, and in discussing it, convey your expectation as head that in the ­future, when he notices such a prob­lem, he should bring his complaints to you (or to someone ­else you designate). You should emphasize that, as head, you are responsible for the smooth and efficient functioning of the department, and that includes seeing that staff members perform their work properly. In a calm and clear way, you need to convey the dual message that he should bring prob­ lems to you and that it is not his place to chastise staff who do not report to him. The business office staff member, for example, reports to your business man­ag­er, and if Choler has a complaint about her per­for­mance, he should bring it to you—­and not the clerk, and not to the faculty in meetings or by email—so that you can take it up with her and her supervisor. You can emphasize your shared commitment to efficient functioning. You may want to point out that you are interested in his professional success, and you wish to relieve him of the burden of worrying about ­these ­matters (quite an inefficient use of his skills and time), so he can concentrate on his research and teaching. Follow up the meeting with a short and cordial email (two or three sentences) thanking him for taking the time to talk with you and reiterating your commitment to addressing the concerns of members of the department and your expectation that, should he encounter a prob­lem, he ­w ill bring it to you (or to the person ­you’ve designated). Copy yourself. Print out the message. Save it. As to Choler’s disruptive conduct in meetings, the first step w ­ ill be to begin to articulate the group norm that interactions should be civil and collegial. It is always useful, when a meeting goes smoothly, or when a contentious ­matter is resolved professionally, to note that and label it: “I’ve always liked the way our faculty resolves difficult prob­lems without personalizing them.” This kind of comment ­w ill both articulate the norm and provide a foundation for your ­later

168

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

action. Start laying the groundwork at the first meeting over which you preside. Have a private conversation with each person who complains to you, in which you state that you w ­ ill be responsible for ­r unning meetings, and go on to point out that each member of the department must contribute both by being personally responsible and by supporting civil and collegial interactions. If Choler’s outbursts happen at e­ very meeting, the pro­cess of changing the environment to change his be­hav­ior may require several discussions about how faculty meetings should operate, and may even require amending the department’s bylaws to specify how topics get placed on the agenda. If he d­ oesn’t come to that many meetings, and if ­there is a consensus among ­those who do attend regularly that his conduct is out of bounds, start even if he is absent, and start on time. Describe your interest in constructive and efficient meetings, and thus how you plan to run them, elicit suggestions (you may want to start your co­a li­t ion building by raising the topic ahead of time in individual conversations with key faculty members), and be sure the minutes mention the discussion explic­itly: “Procedures for departmental meetings and the role of the presiding officer ­were discussed.” If your department has not distributed minutes in the past, start ­doing so now. The next time Choler starts an attack during a meeting, interrupt him in a firm, positive, and polite tone: “Charlie, it’s impor­tant that we be efficient in our meetings, and focus on issues, not personalities. Could you rephrase your comments so that we talk about the pro­cess issue? As you know, if you have a personnel ­matter to discuss, you and I can talk about it privately a­ fter the meeting.” Be per­sis­tent, positive, and above all, calm. Each time he begins one of his verbal assaults, smile and ­either reframe it and direct the discussion yourself, or place it on the ­f uture agenda for discussion. If he raises a concern that is shared by o ­ thers, think about appointing a

Bullies

169

subcommittee to examine it, or assigning a staff member to look into it. Do not let a personal attack occur. This point deserves emphasis: no ­matter what ­else you achieve, do not permit another member of the meeting to be subjected to a personal attack. If Choler d­ oesn’t respond to your calm intervention, you might suggest that he walk around the block to regain his composure. If someone ­else ­w ill chime in, with a friendly and positive (or humorous) tone, all the better. But d­ on’t sit by while a member of your department is personally attacked. If all e­ lse fails, adjourn the meeting. Try not to let the meeting turn into an escalating confrontation: use deflection techniques and humor, if you can, to focus on the issue, and to depersonalize the discussion as much as pos­si­ble. The chances are very high that, especially if you have the support of the majority of ­those pre­sent, Professor Choler ­w ill back down and cooperate. The w ­ ill of the majority can be a power­ful force, even for someone who enjoys conflict. Every­one in the department w ­ ill be reassured if you are fair and firm and focused on the issues—­and if they see that you w ­ ill not permit personal attacks. Your goal as a leader is not only to deal with this par­t ic­u ­lar bully; it is to create and maintain an environment in which that sort of be­hav­ior is not seen as acceptable.

7

TROUBLED UNITS You are taking on the leadership of a department widely acknowledged to be “troubled.” The faculty of the department have a history of expertise in empirical work; the faculty of its much smaller theoretical group has become completely estranged. Each faction has very power­ful personalities who dislike and mistrust each other, the dean, and the university’s leadership. Hiring and promotion have become divisive and contentious, and email wars encompassing colleagues on and off campus are escalating. Even worse, students are getting caught up in the disputes. A recent external review pro­cess highlighted issues that have been a concern for some time, but not serious enough to be on the front burner. Scholarly productivity is beneath campus norms; the quality of hires and promotions put forward barely meets minimum campus expectations; core courses have not kept up with pro­g ress in the larger field. Recently—­citing commitment to their majors—­the department soundly rebuffed an offer of seed funding to redesign introductory courses crucial to developing the interest of prospective students in the field. Given the centrality of the department’s ser­v ice teaching to many other disciplines on campus, both the dean and the provost are hearing complaints about its courses and have communicated to you the need to “do something ASAP.”

Successful, healthy units happen by design, through leadership and thoughtful nurturing. Most of what has already been covered is about how to manage yourself, align yourself, and develop a conceptual approach to survive and thrive in the difficult role of frontline aca-

Troubled Units

171

demic leader. If you are successful in internalizing and following the general approach, y­ ou’re likely to be able to sustain a healthy unit, or build on the strengths of a department that has a critical mass of well-­ meaning ­people who would like to have a ­g reat place to work. What if you, perhaps against your better judgment, are planning to accept the challenge of providing leadership to a unit known within its discipline or institution to be, at best, troubled or, at worst, toxic? Or, what if a previously collegial unit descends into vitriol when bud­ gets are tight and hard choices loom? What can you do? First, go back to the basics from the beginning of the book: know for yourself why you are accepting the challenge. Sometimes it’s the work itself that is in­ter­est­ing, or a commitment to the p­ eople who ­ought to be able to learn and work in an environment that ­doesn’t damage them. Be honest with yourself b­ ecause you likely face a year or two of rough g­ oing before ­things achieve a new equilibrium. If your main motivation is to be known as the one who was the department’s savior, stop and reflect on that motive. How ­w ill that attitude affect your interactions with o ­ thers? How w ­ ill it affect the way they see you? ­Will that be enough to sustain you through the pro­ cess to come? Examine and come to terms with your own capacity, patience, resources, skills, and motives. Is this a good time in your ­career to accept this challenge? In your life? Do you have any option? Before accepting, some questions to pursue include what has already been done to address the identified prob­lems. How long has the unit been troubled, in which ways, with what symptoms? The longer the prob­lems have existed, the longer it w ­ ill take to move to a sustainable positive state. What (or who) are the main sources of the prob­lems, as best you can tell from your current vantage? Crucially impor­tant is what support you w ­ ill have in your efforts. Think about resources within categories: within the unit; the

172

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

reporting chain up the line (­those hiring / appointing you); other ­internal offices (HR, academic affairs, ­legal counsel, public affairs, ­etc.); and external resources, if any are available. Ask for information about the infrastructure inside the unit and on the larger campus, and assess carefully the interest, staying power, and commitment of the key leaders to whom you ­w ill report for supporting you and seeing you through this pro­cess. What happened to pre­de­ces­sors, if any, who took on this challenge and (apparently) failed? Where appropriate, negotiate for, and to the fullest extent pos­si­ble, seek written confirmation of commitments from ­those offering you the role. This may include a hiring plan (with or without conditions you achieve before your ability to hire), access to resources for working with the unit (internal or external), support for your efforts, funds for sustaining your research, or other needs. This might even include options for an “exit plan” a­ fter your term of ser­v ice. It may very well be that, ­after you do what needs to be done in the unit, your own long-­term status ­there may get uncomfortable. Get as much of that as you can in writing as insurance for when priorities above you shift to other prob­lems of the day, or when the ­people who recruited you take dif­ fer­ent positions elsewhere. If you have the sense that the person one step above you is likely to leave soon, it can be helpful to talk to the person one step farther up the ladder from ­there to gauge how serious the campus is about reforming or restoring vibrancy to the troubled unit. If ­there ­isn’t a commitment to seeing it through, think twice about saying yes. Sometimes, when you are already inside the unit, and moving is not a choice you can or wish to exercise, you may not have good options. In that case, and once you have de­cided to accept the position, do a careful inventory of the resources you may need to be successful. E ­ ither way, have a clear-­eyed assessment of the commitment of your next level up (dean, provost) to provide support and resources

Troubled Units

173

to get through what w ­ ill be coming. While you may not know the full extent of what ­w ill be needed ­until you are farther into the role, does the leader you are reporting to understand that both resources and a partnership outside the department are required to succeed? Proceed accordingly. What you are contemplating requires changing an internal culture, so it’s worth thinking about ele­ments of academic culture and how change happens. Read up a bit on change management, ­because ­you’re about to undertake a sustained change initiative. If the support is t­ here and the challenge is one you think worthwhile, start with the basics of what to do when moving into any new position. Listen. Seek and evaluate data. Pick your advisers carefully. Tend and track your own wellbeing. Focus on the long-­term mission of the unit and the institution. Then add to your repertoire some of the specific concepts and tools for challenged units discussed h ­ ere. They can increase the likelihood that you w ­ ill come out on the other side of your new adventure having left ­things better than you found them—­while remaining healthy and balanced yourself. A common feature of many damaged departments is hostility or suspicion ­toward leadership. If you are ­going to have the leverage and legitimacy to help lead change and to succeed in moving the unit ­toward a healthier culture, the way you talk about the unit and your role ­w ill be critical: you ­w ill make your task harder if you pre­sent yourself as a “white knight” who is ­going to fix or change ­things singlehandedly. Listening, listening, and then more listening is essential, both for what you learn and as a demonstration of your priorities. Even when you become a leader in a unit you have been part of and think you know well, this strategy ­w ill teach you ­things you did not know. While you are meeting every­one and learning about conditions in the unit, do what you can to reduce the frictions of daily work:

174

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

clear clutter to let faculty spend as much time as pos­si­ble on their teaching, research, and ser­v ice. Advocate for necessary facilities, space, and equipment, always keeping the faculty and staff informed of the efforts that you are undertaking—­invisible work is neither understood nor appreciated, especially if it requires frequent absences. Allocate the resources you have based on articulated princi­ples known to all; ­those faculty whose work advances the mission and reputation of the unit should receive resources based on achievement criteria and unit goals. Staff should have the resources to get their jobs done—­and be treated within appropriate professional norms. Your ultimate goal of the effort is to chart a course for unit improvement. This means finishing the analytical pro­cess in a timely manner—­typically no more than two months—­a nd then shifting your focus to developing a strategy for moving forward. Resist the temptation to call a faculty meeting immediately and announce a laundry list of changes you are implementing. To be successful, you need a critical mass of faculty to buy in to key ele­ments of your approach, and that w ­ ill require an investment of time in dialogue and prob­ably some modifications to your plans. By discussing ­these with as many department members as you reasonably can, you can pre­ sent them as a result of a collaborative pro­cess, not an agenda imposed from above. The legitimacy of the diagnosis and proposed plan ­w ill depend on establishing shared owner­ship. SURPRISE!

What do you do if you accept a position and only belatedly discover that the unit is in worse condition than you knew or expected? This can happen when you d­ idn’t do enough homework and it can happen if the recruiting officer or team ­were at best coy, or, worse, outright deceptive. I’ve seen it as well when circumstances significantly changed

Troubled Units

175

between ac­cep­tance of the position and when you take it up: the institution as a ­whole saw a dramatic bud­get cut, or t­here was an en masse departure of the strongest group of faculty in the department. Now, ­we’re back to fundamental questions only you can answer: who you are, and what are your values and princi­ples? If ­you’re stuck—­you’ve uprooted your f­amily and moved and moving again ­isn’t an option, or you have no way to retreat to your previous position or other options—­you may be in a position to negotiate some additional support or concessions from the officer to whom you report. The difference between what was offered when you ­were originally considering the position and now are so dif­fer­ent that you are in a good position to seek changes. Plan carefully and negotiate with a plan. If y­ ou’re not stuck, it’s time to consider your options and specifically ­whether this is a challenge you want to take or if it is time for you to withdraw—­and what that might look like. ­Will you be any better off as a tenured faculty member in the same unit, or do you have another place entirely where you can continue your work? ­Factor in as well your assessment of the unit’s potential to improve, the resources you can deploy along the way, and your energy to take on a bigger challenge than you had bargained for. As you weigh the f­ actors, use the information in this chapter to develop an understanding of what’s at play in the unit as you see it. Let’s consider what healthy, vibrant units have in common. VIBRANT UNITS

A healthy academic unit recognizes its role in the larger institution, and works effectively in context; functional academic departments tend to share a strong commitment to quality teaching, research, ser­v ice, mentoring, and shared governance. Their internal cultures

176

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

have an ethos of trust, re­spect, and excellence. While they may have vigorous disagreements, they typically display enough willingness to compromise that functional decisions can be made, and workloads are shared equitably, within dif­fer­ent roles and c­ areer stages, across the unit. The work of the unit is mission-­d riven and kept f­ree from inappropriate external influences. All members of the unit can work without fear or intimidation. What creates and maintains a culture that fosters excellence in student mentoring, instruction, research, and ser­v ice to the university and beyond? Such cultures ­don’t happen by accident: they grow out of deliberate actions and cultivation of a par­tic­u ­lar mindset by institutional leaders and members of the unit. T ­ here are some f­ actors that are consistently associated with units regarded as excellent, though t­here are no standard procedures or ­recipes to follow; e­ very group has its own internal dynamics and traditions, which can prove surprisingly in­de­pen­dent of par ­t ic­u ­lar personalities. A science department I know that is top ranked for its research has an internal culture that prides itself on the quality of the education it offers. Over the years, I’ve heard both faculty and staff talk about their shared commitment to teaching, referencing a long-­dead leader’s statements, using his first name—­when none of the speakers could ever have met him. The shared identity of the department has incorporated his ideas in a way that supports their ongoing work. On the flip side, I’ve worked with units that ­were badly damaged by toxic bullies and that continue to endure corrosive interactions even a­ fter the central player moved out: the legacy of mistrust and anger festers on in the patterns and habits built up in relationships across the department. ­Don’t let other fronts slip while you are focusing on change efforts: the basics of creating and maintaining a culture of excellence, one that is respectful and inclusive, are needed in t­hese units more

Troubled Units

177

than most. If part of the prob­lem stems from a large personality who is verbally abusive to o ­ thers in meetings and you do not address this from the beginning while you are framing your larger agenda, you ­w ill be communicating that such conduct is acceptable. Or, if t­here is a faction that routinely succeeds in pushing through their proposals by being unpleasant, part of your strategy ­w ill need to address that, ­because they have learned that is the way to “win”—­and in each case, you ­w ill get more of that conduct from ­others who correctly conclude that is the way to get what they want. BUILD A TEAM

Start to identify a core group with the capabilities and the time to help outline a path forward. You and your dean, or in a very large college, perhaps an associate dean for your area, are typically core members, with needed expertise added from other sources. The assistance and support of the provost is ideal; at a minimum, the provost needs to be aware of the central issues and apprised as a plan is developed. In many cases, t­here ­w ill be associate deans and other campus leaders whose past experiences can make them meaningful contributors in supporting roles. In some cases, an external con­sul­ tant can prove to be an effective tool. The key point is that building a plan to improve an academic unit in serious trou­ble cannot rest with a single individual, regardless of their talent, acumen, or experience. Depending on how you came to be in your role (recruitment, crisis appointment, or other), it may be premature to open conversations with ­people inside the unit—or it may be essential to begin immediately. Timing is every­thing and part of that is deciding when to start engaging ­people you hope ­w ill be part of the core group planning for the f­ uture. If t­ here is an elected or appointed advisory committee to the unit’s leader, assess its capacity to be part of a team that

178

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

can help identify prob­lems and change how ­things have been working. Start to identify constructive members of the unit, especially opinion leaders, and consider which issues w ­ ill engage them and on which they can be especially constructive or influential. Whoever might be on a team to help build a new f­uture, it is still your role to set expectations and maintain a level playing field in terms of conduct, and how you react to conduct outside ­those norms. Restoring vibrancy on the way to a culture of excellence requires a baseline culture that is respectful of all members of the unit. Remember the f­actors that create and sustain bullies and toxic environments. GATHER DATA

Collect information systematically. Seek information to confirm what you might have heard about areas of poor per­for­mance or dysfunction; be prepared for surprises when some data refute your expectations or assumptions. To the extent pos­si­ble, you should base your review on objective indicators, including quantitative mea­sures, and not just perceptions or hearsay, although inevitably, subjective observations ­w ill also be an essential part of the pro­cess. To the extent that other p­ eople’s negative perceptions exist (especially if they are not accurate), they are a real­ity to deal with, and changing them is part of the challenge. Bear in mind that nothing happens in isolation: structural, cultural, financial, interpersonal, scholarly, and leadership prob­lems interact with each other in myriad and often complex ways. It can be hard to know where to start sometimes. As you gather data, consider overall patterns of how academic units lose vibrancy in terms of mission. Troubled units generally fall into broad categories: (1) a factionalized faculty (­whether disciplinarily, generational, personality-­based, demographically, or rooted

Troubled Units

179

in other reasons); (2) a unit that withered ­u nder a previous leader (­either an autocrat who managed all ele­ments, with a faculty unused to assuming any role in shared governance, or an ambivalent leader who ­wasn’t up to the role); or (3) a unit at a crisis point, catalyzed by internal or external events that require intervention. Departments become unhealthy for a range of reasons, and one of the most common is a factionalized faculty in which lines have been drawn, sides taken. Such divisions can be both cause and symptom. Sometimes, the sides have hardened past all recollection of how they came to be, and without any overall sense of the toll being extracted. Schisms happen: along methodological lines, ideological or generational differences, or sometimes just by personality conflicts. Any of t­ hese can lead to governance gridlock and inability to manage essential departmental business—or can lead to spiteful, self-­destructive ­battles that are costly for all. If the ability to agree upon or enact coherent planning for the unit’s ­future has been eroded, you often see an inability to hire or retain faculty, to maintain scholarly standards, or to support a curriculum responsive to developments in the discipline and to the need to attract and retain students. ­These truths can become self-­perpetuating. Dysfunction that begins in one area or for isolated reasons can catalyze a negative spiral affecting departmental vibrancy. At times it can seem that some members are working to maintain the destructive status quo. If any of the players in a troubled unit takes to the media—­news or social—­seeking support for their view of the situation, your headaches are g­ oing to multiply. Seek to understand the symptoms as you assess the situation. Be aware that what you think you know might not be so. Troubled units tend to develop a reputation on campus and in their discipline. Remember that clear indicators of performance—­for example, enrollment trends, teaching quality, student completion and attrition,

180

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

student placement, scholarly output and quality, ability to recruit and promote talent, grievances and complaints, timeliness, involvement in impor­tant campus committees—­are needed to illuminate how the unit functions and how it compares to peers on and off campus. When available, qualitative data can play a crucial role in sharpening your understanding of unit dynamics. Meaningful exit interviews with departed faculty, as well as conversations with students and staff about their experiences in the unit, can sharpen your focus on issues ­others are unwilling to address directly. An honest profile of the unit, based on evidence rather than reputation and narrative alone, is essential. If your institution has an institutional research office, it may be able to help you build a compact summary of impor­tant data and indicators such as teaching and student outcomes at dif­fer­ent levels (undergraduate, gradu­ate, majors, minors) including enrollment, graduation rates, and who is teaching; funding (separated into key categories); the demographics of the faculty and their productivity; facilities; and expenditures. Other­w ise, a ­little digging and some work with graphical tools in a spreadsheet can be helpful for building a picture of the unit. Where you can, gather data over five-­year periods so you can chart trends in impor­tant areas. It is often through trends over time, not snapshots, that the w ­ hole picture of a unit in trou­ble emerges. Trends are also harder to argue when presenting the evidence to concerned parties, including the faculty. You may or may not have access to all the data, but you should try to assem­ble what­ ever is available. It can be a good idea to seek help from your appointing administrator or her staff, or at least to share your emerging data summary to cross-­check your impressions and information sources. While you are assembling information, keep an eye out for bright spots: are ­there places that ­things are working well? Are t­ here common characteristics to ­those ele­ments? One of the lessons of suc-

Troubled Units

181

cessful change management is to find ­things working well, understand their features, and seek to build on what’s already working well. Your preliminary review need not be done in secret. ­Those who are in denial about the state of the unit w ­ ill be glad to help on the presumption that data ­w ill vindicate their views. ­Others ­w ill be neutral or unconcerned. In any event, much of the objective data w ­ ill be generally familiar to the members of the faculty. A fundamentally evidence-­based approach ­w ill provide threads for you to follow for pos­si­ble action and questions to pursue as you acclimate to the context and get to know the p­ eople. It can help to depersonalize discussions about issues, which can in turn facilitate positive problem-­ solving rather than blaming. Fi­nally, where the evidence does not align with perceptions, it can serve to spark needed conversations and reflection. Seek opportunities to fully understand the trajectory of the discipline over a ten-­to fifteen-­year horizon and infuse it into the faculty dialogue. Excellent units anticipate change and seek opportunity to be a part of the new environment; troubled departments are often in denial about how out of step they are with the wider trends in their field. DEFINE SUCCESS

As the Cheshire Cat observed, if you d­ on’t know where y­ ou’re ­going, any road w ­ ill take you ­there. ­There are a lot of false directions with troubled units, and a number of them lead to worse destinations. Stop and pose this question to yourself and ­those hiring you: What does success look like? If, in two years, you are completely successful in helping the unit realign and restore vibrancy, what w ­ ill be happening that is not happening now? What ­w ill not be happening that is happening now? What w ­ ill be dif­fer­ent in the objective data,

182

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

and what w ­ ill be dif­fer­ent in the qualitative life of the unit? The answers to t­hose questions w ­ ill help inform your search for data: if hiring and retention are serious prob­lems as indicated by five-­year trends in turnover, the challenges are likely to fall into categories of culture, interpersonal, and academic, and previous leadership may have exacerbated them. Are ­those prob­lems caused by external interference, or are they a culmination of years of not holding bullies in the unit accountable, for example? SOLUTIONS AND APPROACHES

Change is difficult and often resisted, even when it w ­ ill yield large benefits for unit members. Some units seem to love their dysfunction, sad to say. As a general rule, it is often much more difficult to achieve effective change in smaller units than in larger ones, and t­ hose that have stable membership are the hardest of all to affect. Other units ­w ill recognize that they need some change, a recognition that is, unfortunately, often catalyzed by a crisis or negative event. This can happen in departments where some form of serious misconduct has occurred, or in ­others that are absorbing a sobering external review report. For units that have not yet recognized or accepted a need to act, some form of review that gathers and pre­sents data and comparisons to aspirational peers can be a constructive catalyst. I once worked with a unit that had a long history of dysfunction, amply supported by data and facts. A ­ fter putting the unit into receivership, the higher administration laid out two pos­si­ble ­f utures. Option A involved the development, within one year, of a plan for review and approval by an oversight committee of distinguished scholars and alumni. The plan was to encompass a strategic hiring proposal (by area and specialty), a reformed governance pro­cess involving the faculty, and a path to more balanced course offerings and

Troubled Units

183

staffing. (No more three-­student specialized seminars at the expense of ser­vice courses needed campus-­w ide.) If the department’s proposal met with approval of the oversight committee, it would result in resources for hiring a number of faculty, including senior-­level positions, to rebuild faculty size and strength. Option B, to be invoked if no acceptable proposal was presented, was dissolution of the department with seeding of new multidisciplinary clusters in other departments around campus. Given the department’s history of dysfunction, it took time, effort, support, and reminders of their goal. The group developed a new set of expectations for conduct in meetings and in student interactions, as well as ways to respond to each other when ­those expectations ­were not met. L ­ ittle victories created momentum for more ­ambitious goals; the department was proving to itself that it could change. A proposal emerged that received approval from the oversight committee. With help from ­those committee members, now more committed than ever to supporting the department’s success, the department successfully recruited a number of new faculty members, and moved to a more positive learning and working environment. The journey required a number of p­ eople to adopt new ways to interact and build skills—­including personal scripts—­for reminding each other and themselves of their new approaches. It ­wasn’t easy. It was worth it. Meet Every­one

Once you have a good set of data in hand, or if you cannot get it quickly, as you are still building on your base of evidence, it is time to start talking with as many p­ eople within the unit as pos­si­ble. Depending on sequencing, this may need to happen more than once, iteratively as you go. Take the time to meet individually with e­ very

184

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

member of the unit if you can, preferably in their offices, and listen intently to what they say. In ­those conversations, you ­w ill be able to ask clarifying questions about the objective mea­sures you are assembling and seek additional background information. In large units, such discussions may need to take place primarily with the leaders of subordinate units and perhaps with key groups of staff members by rank or function. Hold as many individual conversations as you can, asking each person a small (similar) set of open-­ended questions. Many leaders think it’s their job to create and share a vision for the unit t­hey’re ­going to lead. On the one hand, sure: the opportunity to articulate a vision comes early in one’s appointment—­once passed, it can be lost. At the same time, paradoxically, it cannot be your vision; it must belong to the members of the unit, so bringing a fully baked plan for how you are ­going to change the unit to achieve excellence (which communicates that you have already made up your mind that the current ­people and practices fall short of that) can fall flat. The goal is to find a way to stimulate the evolution of a vision or set of goals that grow out of or are truly shared by members of the unit. An effective way to go about this is to establish a framework or goal, and a pro­cess, and then allow the faculty a very significant role in the effort. If it evolves that way, it can be a power­ful tool for establishing your creditability as an effective leader. This means that it is your job to elicit a shared vision of success—­the leader must lead in establishment of a vision that the faculty own. Develop a Plan

Using the experience of the core team, the energy of t­ hose ­eager for positive change, and relevant data, a plan with relatively specific steps can be developed. An external review team may be most effective at

Troubled Units

185

this stage to synthesize data, illuminate unique features of the discipline, and lend credibility to the plan. This can be especially effective when the preliminary diagnosis is that the unit is lagging ­behind trends in the broader field. The external team can develop an initial set of recommendations, participate in periodic reviews, and / or advise on key unit decisions if needed. As the plan develops, it is useful to think forward several steps: ­after an initial success, what is the next goal? What if an unexpected obstacle arises? How w ­ ill the plan be communicated in the unit? What incentives remain, or emerge, if early pro­gress targets are reached (for example, ability to hire)? What disincentives exist to prevent inertia (no hiring, receivership, financial restrictions)? Activate the ­People of Good Will

Once you have a plan, start encouraging and empowering members of the unit who are ready for a better ­f uture. What­ever the data, the history, and the narrative, t­ here ­w ill typically be many p­ eople in the unit who are ­eager to join with the core team in taking steps to improve the functionality and per­for­mance of their department. ­Those ­people of good will have been waiting for help. Enlisting them as genuine partners in addressing the challenges of their unit is the key to long-­term success. Your department’s size and current alignments should f­ actor into how you go about this. If you have a department riven by factions, it’s not helpful to heighten t­hose by sharing information only with one group, so be thoughtful about who is approached, in what order, and what you ask or share. Some ­people, though, need time to consider and reflect before they take a public stand, so if you heard common themes in your meetings with each individual, or clumps of shared interests, t­ here may be a clear route for addressing ­t hose

186

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

issues first, or starting with ­those individuals to plan how to address them. As you start to involve more members of the unit, ask yourself ­whether some or all would value more information or new skills for problematic interactions. Does every­one understand the bud­get and how it affects the ­future? How enrollment trends are affecting resources? How the curriculum fits into institutional priorities (or ­doesn’t)? For units that depend upon interlocking work across campus, ­whether that’s a department that teaches core courses taken by a range of majors or a writing center, what feedback is coming from “client” departments? Are they creating their own courses to avoid your department? ­Those trends can also be meaningful and power­ful when presented clearly. Sometimes, a carefully planned retreat that includes every­one and shares relevant data can help start the change pro­cess. It may also be pos­si­ble to deal directly with prob­lems and structure conversations about new approaches at that event, especially if t­ here is a clear choice point or if the higher-­level leaders (dean, provost) have presented clear “either-or” options for the unit’s ­future. One unit I worked with created specific personal scripts anyone could use—­and that all o ­ thers would recognize—­when they thought a conversation or meeting was reverting to toxic patterns. They needed help in developing the scripts and then in practicing how to use and respond to them, including supporting someone who was using a script. It took several weeks to build the habit and then consistent reinforcement from the leader. That reinforcement was soon picked up by ­others, and the ­people of good will carried the day. They usually do, if they know they represent a critical mass and are supported in seeking a more positive department climate. Change is hard, and it can be frightening. Be vis­ib­ le and accessible for informal interactions. One leader I know, despite having a dedicated parking place just outside his office, purposefully parked most days in the parking garage used by most faculty members and

Troubled Units

187

staff. That meant that he encountered many of them in his walks that led to useful conversations in that low-­stakes setting. ­Because it was relatively predictable he’d be ­there at certain times of day, a number of “coincidental” contacts happened. ­People learned he mostly listened, and he gathered many valuable leads to follow up. Frequent contact and accessibility to answer questions—­a nd bat down rumors—­can be invaluable in soothing the fears and insecurities that change brings. It ­w ill ­matter as much as many other steps you are taking. While the unit is undergoing culture change and stress, devote at least a portion of your energies to support revitalization and reinvention by unit members. Faculty c­ areers go through cycles, and one of your roles is to provide guidance, feedback, and encouragement for faculty to see the long arc of their c­ areers, and to help them periodically reinvent their work and incorporate new insights and directions. The unit cannot be vibrant if its members are not individually thriving. Revitalization and reinvention should apply to teaching as well as to research interests, and include ways for building on the strengths of staff members in the unit. They, too, should have ways to grow as professionals. Build pride in the unit around truly impor­tant accomplishments through both internal and external messaging. Celebrate milestones of accomplishments and major proj­ects; communicate pride in individual achievements; and contextualize all of ­these as steps in improving the overall excellence of the unit and the direction of the discipline. Be as inclusive as pos­si­ble. Do not fall into the trap of advertising only the accomplishments of the chosen few. In one department I was in, the dean regularly solicited emails about individual accomplishments. It soon became clear that only her in-­group’s accomplishments ­were included in the weekly newsletter, even when o ­ thers had achieved the same or higher accolades. The effect that had on internal morale and her credibility was not positive.

188

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Hiring

The difference between widespread appreciation for excellence versus jealousy is central to the culture and trajectory of a unit. The way a department excels and continues to improve is to welcome members even better than ­those already pre­sent, so in recruiting and in assessing new colleagues, strive for a welcoming appreciation of ­those who achieve at the highest levels. Recruiting, retaining, and supporting t­hose high fliers is essential to changing the culture of a unit, and so is one of your main challenges. That may entail consequences like paying higher salaries than some other department members earn; more visibility, at least at the outset; and students relocating to where the cutting-­edge ideas (and funding support) are gravitating. ­Others—­especially longtime department members—­may resent this. Mediocre units often exhibit the “tall poppy” syndrome: trying to pull down t­ hose who excel and stand out to align with more comfortable, familiar ways of ­doing ­things. Openly and regularly discuss the importance and rewards of excellence to the unit, and to each of its members; articulate how reflected glory can be both bright and uplifting. Point out the value to colleagues of being known as a place where excellence is the norm, and is welcomed. It is your job to be one of the primary voices articulating the value to the unit as a whole—in reputation, in aspiration, in possibilities—­when one member soars. BE PATIENT AND ADAPTABLE—­B UT NOT TOO PATIENT AND NOT TOO ADAPTABLE

Recognize that you w ­ ill rarely—­possibly never—­get every­thing right or correctly mapped from the start. Instead, addressing longstanding issues in a floundering department w ­ ill be a gradual, continuous improvement exercise, with many opportunities to evaluate pro­g ress,

Troubled Units

189

and to reconvene the core team to reconsider next steps and modify as needed. The worst error is stopping or giving up. Significant prob­ lems in an academic unit usually build slowly, typically ­under conditions of neglect or reinforced by the half-­hearted or all-­too-­brief efforts of a leader who prematurely leaves for another position. That is an unaffordable ­m istake, as it ­w ill feed the core prob­lems. Monitor pro­g ress and correct course as needed, but stay with the proj­ect, even if that requires additional assistance. Common pitfalls can doom your efforts. In units that fail to improve, or t­ hose that start improvement efforts that falter or fail, t­ hese feature regularly. ­These include prematurely accepting external perceptions as valid; assigning blame or announcing corrective action before becoming thoroughly familiar with the unit, its culture, its key personalities, and the environment in which it functions; or establishing internal advisers and confidants before having an informed, reasonably comprehensive understanding of the facts and the dynamics. Each of ­these ­factors undercut effective change management; understanding a prob­lem thoroughly, and assuring that the approaches being ­adopted w ­ ill fit the culture and address the shortcomings pre­sent, is key to positive change. You may have to implement some new approaches quickly. If you are in your role as the result of a crisis, for example, immediate actions to reduce liabilities or assure personal safety may be underway before you come into the department or may be part of your assignment. If the situation is not dire, seek small changes that w ­ ill improve the daily lives of ­people in the department. If the practice has been to have meetings that do not use the time of attendees well, make vis­i­ble structural changes early on. Time is an irreplaceable resource, and most ­people feel too busy: agendas that include the purpose of each item (information or action, and what kind of action), clear minutes listing who is responsible for next steps, and similar

190

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

ele­ments are generally achievable without significant controversy. From the first meeting, establish a practice of bringing discussions back to the stated agenda topic, and setting aside other topics for a more appropriate time. (You do have to go back to t­ hose topics, just not during the meeting being derailed by them.) If you learned of common sources of frustration during your individual meetings, consider ­whether any of t­hose can be lessened. Even small steps early ­w ill be positive. In most troubled units, though, necessary changes involve dealing with aspects of deeply embedded culture, and ­those ­w ill take time. Equipping the ­silent majority with tools to deal with entrenched bullies, or helping the group see that internecine warfare is taking them all down, takes patience, data, and prob­ably reinforcement from outside the department. Shifting a culture requires a sustained commitment undeterred by temptations for quick, po­liti­cally opportunistic decisions that might look like “wins” but that actually detract from the long-­term goal. Does this all sound like a lot of work? It is. Consider the alternatives, though, including the number of p­ eople being damaged and the educations shortchanged if the status quo persists. Once y­ ou’ve accepted a leadership role in a troubled unit, keep re-­centering yourself on the reasons you did so, and keep your purpose in mind. Recruit allies. Seek out resources that can assist you and your team and use them. Find trusted colleagues outside the department with whom you can vent or commiserate. Remember that you cannot maintain the equilibrium and perspective your task ­w ill demand of you if you let yourself become depleted. Take care of yourself.

8

PROB­LEMS, RULES, AND LAWS You receive an anonymous letter reporting that Professor McNabb, a faculty member in your department now on sabbatical at University A, has a full-­t ime, paid faculty appointment ­there and is teaching courses. The letter also says that, on her last sabbatical eight years ago, McNabb received full pay for the entire academic year from a dif­fer­ent university, University B, and that she taught courses t­ here was well. Your publicly supported university allows faculty to augment their sabbatical pay only with grant and award support; it permits exceptions for honoraria for “a ­limited number of professional pre­ sen­ t a­ t ions,” provided that they are approved in advance. The members of your Board of Regents are drawn from business and po­liti­cal sectors. In recent years, they have repeatedly questioned the sabbatical system and sought extensive information about this perquisite for your faculty. The administration has prepared a number of reports showcasing advances in research and teaching made pos­si­ble by sabbaticals and has increased the information provided to the Board with the annual request for approvals. Nonetheless, this remains an area of tension between the administration and the Board. Several members of the state legislature’s higher education committee also ask for information on faculty sabbaticals ­every few years. Paperwork on file shows that Professor McNabb received approval for a full-­year sabbatical at full support (two-­thirds pay). Her proposal describes a plan to be a resident at University A to learn a new research technique. The plan approved for the previous sabbatical (also for a full year at two-­thirds pay) was to visit a think tank affiliated with University B. The

192

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

required report submitted following that sabbatical describes research advances but does not mention any teaching. When you consult with the dean, he points out that Professor McNabb is prob­ably the most impor­tant intellectual asset of your department, and that she frequently gets job offers from other institutions. He suggests that University A is using the sabbatical visit to recruit her, and urges you to do nothing that would upset or antagonize her.

­ here are some issues you just ­can’t deal with on your own. Even if T you have become totally comfortable in your leadership role, even if you have read and understood the nuances of all university policies that apply to your department—­and even if you have a law degree—­ when issues with l­egal ramifications come across your desk, you must consult with your institution’s l­awyers. (Depending on the prevailing culture, you may need to notify ­others, such as your dean, before calling the l­awyers, especially if the ­lawyers are not on staff and are charging by the hour.) Anything involving any personnel decision (hiring, remediation, firing), compliance (especially with governmental regulations or any law), students’ c­ areer issues (entrance, being terminated from a program), or the frictions between p­ eople (grievances, and so on) require that you know the policies, find the resource p­ eople involved, get advice, and follow it. AVOIDING LAWSUITS

“My mom (dad, s­ ister, grand­father, neighbor) is a l­awyer and w ­ ill be calling you (if you d­ on’t change your mind, give me a raise, make him stop it).” In the moment, most of us can recognize the threat and remain impassive. But, truly, who ­doesn’t worry about getting sued?

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

193

Who i­sn’t a ­little fearful of the time, mess, and hassle that becoming embroiled in a lawsuit can involve? And, in higher education, who ­isn’t a bit irritated at intrusions into academic ­matters by outsiders who invoke legality but care ­little about the values and mission of our institutions? However we feel about it, though, at least in the United States, and to varying degrees in other countries, we are entangled with the ­legal system and likely to stay that way. What does the savvy or even just survival-­m inded department head need to do to stay un-­sued? The first t­ hing to know is that, while common sense and a few rules you ­w ill learn in this chapter w ­ ill go a long way, sometimes being sued is simply the price of being in business. I hasten to add: not very often. The real­ity has to be faced, though: t­here are times when taking the correct institutional action means that ­there is ­going to be a lawsuit. As any l­awyer w ­ ill tell you, the question is not “Can I get sued for this?” but instead “Can they win if they sue me for this?” Practically anyone can sue you for practically anything. The good news is that most lawsuits ­w ill go away long before they get to trial or judgment. Some ­w ill go away ­because ­they’re meritless and some ­because your insurer is pusillanimous (they w ­ ill call this businesslike) and pay off the “nuisance” claims b­ ecause it costs less to buy closure than to defend and win. But most of them ­w ill go away. The question, of course, is how much they ­w ill cost you in time, psychic wear and tear, sleeplessness, or other unpleasantness before they dis­ appear? And, w ­ ill it cost you money? Luckily, as with so many aspects of leading in the academic environment, being properly prepared w ­ ill help. ­There are some guidelines that ­w ill help you keep the situation from arising in the first place. That’s what this chapter is about. The first rule you need to know—­a nd to follow, no ­m atter what—is one y­ ou’ve already heard in this chapter: Do not try to

194

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

­ andle ­legal ­matters by yourself. The definition of a ­legal ­matter is h any time you are contacted by a ­lawyer, or receive a ­legal document, or deal with an issue involving l­egal consequences. If you get a telephone call from a l­awyer, do not discuss anything substantive without getting advice from your institution’s ­legal counsel. If you receive a ­legal document—­even one that looks straightforward to you, like a request for someone’s monthly salary b­ ecause they are b­ ehind on child support or a request for a document you have and think is innocuous—­do not provide the document or information without first talking to your institution’s ­legal staff. This ­simple rule ­w ill help you. No ­matter how smart, savvy, and experienced you are, it is not your job to be the l­awyer. Do not guess or assume you know the best way to respond to an outside ­lawyer. Get advice. And follow it. Even if you have heard through the grapevine that your university’s ­lawyers are second rate, the likelihood that the institution ­w ill cover any ­legal bills you incur is much better if the l­awyers are involved from the beginning of ­every ­matter. And ­there are some counterintuitive t­ hings that happen in the l­egal world that they should be able to protect you from—if and only if you consult them. I recall a department head who knew this rule of thumb but ignored it when a member of his staff was involved in a child custody case. The staff member’s l­awyer asked him to provide information to help her case. Every­one in the department liked the ­woman and knew what a creep her ex-­partner was. The department head’s well-­ meaning action eventually cost him several days of his time, as the opposing ­lawyer called him for a deposition in the case. He found the experience deeply distasteful: ­u nder oath, he was asked many questions about his own personal life as well as that of the staff member. Many he ­d idn’t have to answer, but the fact that they ­were

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

195

posed and had to be addressed by the l­awyer at the deposition with him was an aversive experience. The time and effort of preparing for the deposition and then enduring it could have been saved if the department head had simply referred the original document request to the office of university counsel. University l­awyers have a set procedure for verifying and responding to such requests, and their participation insulates supervisors from personal involvement in such m ­ atters. Although he used his sad experience to warn his colleagues against dealing with l­egal ­matters without consulting the counsel’s office, attention spans are short and memory attenuates. Not thirteen months ­later, another department head responded in almost precisely the same way, with the same results, b­ ecause it was the same l­awyer, who had added the technique to his arsenal. So, rule one is: d­ on’t play l­awyer, even for seemingly routine or minor m ­ atters, and even if you have a law degree or know a lot about the ­legal system. Let the institution’s ­lawyers—­who are paid to do this—­represent you in ­legal m ­ atters. Now for rule number two: Learn the institutional policies at your university that govern your actions as a unit head in each of the following areas:

• Hiring • Evaluation • Remediation / firing • Discrimination / harassment, including ADA (disability accommodations) • Compliance issues (research misconduct, ­human and animal subject protection, grants policies, f­amily leave act, personnel and student privacy issues)

196

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

In each of t­hese areas, you must know, in advance, the limits upon your range of action, the specific policies that apply, what you are expected to do and when, and the resource ­people you can consult at your institution. For example, as the leader of the department, are you responsible for ensuring that ­every staff member is evaluated once a year? Once e­ very three years? Are you expected to sign off on ­these evaluations? Are you expected to certify to a central office that the required evaluations have been completed? Who sets the standards against which staff are to be evaluated? Are the standards dif­fer­ent for dif­fer­ent categories of employees? If p­ eople in the department think the standards are being applied more strictly for some than for o ­ thers, are you the one who’ll be sued for discrimination? (Prob­ably.) If a staff member in your department is to be terminated, does the firing occur in your name? If so, it pays to be sure that the evaluation pro­cess is fair and appropriate. Are you beginning to get a feel for this? If you are the department head, and you are nominally or in fact responsible for a set of procedures, you are likely to be named in any grievance or lawsuit that results from unresolved prob­lems. Since that’s the case, you may as well accept that this is the real­ity and ensure that your ­house is in order from the very start. This is a responsibility that comes with your role. Beyond the two basic rules—­don’t play ­lawyer, and learn your policies—­here are some other impor­tant points to keep in mind when situations arise that might have l­egal implications.

Pro­cess is especially vital in personnel and student-­related ­matters. No ­matter how ­eager you are to resolve a prob­lem quickly, your resolution w ­ ill stick only if you scrupulously follow e­ very appropriate procedural step. You can PRO­C ESS AND PROCEDUR E AR E YOUR FR IENDS.

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

197

take immediate, decisive action and quite prob­ably see it overturned, or you can painstakingly document e­ very step in what may seem like an endless process—­and see your resolution stand in the end. Perceptions of power ­matter. ­People like and identify with underdogs. W ­ hether or not you feel like an authority figure, you w ­ ill be seen as the more power­f ul actor in any interaction with a student or a member of your department. If you act in ways that p­ eople may perceive (even if through misunderstanding) as high-­handed or as abusing the power of your position, you w ­ ill lose support. And you may lose more than that. ­ atter how much insight you may Focus on conduct, not motive. No m think you have into what is motivating a person’s be­hav­ior—­family conflicts, general level of stress, stage in life, health or general stability—­your role is not to share your insights or your diagnosis. Your role is solely related to setting and enforcing expectation for appropriate conduct in the environment for which you are responsible. Just as this means you should not say “­You’re being paranoid, Sam—­every­one knows you get that way when the moon is full,” it also means you should say something like this: “Sam, I am committed to providing a fair hearing to every­one in the department. If you believe something unjust has occurred, please tell me what happened, and I’ll look into it. Meanwhile, my expectation is that you ­w ill follow our established procedures. It i­ sn’t appropriate to try to rec­ord advisory committee meetings without the knowledge or consent of the other p­ eople in the room.” Less is more in a dispute. When y­ ou’re developing your written confirmation of a hard conversation (remember this good practice ­you’ve learned?), a­ fter you finish your first draft, go back through it and excise ­every adjective. Better yet, leave out any description of your feelings altogether. No one needs to know that you are disappointed or concerned, shocked, outraged, or appalled. This ­isn’t about

198

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

you. Stick to low-­key, factual statements. Go for understatement. Rec­ords accumulate over time, and the sheer aggregation w ­ ill begin to ­matter. More than that, think of the “third reader.” That’s the outsider who d­ oesn’t know you personally and d­ oesn’t know how aggravating the person y­ ou’re dealing with is (imagine a l­awyer assessing the merits of the case to decide ­whether to take it on, or a hearing officer or jury member hearing the case). The more calm, reasoned, and rational you appear at e­ very step, the less likely you are to be sued ­later, or to lose the case if you are sued. You want ­every piece of the written rec­ord to reflect your evenhanded, deliberate, understated reaction. Less is more.

Less is more in another sense as well. Well-­ educated ­people with strong powers of reasoning (a category that includes almost every­one in a university) like to explain t­ hings. Resist this urge. When, a­ fter g­ oing through the appropriate pro­cess, you must make a hard decision, do not lay out your reasoning in detail. Simply pre­sent your decision and the rule / pro­cess that supports it. If you go into a recital of your reasons, you are inviting a debate over the small points. If your decision is final, pre­sent it and let it stand on its own. Trust me on this. If the dispute does go further and leads to a grievance or a lawsuit, you want an official rec­ord that shows scrupulous adherence to the pro­cess, full opportunity for facts to be presented and heard fairly, and the final decision and the facts on which it rests. You do not want to defend your thought pro­cess or line of reasoning. Ever. This is not an academic debate or an opportunity to win friends or influence p­ eople. Nothing you say at this point is likely to persuade anyone. It’s enough to have to defend your actions—­don’t put yourself in a position for having to defend your thoughts, too.

­D ON’T OV ER-­E XPL AIN.

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

199

CRUCIAL L ­ EGAL CONCEPTS

­ here are two other l­egal concepts you also need to know about: noT tice and due pro­cess. If you understand the basics of ­these two fundamental tenets of our l­egal system and are careful to pay attention to them, you are more likely to avert a lawsuit or to win it if it cannot be avoided. Notice

Notice is a ­legal concept that means that you may, in hindsight, be judged by w ­ hether you “knew or should have known” about a prob­lem. So, take the after­noon when a faculty member wanders by your office to tell you about a conversation she had “the other day” with a female gradu­ate student. According to the faculty member, this student reported seeing a postdoc, a grad student, and their advisor loading equipment and supplies into the postdoc’s pickup truck over the weekend. The faculty member knows the advisor has a spinoff com­pany but still won­ders if someone o ­ ught to know about this. You might be tempted to dismiss this information as gossip—­ after all, you d­ idn’t hear it directly from the student. Think again. The information you received, though second­hand, could be anything from authorized equipment transfer to theft. As a result, the university has arguably been “put on notice” of a pos­si­ble prob­lem and should take steps to address it. D ­ on’t, however, act without guidance. Do not improvise what comes next: find out (or better yet, have found out in advance) who is the resource person for this kind of issue in your university’s tech transfer, ­human resources, or academic personnel office, and call that person—­pronto—­for advice. If any of the faculty member’s research is federally funded (quite likely),

200

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

assuring that e­ very aspect of this equipment move is authorized ­w ill save a lot of time and trou­ble for every­one. This impinges on one of ­those areas in which the institution is liable for the actions of its employees and for actions taken a­ fter just about anyone in authority “knew or should have known” of the situation. More fundamentally, it goes to the heart of your responsibility as steward for the good of the w ­ hole in providing a safe learning and working environment where all can work to their best capacity. Taking appropriate action now can greatly reduce (even eliminate) the university’s potential liability. And yours. So, in a case like this you need to know that t­ here is a pos­si­ble l­egal issue, that it’s your job to address it (no ostrich be­ hav­ior, no m ­ atter how appealing it might be), and that you need guidance for what you do next. Due Pro­cess

Due pro­cess is a concept that trips off the tongue of Americans, as it’s central to our concept of government and democracy. To us, it’s about “being fair.” Not very many of us actually know what it means and requires in practice, though. Boiled down to its essence, due pro­ cess means that, before you take action against someone, especially serious action that might affect the person’s job or ­career (say, as in a student’s dismissal), you inform that person about the prob­lem and provide him an opportunity to respond to what­ever evidence you are using to make your decision. Most concepts of due pro­cess also include giving the person at least one opportunity to appeal a decision that goes against him to a decisionmaker who was not involved in the original proceedings. In practice, this means that if a faculty member or student is charged with a serious violation of a university policy that might affect her status (working or studying at the university, for example),

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

201

she should be told (given notice of ) what the charges are and have opportunity to respond to the evidence against her. The more serious the charge, the more formal should be the notice and the opportunity to respond. Thus, a charge of violating academic integrity that might lead to dismissal would prob­ably require written notification of the charge and the evidence, with a full opportunity to respond in person, or in writing, or both. Most academic integrity proceedings involve a committee, and the accused person is notified of the committee’s composition (and often permitted to object to any member on grounds of personal bias or conflict in interest) and given a chance to meet with the committee to discuss the evidence and to submit a written statement or information about the prob­lem—­and all this must be considered in full before a final decision is made. If the decision is that findings are serious enough to warrant dismissal, the safest course, which your ­legal staff ­w ill undoubtedly advise you to take, is once again to provide notice: notify the person that dismissal is contemplated and offer her an opportunity to respond by submitting any mitigation of information that the decisionmaker should consider before taking action. ­A fter the decision is made, an opportunity to appeal is often provided, though this is not mandatory. Again, put yourself in the shoes of the person being accused. What would it take for you to feel that the proceedings w ­ ere fair? You would want to be able to respond to all the evidence against you, to make your best case on your own behalf, and to feel that you ­were fully heard. To make your best case, you would need to know in advance what the pos­si­ble consequences ­were, so that you would prepare your response with the proper level of seriousness. Many of us think that the “right to confront witnesses” is a central tenet of due pro­cess. Actually, the central right is to confront the evidence and to have a chance to rebut it. Confrontation of witness is

202

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

not required in many situations, especially in the internal administrative proceedings of universities in contrast to the kinds of criminal cases dramatized on TV. For example, in situations where the primary evidence is documentary (say, in a plagiarism case), t­here’s no requirement that the accused person have the opportunity to confront the person who brought the m ­ atter to light: the requirement is that the person whose conduct is in question have the full opportunity to know about and respond to all the evidence. This is widely misunderstood, even by ­lawyers who practice in other fields—­say the criminal l­awyer who is contesting the F his son got for turning in a paper bought on the internet, and who wants to be able to cross-­ examine in a full-­blown hearing the teaching assistant who discovered the violation. It is, however, the rule that applies. Naturally, due pro­cess plays out in many dif­fer­ent ways, especially if you work in a public institution, where any action taken is considered “state” or government action. We have more safeguards against government actions against us than we do in interactions among and between completely private parties. But even in a private university or outside the US ­legal environment, basic due pro­cess concepts ­will (or should) be applied, b­ ecause it helps ensure that judgments made and institutional actions taken are defensible and robust. In summary, then, l­egal prob­lems that come up in your professional life require some basic knowledge, but not of the law—­only of when to call for help instead of acting on your own. Remember: anything having to do with personnel decisions (hiring, remediation, firing), compliance (especially with governmental regulations or any law), students’ c­ areer issues (entrance, being terminated from a program), or the frictions between p­ eople (grievances, and so on) are grist for the ­legal mill. Find the policies, find the resource ­people involved, get advice, and follow it. Keep it firmly in mind that ­these

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

203

are arenas in which o ­ thers may quickly be drawn in to scrutinize your actions and second-­g uess your decisions. Let’s look at a few situations that you might encounter. A ­ fter reading each scenario, but before reading its discussion, ask yourself two questions: (1) What are the issues involved? (2) Who is your resource person for advice in this situation? PERSONNEL ISSUES

You have just been named as department head. You have had the same administrative assistant for some years and would like to take her along to your new position. However, t­here is already an assistant assigned to the department head’s office. What do you do?

In most colleges and universities, a department head has the authority to reassign employees within the unit—as long as each reassigned employee has the relevant qualifications, and as long as the appropriate pro­cess is followed without any taint of discrimination. That pro­cess ­w ill be more elaborate in some places, especially ­those with a civil ser­v ice system of some sort, than in o ­ thers. In this instance, you may be able to keep your long-­term assistant and reassign your pre­de­ces­sor’s assistant to some other spot in the department. However, you should first think through all the implications of such action. W ­ ill taking your assistant with you be in the best interest of the unit? ­Will current working relationships suffer? While your assistant may be excellent at supporting your research efforts, ­w ill she be as skilled at supporting you in your new administrative responsibilities? What messages ­w ill ­others take from this change—­ especially from you making a decision unilaterally before y­ ou’ve officially started your new role? Are t­ here o ­ thers working with e­ ither

204

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

assistant who should be consulted or, at least, informed before you make changes? Before taking any action, consult with the office that deals with support staff to find out what rules and procedures apply and to hear any suggestions or advice that may be offered. ­There may not be a ­legal issue ­here, but ­there is certainly a policy issue that, if not handled correctly, could lead to a ­legal issue. A professional employee is working irregular hours. Some nights she comes back in and works ­ until midnight; the next day she may not arrive at the office u ­ ntil noon. She also spends time in the library d­ oing research, and lately has been away from the office a good deal of the time. Both faculty and staff members have complained about her irregular schedule and her absence during normal work hours. What should you do?

Employees fall into categories, and let’s assume this employee is in the category “exempt” from hourly reporting and related l­egal requirements. The hours and work plans for the professional should have been developed in advance, with the understanding that professionals are paid for the work performed, according to the needs of the unit. Does this person’s work require presence during working hours to be effective? Can you articulate what ­those reasons are, and why? While effective work of this person may require travel and irregular hours, it appears that in this case, o ­ thers in the unit are not aware of the way in which her work is contributing to the unit. Provided that you agree with the employee’s hours, you should communicate to all staff about the ways in which dif­fer­ent individuals contribute to the unit goals and that this has your approval. It’s a good practice in general to have ­every employee who works remotely make their working schedule available to o ­ thers, so all have a common

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

205

understanding and expectation of when, and how, contact is most effective, and how long responses w ­ ill likely take. You should also review the professional’s schedule and work plans periodically to assure that the irregular hours continue to meet the needs of the position and how it fits within your unit. If you do not agree with the hours, then you w ­ ill need to start the pro­cess of reviewing the job description, stating your expectations, and enforcing them, if necessary, through progressive discipline. Your campus likely has a personnel or h ­ uman resources office to provide advice on your scheduling plans. (The world has shifted on us; flexible hours and work locations are more common—­and expected in many categories—­with advances in technology and changes in employee expectations.) As the new dean, you evaluate your office’s operations and find that you r­ eally ­don’t need four administrative assistants, but you do need some accounting technicians and a business man­ag­er. You tell two of the assistants that you are changing their responsibilities, and you assign them the accounting and business tasks. Now that they are no longer ­doing administrative tasks, you call the personnel office and ask how to change their titles and give them pay increases. How do you think the personnel office ­w ill respond?

Before you act, you need to know what rules apply. Your institution may have both qualification requirements for t­ hose who take on new responsibilities and rules about open applications or access when new positions are created. You chose two of the four assistants for the newly created jobs, but you gave none of them a choice of ­whether to apply for ­those jobs. You may have effectively split your staff into haves (higher pay, dif­fer­ent duties) and have-­nots (same old jobs, same old salary). If anyone is aggrieved you may find yourself

206

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

facing charges of discriminatory or arbitrary action. Specifically, if any of the individuals falls into any protected class (age, gender, religious beliefs, national origin, disability, pregnancy, veteran status), you may have just ­v iolated a federal law in the United States—or at least be accused of it and have your actions scrutinized to discern ­whether you did. Again, the office that deals with support staff is your resource and source of guidance. You may or may not have the power to make the changes or to provide higher salaries, depending upon the rules of the game within your institution. Check first, to avoid embarrassing backtracking and bad feelings. A nonfaculty professional employee comes to you and expresses concern about her latest job evaluation. She explains that her new supervisor has made comments about her age and his perception that she is no longer “up to the task” of performing her duties. She always received good evaluations from her previous supervisors. How should you address her concern?

This employee is expressing an allegation of pos­si­ble age discrimination. Inform her that you ­w ill look into the ­matter and get back to her. Also, you prob­ably should provide her with a copy of the university’s internal grievance procedures and advise her that she may file a grievance regarding her concerns. To avoid any appearance that you are retaliating against her for speaking against her supervisor, keep in mind that it is critical that you avoid saying anything that she may interpret as meaning that you are not interested in her concerns or that you are not supportive of her filing a grievance. You should also notify the appropriate personnel office or the l­egal staff about your conversation with her.

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

207

Your resource in this situation is the personnel or h ­ uman resource office that deals with employees in this person’s job category. Another resource might be the affirmative action or equal opportunity office. If your institution ­doesn’t have such an office, call the office to which you report and / or the ­legal staff, depending on local culture: in some places, calling the l­egal staff directly would be expected; in o ­ thers, it would be considered an end run around normal channels. Know your culture, and also know that ­there is a ­legal issue ­here in which you may get caught if you are not alert and careful. A faculty member comes to you and states that, b­ ecause of his depression, he cannot teach any classes that begin before 11:00 a.m. He explains that it is difficult for him to wake up early, and that he and his psychologist feel that it is reasonable to teach ­later classes. Do you honor his request?

This is a ­legal issue in the United States, almost completely controlled by interpretations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which covers a wide range of disabilities including ­mental health issues, and by the laws of your state. The way this faculty member phrases his request—­providing a diagnosis, depression, and citing a clinician’s advice—­means that, ­under ADA, he is asking for an accommodation for his disability. This is not a time for you to play armchair ­lawyer. Your university prob­ably has procedures in place to h ­ andle such requests, and the institution may be liable if they are handled improperly. As a result, you should avoid acting on this request u ­ ntil you have discussed the m ­ atter with the appropriate university office. This ­will be ­either the personnel office, its equal opportunity spin-­off, or the ­legal office. If you take it upon yourself to grant a request without consulting the correct office, it is quite likely that you w ­ ill

208

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

inadvertently commit the institution to more of an accommodation than is required or appropriate, or to providing an accommodation when none is required. Once an accommodation has been provided, it becomes virtually impossible to reassess ­later and say that it was not appropriate; you may have committed the university to a position from which t­here is no retreat. Only at the last minute, once, did I hear of a department that was considering a request that a gradu­ate student not have to take any course requiring logical thinking, as his counselor has diagnosed him with a “logical pro­cessing defect.” The ADA does not mean you must grant ­every request. This one, for example, would have meant having to alter essential functions or requirements of the gradu­ate educational program, which the law does not require. The request does mean that a formal, prescribed pro­cess is triggered that must be documented at e­ very step. At no point should you act without competent and well-­informed advice, ­because denying a legitimate request risks placing you and your institution in violation of the ADA. The dean who denied a request for working hours accommodations for a ­woman undergoing a course of chemotherapy learned this the hard way. When you assumed your new position as department chair, you inherited both your pre­de­ces­sor’s corner office and his administrative assistant, a ­woman with a rec­ord of reprimands and reputation for not getting along with anyone in the department. Your colleagues have made it clear that they are expecting you to get her out of the department. You call someone in the personnel office and inform him that the assistant has to be out of your office by tomorrow. What happens next?

Yes, I keep advising you to consult with the personnel office and other institutional resources. Your life as a faculty member prob­ably

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

209

did not incline you to see ­these folks as resources, if you even knew they existed. But exist they do, and in most places they have tremendous assistance to offer you. Make it a point to inform yourself about the resource they represent and how they can help you in your new role. What ­w ill happen next? It depends. If you are in a public institution that has a civil ser­v ice system, and / or an institution with a ­u nionized support staff, firing or reassigning someone may not be easy: civil ser­v ice rules and u ­ nion contracts provide certain rights to employees. The staff of the personnel office ­w ill work with you to find a resolution that serves the best interest of you, your department, and the employee. Addressing the prob­lems may involve counseling the employee, g­ oing through the formal discipline pro­ cess, or working with other campus units to place the employee in another job. This situation should be a reminder that issues of employee per­ for­mance should be addressed in their earliest stages, and generally with the assistance of the personnel office, before prob­lems reach the crisis level. This case should also be a reminder that administrators should not intentionally leave personnel prob­lems for their successors to address. A group of university paint­ers are working in your department. You begin to hear complaints from some faculty, staff, and students that the paint­ers continually talk to one another, loudly, about w ­ omen. It ­doesn’t appear that their comments are of a sexual nature, but nevertheless they are derogatory ­toward w ­ omen. What do you do?

Despite the lack of overtly sexual comments, the paint­ers may be creating a hostile environment based on gender. Once you are put on notice of a potential prob­lem in the area of civil rights, the

210

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

university must take the appropriate action. The university’s liability is often tied to how quickly and appropriately it acts when it “knows or should have known” of a prob­lem. Again, this prob­lem is central to the quality of the working and learning environment for which you are steward; while it must be handled with the guidance of the institution’s policies and procedures, your obligation to provide an environment in which ­people can do their best work should be central to your term of ser­v ice as the leader of the unit. Your resource ­here may be the personnel / ­human resources office, the equal opportunity office, or the l­egal staff. ­Don’t delay. Consult with the relevant office right away. This is your prob­lem w ­ hether it feels like it or not. Your department requires all professional employees to work at least one Saturday a month during the annual two-­month fund­ rais­ ing drive. In compensation, they are allowed to take off e­ ither the Friday before or the Monday a­ fter their working Saturday. An employee informs you that ­because of his religious beliefs he cannot work on any Saturday. He complains that his supervisor has told him that every­one must follow the same rules and that he cannot be an exception. What do you do?

This employee is requesting a religious accommodation. This is again a l­egal ­matter—as well as one of re­spect for the members of your unit. You should contact your personnel office or ­legal staff for advice on how to proceed. Please keep in mind that, as with a request for an accommodation for a disability, it’s always best to contact the appropriate university office before denying, granting, or altering a request for an accommodation.

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

211

STUDENT-­R ELATED ISSUES

A student comes to you to complain that her professor has no syllabus and keeps changing the assignments and grading criteria. She is very frustrated and wants you to do something.

Your first step should be to find out what written policies are in place in your department and / or college: Is ­there a requirement that faculty have a syllabus? Must it contain certain information? Are ­there guidelines about the import of the syllabus? While students sometimes approach the syllabus as a contract (“if I do what it says, I’ll get a certain grade”), that is not generally the role they play. At the same time, the instructor may be leaving himself open to charges of capricious grading if it is true that he has no syllabus and the requirements change—­and the quality of the education in your department may be detrimentally affected by a teacher who is hugely disor­ga­ nized. Before taking any action, interview him to see if the information provided by the student is accurate—he may well have strong educational reasons for the changes, and may well have provided ample notice for changes; or not. Once you have collected the relevant facts, seek advice from the college office or the academic policy office before taking action on the complaint with the faculty member, the student, or both. A ­mother calls you and asks you what her son’s grades are this semester. She is worried that the young man is not taking his studies seriously. Do you give her the information?

In the United States, the federal law known as the ­Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) governs. Its provisions mean that university staff cannot furnish such information to parents ­unless the parents provide ­either documentation that they claimed the student on their federal income tax return for the immediately

212

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

preceding year, or a signed consent form from the student authorizing the release of the information. It is best to explain this to the ­mother and refer her to the dean of students or another student-­ support office; you can be sure that that office has dealt with this issue many, many times and is prepared (better than you) to h ­ andle the fallout from the ­mother’s request, as well as to provide helpful advice to the concerned parents. It would also be wise to consult your institution’s FERPA policy. More broadly, even when parents are paying the tuition, this question centrally goes to where the main relationship between the institution and its students lie, and the degree to which the university should be inserted into ­family relationships. You have recently been told by several students and trusted faculty members that a third-­year assistant professor has been giving significantly higher grades to students who help her with tasks unrelated to her classes (baby­sitting, ­running errands for her, and so on). When you talk to the assistant professor, she indignantly denies t­ hese reports. You consult your advisory committee, which recommends not renewing the assistant professor’s appointment. You must decide ­whether to follow the committee’s recommendation. What ­factors should you consider?

You should discuss this situation with your dean. If the assistant professor has not had sufficient opportunity to respond to the information that you have second­hand, any action you take ­w ill be vulnerable to l­ater challenge. The dean’s office or a higher academic policy unit, such as the provost’s office, can advise you ­whether the pro­cess you have used is sufficient, and how to proceed from ­here. Should you or someone official interview students to get firsthand information? Did the advisory committee have such f irsthand

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

213

information, or was their information all based on second­hand (or thirdhand) stories and gossip? On what grounds did the advisory committee make their recommendation? If the advisory committee has not used a fair and defensible pro­cess based on documented ­information—­for example, her official publication, teaching, and ser­v ice rec­ord—­that office ­w ill help you structure a pro­cess to collect and review the relevant facts and to develop the necessary documentation. Additional facts: Let’s say you ­d idn’t consult the dean or the provost and simply authorized nonrenewal of the assistant professor’s appointment. You are a white man. The assistant professor is a w ­ oman and is also in a protected minority class. She has an excellent teaching and research rec­ord. Shortly ­a fter she receives official notification that she ­w ill not be reappointed, she approaches you and says, “You have ­v iolated my due pro­cess rights and discriminated against me ­because of my race and gender. I’ll see you in court.” Three months ­later, you are served with a summons and complaint naming you as a defendant in a lawsuit. What do you do?

Uh oh. You have a prob­lem, and it’s not trivial. Did you ­really think this situation would go away? Without stopping to do anything ­else, you must call your university’s ­lawyers and then take the summons to them. Right away. Sooner if pos­si­ble. Any action involving termination of employment should be done in consultation with appropriate offices, starting very early in the pro­cess. At a minimum this ­w ill involve the college office and the h ­ uman resources department. Take the advice of your institution’s l­awyers very, very seriously. Make time to be responsive to their requests. Do not do anything without advice at ­every step from the l­awyers. They are likely to ask you for your files—­the originals, not copies. Although it may seem

214

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

harmless to “tidy up” your files before providing them to counsel, this is unwise and possibly unethical or illegal. It is clearly in your, and your employer’s, best interest for the ­lawyers advising you to have a complete and unvarnished view of the situation. An undergraduate come to you and says that a gradu­ate assistant has made what he believes to be inappropriate remarks about his perceived race and ethnicity. He tells you that during class, the gradu­ate assistant seems to treat white students better than he treats every­one ­else. In addition, he says that grades for his and other students of color have been consistently lower all semester. What do you do?

The undergraduate is making a serious allegation about classroom climate and racial discrimination. Advise him that you and the university take such concerns very seriously and ask about his comfort returning to class. You w ­ ill need to know about and be able to direct the student to the specific policies and procedures in place to address such concerns, as well as support resources. For example, you may wish to tell him that the dean of students ­handles complaints of alleged discrimination between students. As with most situations, a quick and appropriate acknowl­edgment is better than leaving the person hanging without a response. You prob­ably should also provide the student with a link to the right policy, office(s), and other resources before he leaves your office—­and document the steps you took and the advice you provided. Now would be a good time to look up the policies and offices to which you’ll refer students, and bookmark it. A student who has a prestigious undergraduate research assistantship asks if she can get some confidential advice from you about how to respond when her professor talks about

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

215

gradu­ate students and postdocs in other labs in the department. She thinks it’s rude and disrespectful to talk about their bodies and it makes her uncomfortable. She stresses that she’s asking for confidential advice b­ ecause she trusts you.

This is a situation in which you must know your institution’s policies ­because you are quite likely a mandated reporter and have no option but to report what she’s said to you to the campus Title IX office. In this and other similar situations where ­people bring you concerns and ask for you to keep them confidential, you ­w ill benefit from your previously developed (and practiced!) personal scripts outlining when you are required to act upon information and when you are able to keep concerns confidential. Being able to caution her before she provides details about the kinds of information you cannot keep confidential is only fair to her and keeps you from being in an ethically difficult dilemma. Know how to stop a conversation, explain your role-­based limitations, and know where a person can go to explore concerns confidentially with a listener not u ­ nder mandatory reporting obligation. While reviewing gradu­ate assistant appointments, you discover that one of the students has been h ­ ere seven years, has yet to take his prelims, and appears to be making ­little pro­g ress ­towards his degree. Your institution has a five-­year limit before prelims must be taken, and has annual progress-­ to-­degree requirements. The student’s advisor of rec­ord has recently taken another job at another university and w ­ ill be leaving within the month. You are aware that the student has had prob­lems, from missed deadlines to aggressive and inappropriate challenges to faculty members at seminars, and that no one ­else on the faculty ­w ill want to serve as his advisor. What do you do?

216

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Find out who in your institution you can call for advice and support. It’s likely to be someone in the gradu­ate college or the provost’s office. Seek out your department’s written policies on pro­g ress ­toward degrees, and descriptions of the program the student is in. If ­these materials commit your department to providing an advisor, rather than making it incumbent upon the student to be accepted by an advisor, this situation ­w ill be more complicated to resolve. This is yet another reason to review your policies early in your new job, and to learn enough about them to be comfortable with them. A first-­year gradu­ate student tells you she is having trou­ble keeping up with her studies. She says that although she did very well as an undergraduate, she is not able to hand in assignments on time and is unable to concentrate in class. She has requested extra time to complete assignments, but her professors are not willing to grant extensions. She tells you that she has ADHD, but has never had any prob­lems d­ oing her coursework b­ ecause she takes medi­cation. What is the best course of action?

Larger and larger percentages of students are on medi­cation and / or struggling with m ­ ental health issues—­these scenarios play out daily in colleges and universities, especially in the United States, and increasingly worldwide. This student may or may not be asking for accommodation based on disability status. Again, this ­w ill be determined by interpretation of applicable policies and laws, both applying to disability status and the par­a meters of the discretion of the faculty for such m ­ atters. This is not a time to freelance or improvise. If you do not already know the policies and procedures that apply to ­these m ­ atters on your campus and the offices and individuals responsible for ­handling them, t­here’s no time like the pre­sent for finding out.

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

217

Please keep in mind that when someone, like this gradu­ate student, talks to you about a prob­lem, you must not inquire about disability status—­you are not a health professional (or, if you are, you are not in a privileged treating relationship with her); your professional concern is her conduct and wellbeing in your setting. However, if she volunteers that she has (or is worried that she may have) a disability, you are f­ ree to respond to that information. At that point, you must get guidance from your disability ser­v ice office. Bear in mind, however, that the more you restrict your concern to your specific role—no ­matter how ­g reat your compassion or interest—­the better off you w ­ ill both be. Another person’s private medical information is not your business. This is a specific boundary, and in your role you must not cross it. You can be compassionate, humane, and caring without opening this Pandora’s box. Since in this scenario the student herself brought up the topic of disability, you may refer her to the office that supports students with disabilities. If she had not mentioned it, you would have sent her to the general student-­support office, where ­there are staff members who ­w ill respond to her concerns—­and who w ­ ill have been trained to know when the l­egal threshold for a disability is reached. Then, if the student is granted an accommodation for a disability, work with the designated officials to do what is necessary to ensure that her professors provide the accommodation. PROFESSOR McNABB’S SABBATICALS

The instinctive response to an anonymous letter is often to throw it away. Unfortunately, you c­ an’t do that with the letter about Professor McNabb’s lucrative sabbatical leaves, b­ ecause it makes specific allegations that are subject to verification, and that, if true, are serious violations of law or policy. You are thus legally “on notice” and may

218

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

be held to a higher standard of responsibility for all actions that occur ­after your notice. However distasteful, you must show some degree of diligence in documenting your response—­yes, even to an anonymous letter. Anonymous letters are ugly. The common assumption is that honorable ­people ­don’t write them or pay attention to them. Why not just throw them away? Well, the main issue to consider is ­whether a par­tic­u ­lar letter is simply scurrilous character assassination or ­whether it pre­sents specific allegations. That is, does it just call someone a lying jerk, or does it say that last Tuesday he lied about his credentials to an audience of fifty ­people in room 240? ­Those are qualitatively very dif­fer­ent letters. Even if it’s ­simple character assassination, though, you might not want to throw it away. Think of the golden rule: if a colleague received anonymous letters about you, would you want to be told about them? What if the letter contained threats? However unpleasant or painful it might be, most of us would want to know if someone was angry enough to take such action against us. Thus, if the anonymous letter is just a mean-­spirited attack, you still might want to show it to its victim, while offering your support and steering the person to resources in the institution that might be helpful—­say the employee assistance program, postal authorities, or the police. Think about the worst pos­si­ble case, if the writer eventually escalated from letters to vio­lence and the target got hurt. First, consider how you’d feel if you ­hadn’t warned her that she should be on her guard and take steps to protect herself. Second, be aware that you might have incurred some liability by not passing along a warning. However low the likelihood that an anonymous letter turns out to be a precursor to vio­lence, it is not your risk to take or your choice to make. As for the other type of anonymous letter, which provides specifics or references to events with many witnesses (like ­those fifty

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

219

p­ eople in the audience in room 240 last Tuesday), the prudent response is to take steps to look into the under­lying situation. It’s quite likely that ­they’re not true. But you w ­ on’t know that—­and ­won’t be able to protect the innocent target—if you never check. Meanwhile, you should prob­ably let the target know about the letter. W ­ ouldn’t you want to know that your department head has received such a letter about you and might have t­hose thoughts in his or her head (regardless of ­whether the allegations w ­ ere true or false)? ­Wouldn’t you want an opportunity to respond or to explain or to put yourself on the rec­ord one way or another? In the case of the letter about McNabb’s sabbaticals, you are in a double bind: annoying and thus risking the loss of Professor McNabb is no small cost, and ­there is nothing about this that she ­w ill receive gracefully. Nor w ­ ill your dean be happy, as he has already signaled. In this situation, however, especially given the specificity of the information provided, you prob­ably cannot avoid some fact-­checking, and may need to engage in some boss management to explore the downsides of ignoring the letter the dean might not have considered. Some of that can be done very quietly, and no ­matter how quietly achieved, at some point you are ­going to have to let McNabb know (1) that you got the letter and (2) that your duty is to do some basic verification / debunking. If ­either university is a public institution, it’s prob­ably a m ­ atter of public rec­ord w ­ hether McNabb was on salary ­there. Even so, it might be wise to have someone in your ­legal or personnel office (or even the provost or the dean) call his or her counterpart at the other university—­especially if the two know each other—to pose the question. This higher-­level approach is far more likely to have a hope of remaining quiet than if you directly call the department where McNabb worked: if you do that, McNabb is likely to hear within minutes that y­ ou’re calling and checking, and the word may spread to o ­ thers as well.

220

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Steel yourself to the real­ity that ­either before or ­after you look into the facts, y­ ou’re ­going to have to let McNabb know that you received information about her pay and did or are about to do some checking. If you meet with her to convey the news (­wouldn’t you want to hear it in person?), you must have a written document to give her that contains a crisp summary of the information you received, not directly quoted from the letter. This is impor­tant on three counts: you do not want any accusatory language, merely questions raised and facts to be established; you do not want to provide any potentially identifying language that could lead to retaliation; and your memo provides you both wording and bound­aries for what you ­w ill convey in your meeting. The memo should quote the university policy about sabbatical pay, and indicate that while this may well be a misunderstanding, looking into it is required. One t­hing you can say that may or may not be in your follow-up memo is an assurance to her that, if you can document that neither institution paid her, you and the university ­w ill be in a position to defend her—­and she ­won’t have to be distracted from her work—if the issue ever arises again. Your memo should be developed with or at least reviewed by the university’s h ­ uman resources office or ­lawyers (or both), and be copied to the HR office. Do not (yet) copy the l­awyers or the dean on the face of the response memo you send Professor McNabb; for the time being, h ­ andle this as a factual m ­ atter affecting compensation (thus the copy to HR) to be sorted out. If the allegations turn out to be true, you may be able to offer McNabb an opportunity to correct the situation, although this is likely to be painful and involve unpleasantly large sums of money. You w ­ ill then absolutely have to involve t­ hose above you in the academic reporting chain, and the institution’s ­lawyers, to sort this out. And at a public institution, just about anything you do is likely to be

Prob­lems, Rules, and Laws

221

subject to public access through Freedom of Information or Public Rec­ord requests. Even at a private institution, word ­w ill prob­ably seep out, especially if McNabb is disliked or has been abusive or disdainful of the accounting staff or o ­ thers who may pull rec­ords or see letters about the situation. Not all anonymous letters are motivated by nastiness or dislike. A whistle­blower might resort to an anonymous letter when he or she cares deeply about the institution and is in a vulnerable situation and too afraid (legitimately) of retaliation to speak out. This is another type of letter you s­ houldn’t just toss in the wastebasket. Once someone feels impelled or desperate enough to send an anonymous letter, if it is ignored, the person may simply send the same or a similar letter to ­others; your Regents, the media, and so on. ­There’s another way to think about this. If the allegations are true, and if you ignore them ­because they ­were brought to your attention in a form you find distasteful, you’ll essentially be penalizing ­those who have complied with the rules all t­ hose years. If one person knows about this violation, it is quite likely that ­others know, as well. Secrets are hard to keep within organ­izations, and the fact that violations have been occurring and have been overlooked for reasons of status (or what­ever) ­w ill corrode the good will and trust of the rule-­ followers in your department. ­There’s something larger at stake ­here as well: the sabbatical tradition is not well understood outside academia, especially in times when well-­paying jobs are harder and harder to come by, and the risk ­here is that the sabbatical privilege across your university could be compromised by demonstrated maladministration or abuse of the privilege. ­There is nothing like an ugly scandal to bring down a system that’s not appreciated or understood to begin with. If Professor McNabb has been abusing the system, and you avert your gaze,

222

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

you ­w ill put at risk all the enhancement of teaching and research and ser­v ice that could result from ­future sabbaticals—­which might no longer exist at your institution. That’s a pretty big price to pay, and you’ll surely be long remembered for it. It just may not be the legacy you hoped to leave.

9 VIOLATIONS Emily W ­ aters is a PhD candidate. Her research is virtually complete and she anticipates defending her thesis next semester. She has come to you for confidential advice b­ ecause you presided at the required gradu­ate student ethics seminar last week. Tense, disheveled, and bleary-­eyed, ­Waters tells you that her advisor, Dr. Brian Pane, is always away attending meetings. She believes many of ­these are sponsored by drug companies, and suggests that he’s prob­ably getting “filthy rich” from the honoraria. Even when he is in town, she reports, Dr. Pane does not supervise his students, attends lab meetings irregularly, and during his cameo appearances seems preoccupied. The fact that he texts and clips his nails during meetings proves this, she says. She wants to know if his be­hav­ior meets the department’s standards for faculty. You have been a l­ittle concerned about Pane’s many absences and the number of his classes that are covered by guest lectures. So this is not exactly news to you, but it is unwelcome, as you have so far managed to avoid having to deal with the issue. While you are trying to figure out what to say, ­Waters becomes agitated and starts reciting a laundry list of complaints about Pane’s conduct. Her accusations seem to you to have a frantic quality, a sort of desperate fervor. She reminds you of a child trying to get attention. One of her allegations is particularly serious. She tells you that she has tried unsuccessfully to duplicate results from an experiment that Dr. Pane reported and published, and that she has found two lab books: one with the same results as hers

224

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

and another with numerous erasure marks and significantly dif­fer­ent results. Both differ from Pane’s published data. She says she is reluctant to give you copies of the lab book data, her results, and Pane’s article, for fear that Dr. Pane ­w ill know she was the source. He chairs her thesis committee. She is unwilling to be the source of complaints against him, though she also says she is increasingly uncomfortable letting t­hese concerns go. The general take on Dr. Pane is that he is undoubtedly brilliant but volatile—he has an explosive temper and a cantankerous personality and is intolerant of questions. His social skills leave something to be desired. Yet he is highly influential in his discipline and over the years gradu­ate students have lauded him as a mentor. Many of his former students are at the top of their field now. Furthermore, you have heard him complain about Ms. ­Waters: that her work is not of high quality and that she is unstable. You do some discreet checking, trying not to reveal that your information comes from W ­ aters. When you describe the situation to a close colleague, without naming names, she responds: “Is that Emily W ­ aters again? She’s crazy! We have a file a foot thick on her complaints against all her professors.”

The line between the difficulties that inevitably arise when ­people work together and conduct that violates impor­tant bound­aries is an essential one to be able to recognize. You w ­ ill concentrate your time and energy largely on prob­lems in the first category, from dealing with bad chemistry between coworkers or clashing expectations about “how p­ eople act at work” to coping with downright boorish be­hav­ior from p­ eople who other­w ise are strong contributors. But some prob­lems go to the very heart of the integrity of the work and the place. Many of t­ hese fall into the category of academic or research

Violations

225

misconduct, which includes such misdeeds as falsifying data, denying someone proper credit for published work, and using institutionally conferred power or position for personal gain—­including sexual or gender harassment. ­Others fall into a category of conduct that undermines a culture of excellence, one rooted in the values of the academic mission of generating new knowledge in an inclusive culture that supports all its members to do their best work. As a leader, it’s your job to set the tone and protect the integrity of the mission—­and all of its participants. Both of t­hese areas have become highly regulated and you may be relegated to the sidelines if formal procedures are invoked. Your task is to be able to separate and manage the early stage prob­lems: ones you are expected to h ­ andle on your own, and the warning signs that mean you cannot, must not, try to h ­ andle without involvement of ­others. One of the trickiest areas is learning how to recognize the warning signals of a serious scholarly breach from the kinds of prob­lems that arise between students and advisors as part of the educational pro­cess. RECALIBRATING YOUR COMPASS

Let’s face it: t­here is something about issues in the first category of research misconduct that ­causes many academics to lose their compass. In my experience, more of t­ hese cases “go weird” than any other type. My own theory is that, though we ­don’t like to talk about it, most scholarly work is as much an art as a science. We d­ on’t want to acknowledge that research can be messier than we like to think. Who ­hasn’t wrestled with how to interpret data? Do I put this in or leave it out? How can I make sense of what my student wrote? Even if I believe in the results, the notes are illegible, incomplete, and impossible to follow.

226

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

As a community we tend to lose our ability to think clearly when it comes to scholarly misconduct. In part, I think this is b­ ecause, beyond the ­really clear cases (such as stealing someone’s entire thesis), the rules tend to be vague. I once sat in a misconduct proceeding with three National Acad­emy–­caliber scientists who concluded, having heard all the evidence, “Well, sure, it’s sleazy and disgusting, but it’s not misconduct.” Perhaps ­because of the “art” aspect of scholarship and b­ ecause of the many gray areas in the norms, we tend to identify with ­those accused of misconduct. The “­there but for the grace of God go I” ­factor kicks in—to the detriment of a strong pro­cess and sustainable outcomes. ­Every investigative committee I’ve ever worked with has seen members arrive at the second meeting a l­ittle bleary-­eyed saying, “I was up all night ­going over every­thing on my CV, wondering if any of my work could be accused of similar t­ hings.” The propensity to identify with the parties in ­these cases can be disorientating and act like a magnet that distorts a compass. And, of course, t­hese prob­lems usually stir up strong feelings which, for p­ eople who’ve self-­selected for c­ areers of analy­sis and reflection, can be aversive in and of themselves. Dealing with a full-­blown, formal research integrity investigation is well beyond the scope of this book. Together with o ­ thers, I developed a comprehensive how-to manual for such cases that includes checklists, sample letters, investigation casebooks, and the like ­under the title Responding to Allegations of Research Misconduct that can still be found online. Other guides have come into existence since then. Given the relative rarity of formal proceedings in this area, with any luck you w ­ ill not need that sort of specialized knowledge during your term of ser­v ice. If a case does pre­sent itself, you’ll need all the skills in this book plus a few extra. ­There are a set of key points in a

Violations

227

research integrity proceeding at which the intuitive response is the wrong response: following your instincts w ­ ill get you into trou­ble. ­Unless you have access to an experienced person who can steer you around the quicksand, even peripheral involvement in one of ­those sad situations can be unimaginably costly. With a strong grounding in princi­ples and some expert guidance, you can survive a prob­lem of research misconduct—or just allegations of the same—in your environment. So, for a lot of reasons, t­hese cases are more difficult than many ­others. But remember: it’s not about you. It is about the good of the ­whole, the department and the larger institution. Fortunately, most of the questions and concerns that come up in universities do not rise to a level that requires formal proceedings: statistics are hard to come by, but by any mea­sure, t­hese cases are rare. Far more frequent are disputes and early stage prob­lems—­and, increasingly, threats to our cultures of open inquiry and ability to include the full range of talent our world needs. This chapter is meant to help you deal with t­hose prob­lems and keep your compass true. In your leadership position you ­w ill have to acquire the knack for recognizing the signals of prob­lems that may become extremely serious—­the low-­incidence, high-­severity prob­lems discussed in Chapter 6. B ­ ecause t­hese situations do not arise very often, it’s easy to miss the early warning signs of something that could come to consume unpleasantly large chunks of your life. Signals to watch for include any allegation that, if substantiated, would be extremely serious, no m ­ atter how implausible or unlikely sounding when first presented. They also include situations in which the playing field i­sn’t likely to be level: where t­here is a large power imbalance between the parties. For instance, where one of the parties involved is so hot-­tempered that ­others might withdraw solely

228

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

b­ ecause of high transaction cost, or where the personal relationships are clouded with current or past sexual intimacy, or, as in our example of Emily W ­ aters and Dr. Brian Pane, where one party sits on the thesis committee of another. This category encompasses the kinds of allegations we talked about in Chapter 8 that would count as putting you on ­legal notice, like even a suggestion—no m ­ atter how ludicrous it seems to you—­that a star faculty member is crossing personal bound­aries or fudging data. In public institutions, it may also include uses of public or designated funds for which special rules exist; how you can spend research funds or when you can buy alcohol, meals, or gifts for p­ eople, for example. Think about what newspapers, federal regulators, auditors, and critical bloggers might find to be of interest. (This is not to imply that all allegations w ­ ill turn out to be true. But recognizing what category a given allegation falls in is key to knowing what steps to take next.) And remember, if you follow the guidelines outlined in this book, and keep your own squeamish feelings u ­ nder control, you ­will be able to h ­ andle t­hese prob­lems—­even if it’s uncomfortable. Many questions come up about authorship: who should get credit for contributions to scholarly publications. Questions about the ­handling of data also arise frequently. Other aspects of professional conduct spark questions as well: What about using institutional property? What about use (and abuse) of information received while reviewing manuscripts or proposals? What about mentoring and supervision of students? Gradu­ate students perceive an enormous amount of exploitation or abuse of themselves and their colleagues. Sometimes this perception is accurate, and sometimes it ­isn’t, and the students simply ­don’t know the context or have access to sufficient information to develop a wise, complete, or reasoned assessment of the situation. What is your professional obligation when you discover or suspect pos­si­ble misconduct in research? Are you obligated to report the pos­si­ble prob­lem? All such questions, and particularly the

Violations

229

ones that involve the education of students, are (or o ­ ught to be) vital to universities. Without some clear thought, it’s very easy to go astray in ­these areas. And acquiring that kind of clarity takes some application and study. Let’s look at some of the types of situation that tend to recur. AUTHORSHIP AND ATTRIBUTION OF CREDIT

In universities, the coin of the realm is recognition for scholarly contributions as recorded in publications. The vast majority (in my experience, up to or exceeding 80 ­percent) of questions that come up about scholarly conduct involve the attribution of credit. Transgressions such as gift or honorary authorship (assigning authorship to one who has not made any significant intellectual contribution to the work) and redundant publication (publishing the same work repeatedly without reference to previous appearance) do not necessarily rise to the level of plagiarism, but can be very serious nonetheless. A recent National Acad­emy of Sciences report calls ­these “detrimental research practices” that go to the heart of the work we do. Basic tensions over credit can be exacerbated by disparities in practices across fields. It is impor­tant to be aware of ­these differences. For example, an En­g lish professor once told me that she has strug­ gled with how to think about the respective contributions of coauthors when she served on campus committees, as she has never written anything with a coauthor in her entire c­ areer. The meaning of authorship and the ethical obligations that apply are very straightforward in her work. In high-­energy physics, in contrast, scores if not hundreds of coauthors are not uncommon, and the ethical issues are more nuanced. (The phi­los­o­pher Bernard Gert once quipped that ­those groups use the criterion “If your name begins with a letter of the alphabet, ­you’re an author.”)

230

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Also, norms of authorship are evolving, and someone whose early c­ areer was spent in a laboratory in which the principal investigator’s name was on ­every paper that came out of his lab regardless of ­whether he had been involved in the work is quite likely to feel entitled to benefit from the practice when he or she achieves se­nior status. ­These are often strong feelings, not completely rooted in logic or rationality, and must be acknowledged, if not always honored. When someone comes to you with questions or complaints about attribution, taking the time to talk through the reasons for “good practice” is usually a worthwhile investment. The most succinct statement of the emerging criteria for authorship is that ­every person listed should have made a meaningful intellectual contribution to the work. As a rule of thumb for sorting out who falls into this category, the following test is often useful. To be an author, a person must (1) be able to defend the paper by explaining the work and responding to substantive questions about it; and (2) have participated in at least one of the following: conceptions of the work, collection of data, analy­sis of data, development of the manuscript. This has become more complicated with the rapid rise of interdisciplinary and team science and can vary tremendously by discipline. Many prob­lems ­will resolve themselves when the criteria are presented in this way. Ideally, the assumptions and expectations about what is required to qualify as an author w ­ ill be discussed and understood before the initiation of the proj­ect. But that ­doesn’t always happen, and even when it does happen, changes in circumstances over the life of the proj­ect may make the original agreement inappropriate or inapplicable when the time comes to attribute authorship. Mikhail Green, a gradu­ate student, shows you an editor’s letter inviting his advisor, Professor Stotler, to contribute a chapter to an upcoming book. Scrawled across the bottom

Violations

231

is a note in the professor’s handwriting saying “Mike, take a stab at this—­RPS.” Green also shows you several drafts of the chapter, which he says are his work. He points out the date on each draft, and marginal comments by Stotler making suggestions for revisions and additions. You can trace the evolution of the work, as each of ­these suggestions is incorporated in a successive draft. At the end of the most recent draft is a handwritten note: “Mike—­this is fine. No more work ­will be necessary.—­RPS.” Green says that his girlfriend, who works in the department office, helped submit the chapter to the editor, and it had only Stotler’s name on it. Green tells you that he asked about this and requested credit as a coauthor, Stotler responded: “Oh, ­don’t worry about that. This was a learning exercise. You’ll get to coauthor ­things ­later.” Green ­doesn’t want any trou­ble with his advisor, but feels he has been unfairly deprived of credit for work he has done, and it has always rankled that his advisor c­ ouldn’t bother to call him by his full name but instead created a nickname Green never uses. In your judgment this is not an “allegation” ­u nder the campus policy and federal misconduct regulations, but just an expression of concern. Therefore, you do not immediately invoke the inquiry procedure provided in the campus policy, but decide to gather more facts to determine ­whether an inquiry is warranted. You call the previous department head, Jenny Hamm, for advice. She reminds you that Stotler is a disor­g a­n ized person who lets t­hings fall through the cracks, but that he publishes prolifically and to wide acclaim. Stotler recently received two major honors in his field, and last year the department gave him a significant raise to c­ ounter an outside offer. Hamm says she can well believe that the inclusion of Green’s name might have slipped through the cracks b­ ecause Stotler is so

232

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

overcommitted, but that she’s sure Stotler ­w ill make it right as soon as it is called to his attention. She mentions that he’s not very nice to his students, but that they are trained well for success a­ fter graduation. Hamm also tells you that Green is known as a “champion whiner” and is currently on academic probation, an unusual status for a gradu­ate student. She reports that Green came to her several times with complaints against faculty members, but d­ idn’t pursue them when she suggested appropriate channels for recourse. Hamm recommends that you h ­ andle the m ­ atter quietly so as not to cause Stotler any embarrassment. She discourages invitation of a research integrity inquiry b­ ecause she d­ oesn’t think anyone in the department could be neutral about Stotler: ­people ­either are his strong supporters or hate him. You decide to do what you can to discourage Mikhail Green, but you give him a copy of the university policy and tell him about other resources on campus, including the research integrity officer and gradu­ate college grievance dean. This time, ­a fter much consultation with you, in which you make good use of Chapter 4’s “key sentences” such as “What action do you seek from me?” Green does decide to pursue the m ­ atter. He files a complaint u ­ nder the university’s research integrity policy. A formal integrity inquiry ensues. The committee requests the submitted draft from the editor and compares it with the student’s drafts. Though the titles are identical, t­ here is no resemblance in content, structure, or prose style. Professor Stotler, outraged at having been accused of one of academe’s major crimes, tells the committee that Green’s work was so bad that he threw it all out and wrote something hastily himself. He also indicates that he never discussed

Violations

233

the flaws in the work with Green. His draft is judged by the inquiry team to be a completely in­de­pen­dent intellectual effort. In interviewing Stotler the committee discovers that other aspects of his interactions with students are far from ideal. At one point he exclaims about Green: “How was I to know he minded washing my car? I’d say, ‘Mike, do you mind washing my car?’ and he’d say ‘No.’ ”

­There ­were prob­lems in this situation, but they did not amount to research misconduct, although ­there was no way to be sure of that without investigating. ­There w ­ ere prob­lems of communication, prob­ lems of re­spect and exploitation of a student, prob­lems in the way the scholarly work in that group was done. But t­ here w ­ asn’t a prob­lem of misconduct u ­ nder the federal regulations on fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. (To put it another way, Professor Stotler was a poor mentor, and a jerk, but not a crook.) Note that Stotler’s protestation that Mikhail had never objected to washing his car was the first anyone on the investigative committee had ever heard of it. Green had not mentioned anything about performing personal ser­v ices for his advisor, just his complaints about the way to which he was referred. The phenomenon—­the discovery of egregiously inappropriate conduct that has not been reported by the complainant—is fairly common in formal investigations, and it reinforces the importance of basing decisions on documented facts, not on personalities or status. It is not surprising that the professor was furious at being accused of an offense that he would not have considered committing. Never­ theless, he had set himself up for the accusation by the way he conducted himself, and it d­ idn’t help that nobody had ever told him that. Despite knowledge in the department that his mentoring was outside

234

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

appropriate norms, nobody had ever said, “The manner in which you interact with your students is not acceptable in this university.” Even though, in this situation, t­ here was no plagiarism or violation of standards of authorship, t­here ­were severe violations of the university’s standards for gradu­ate mentoring. In the real-­l ife case on which I based this example, Professor Stotler’s gradu­ate faculty privileges ­were suspended by the dean of the college, ­because the department head was afraid to rock the boat with this prominent faculty member. (The department head stepped down at the end of the academic year, at the request of the dean.) The dean then required Stotler to meet with her monthly u ­ ntil she was satisfied that he met the institution’s standards for membership in the gradu­ate faculty. This took almost two years. Mikhail Green was moved to another advisor to avoid Stotler’s wrath. The new adviser had higher professional standing than Stotler, which provided a level of protection for Green in the job market against any pos­si­ble whisper campaign or other retaliatory action that Stotler might attempt. And Green eventually got his degree. He found an academic job and now has tenure. I hope he is treating his own students well—­and calling them by their preferred names. The last point is worth noting as an extension of the golden rule: to re­ spect another means, at a minimum, addressing them as they prefer to be addressed, not as you might prefer. Taking the time to learn and pronounce the names of your students and colleagues as they prefer, and respecting their identities, is basic. Had anybody in that department been talking about issues concerning gradu­ate mentoring and good communication, and had ­there been better monitoring of Stotler’s interactions with his students, ­there would not have been a need for a research misconduct review, which in this case would have been better for every­one. Green might not have been on probation if he’d been treated more appropriately

Violations

235

from the beginning of his gradu­ate studies—he thrived ­u nder the supervision of his new advisor. It is likely, given that most departments are small communities, that colleagues and the department head knew, on some level, that Stotler was not treating students appropriately, but no one was willing to confront him—­including the person whose job it was to be steward of the environment. What follows are some variations on this theme of what is and what i­sn’t academic misconduct regarding attribution of authorship. “My professor says he’s taking this proj­ect away from me and giving it to someone ­else.”

The student is sitting across the desk, often with a satchel full of laboratory notebooks, informal correspondence (email, handwritten notes, e­ tc.) and other documents he sees as central to his case. The events he describes ­w ill vary, but the theme ­w ill be that he has worked on this proj­ect exclusively for a substantial period of time and that the professor has now informed him that someone ­else w ­ ill be taking over. The student w ­ ill almost invariably claim to know the reason for the change, even if his knowledge involves mind reading. The reason he cites may come from a wide spectrum: his professor thought he ­wasn’t making enough pro­g ress; he failed his prelims; ­they’ve had a falling-­out; the proj­ect looks promising and the professor wants all the credit for himself; the professor never understood the idea before, but now that he does, he wants a more favored student to pursue it; and so on. The student has come to you ­because he wants to be given author credit on papers based on the proj­ect and to be protected from retaliation for raising the issue. The best approach to this situation is to get the student’s answers to a series of questions, pose the same questions to the professor, and then do a real­ity check. Most such situations can be resolved if t­ here

236

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

is a general agreement on the answers. Even where ­there is not general agreement, the answers to t­ hese questions w ­ ill usually point the way to a solution:



• Where did the idea for the proj­ect originate? • What was said when the proj­ect began about authorship and / or outlets for the work? • How long has the proj­ect been underway? • Is it the student’s thesis proj­ect? • Is the proj­ect an isolated, narrow one, or integral to a larger (and / or longer-­term) proj­ect underway in the research group? Is it a proj­ect on which multiple students are working or have worked over time? • How much of the work is complete? • Who did the ­actual work? That is, who collected and / or analyzed the data? Who wrote the manuscript? • How has the proj­ect proceeded: what are its major steps and their timing? • How is the work funded? (Student fellowship funds, grant funding?) • How significant is the work to the field?

In personality clashes and misunderstandings, it is often good practice to encourage the parties to speak directly to each other. Often, and particularly if they are of unequal status (such as student and professor), it can be helpful to have a third party involved in the conversation. Try to make the meeting as nonthreatening as pos­si­ble for all participants. Ways to do this can include holding the meeting in a neutral setting, discussing contentious issues in a manner that is not accusatory and does not imply that conclusions have already been reached, and focusing on the common ground of the participants. Speaking of informal resolution efforts, it is impor­tant that you be sure the limits of t­ hese efforts are understood at the outset. In ad-

Violations

237

dition, you must provide a clear and careful explanation of the policies and procedures that ­w ill apply if the informal efforts do not succeed. It should include when t­hose policies and procedures ­w ill begin to apply, who w ­ ill decide w ­ hether and when to initiate a formal procedure, what the role of each of the parties ­w ill be, and who ­w ill know what each has said. If the parties have had an irreconcilable rupture in their personal relationship, it is often necessary to develop a written agreement recording the resolution of the ­matter. Such an agreement should be signed by the disputants and the go-­between and filed officially in the department’s files, including the personnel or student file of each of the disputants. Its contents might include:



• a brief recapitulation of the history of the m ­ atter; • a statement of the interests of each of the parties; • a statement about who w ­ ill be an author of what, ­under what conditions, in what period of time; • guidelines as to how ­future work w ­ ill be apportioned (­w ill each part continue working with the data? in the general area? and so on); • if manuscripts are to be developed, how the drafts w ­ ill be reviewed by each party, and within what time limits; • what ­w ill happen if any party fails to live up to his or her obligations, including who ­w ill be responsible for moderating next steps. “The postdoc who did all this work is gone and ­there’s no way to reach her. We need to write up the work ­because my grant is up for renewal. How do we do this properly?”

This comes up surprisingly often. The person raising the question senses that it might not be right to make the absent person the first author, b­ ecause she ­won’t have an opportunity to see and revise

238

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

the manuscript, but it feels equally wrong to omit her name entirely. Both instincts are correct: it is not proper to list someone as an author (particularly as first author) ­unless that person has endorsed the manuscript. Similarly, it is not proper to pre­sent work without giving credit to a person who did much of it. The first step is to make another effort to track down the absent person. In some circumstances, this is simply not pos­si­ble: she may have died, had a ner­vous breakdown, or gone trekking in the Himalayas to recover from the stress of working in that laboratory. More often, however, she is simply not answering her former colleague’s calls or letters b­ ecause their personal relationship has eroded. (This is a polite way of describing the most typical case, in which t­hey’ve had a big fight and neither ever wants to see the other again.) If she is found, use the approach described above, and develop a written agreement governing the development of the manuscript. The second step, if she is completely unreachable, is to communicate with the editors of the journal to which the manuscript is to be submitted and the program officer at the funding agency. Describe the situation and work out a mutually acceptable solution. Usually this involves a special acknowl­edgment or note describing the circumstances, presented in the agreed-­upon format. Rarely (for example, when the primary author has died), it may be appropriate to list the absent person as the first author, with a note explaining the reason, such as that the manuscript was developed a­ fter her death. “I’ve been using the same method for years. To avoid a charge of plagiarism or duplicate publication, do I have to write a new methods section ­every time I publish? This seems like a waste of effort.”

This question invariably arises a­ fter someone has read about or encountered a case of plagiarism, when he gets to pondering his own

Violations

239

work. The answers to questions like this hinge on the compact between author(s) and the reader: What ­w ill the reader assume (in this journal, in this field) about an article? Any time the situation deviates from what the reader is likely to assume, the reader should be signaled. In most scholarly publications, this compact entitles the reader to assume that work presented u ­ nder a name or set of names is original work performed by the listed individuals, that it was performed by the authors, that the methods and results are accurately described, and that it makes some new contribution to the state of knowledge in that field. ­There are exceptions, such as lit­er­a­ture reviews and personal essays, but by and large this is the norm. Depending upon the field, the reader may or may not expect a methods section to be written anew with each publication. To be absolutely clear and aboveboard, an author should inform the journal editor that the methods section is the same or similar to one published previously, but the results and discussion are entirely novel. In many fields, the editor is unlikely to find this a prob­lem: if the author is terribly resistant to raising the question with the editor, it’s a good sign that this situation needs more thought and possibly scrutiny. Alternatively, a footnote to the methods section can cite prior appearances. Note that permission from the first publisher or copyright holder may be required if the methods section is a large enough portion of the work. DATA-­R ELATED PROB­L EMS

­ here are many questions about the application and interpretation T of data that come up repeatedly: What are appropriate practices for recording and retaining data? If data are generated or collected automatically by high-­tech instrumentation, what standards apply for recording and retention? What data retention or deposit requirements

240

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

from the institution or funder govern this proj­ect? Must ­every datum ever generated be retained? In what form? Who pays for acquiring and maintaining terabytes, petabytes, or exobytes of data? What if the data are a de­cade old and the code or equipment that generated them is obsolete? When is it okay to disregard outliers? What are the standards for their exclusion? Concerns about such issues d­ on’t necessarily amount to allegations of misconduct. I have been approached by many students who say something along t­hese lines: “We did this experiment and my adviser looked at it and said we ­wouldn’t use ­those runs, but only used the o ­ thers. He’s throwing away data; it must be fraud.” When I point out that t­here are many reasons to discard data, and ask ­whether the student has discussed t­ hese m ­ atters with the adviser, I am too frequently told, “Oh, no. In my lab you ­don’t ask.” The prob­lems ­here may be not misconduct but instead poor communication or ambiguity about applicable standards. Then again, a situation that begins with such questions may also reveal a more serious prob­lem. In my experience, questions about proper standards for recording and retaining data are rarely contentious; they are generally worked out effectively within lab groups or collaborations. Questions about access to and control of data or results, though, are the second-­most-­ common category of concerns for which help is sought from the department chair, a­ fter ­those about authorship and attribution of credit. In many ways ­these two categories are variations on the same theme, since the under­lying issue usually centers around who ­w ill benefit from the work. Many of the prob­lems can be avoided or solved with the following guidelines:

• The university should have a rule about owner­ship of and access to data.

Violations





241

• Students should generally be able to take copies of their own lab notebooks. (Many professors are resistant to this idea, but they have to learn to live with it, subject to any legally binding agreements or applicable laws. Fair is fair.) • Sometimes it’s necessary to develop a formal agreement about who ­will be able to pursue vari­ous lines of research.

While in theory electronic lab notebooks could solve many of the prob­lems around data recording and retention, we have not yet reached a place where their use is widespread, consistent, or systematic. May the day arrive quickly where new technologies help prevent perennial prob­lems. “The postdoc took primary data when he left the university.”

This comes up with regularity; when I was campus research standards officer (the front line for dealing with allegations of research misconduct), I encountered this kind of situation about four to six times a year. Depending upon the personal relationships between the individuals involved, the first step is usually to ask for the return of the data. It’s surprising how many researchers ­don’t think of this on their own. If this obvious step has not been taken, it’s worth asking why. Did it simply not occur to the researchers, or are t­here other difficulties in the situation? The most frequent under­lying issue is that ­there is some friction between the principal investigator and the person who took the data over the way the data w ­ ill be written up or interpreted. In that case, you may need to do more groundwork before you take any action. Departing individuals take data for a variety of reasons; if a person’s reason can be determined, the response should be calibrated to that reason. It may be that he just d­ idn’t know any better. The

242

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

response to this is straightforward; a polite phone call or letter explaining that the data are owned by the university and requesting the return of the primary data. Offer to make copies of notebooks and so on for him, or urge him to make his own copies before returning them. Alternatively, if it appears from your initial queries that he did it to protect himself or for personal advantage, you may need advice from your l­egal staff. Even ­here the first step is likely to be request for the data’s return but it may need more formal trappings and you ­w ill need guidance on subsequent steps if your first request is rebuffed. Deciding w ­ hether a par­tic­u­lar expression of concern does or does not amount to an allegation of misconduct can be a challenge. Many questions that are raised about academic practice turn out, once examined, to be results of misunderstandings, miscommunications, or personality clashes. Most can be settled through direct conversation or mediation. Some concerns are serious but do not relate to research integrity. The ones that require investigation or fall within a university policy (say, sexual harassment or discrimination) should be referred to the appropriate office for h ­ andling. If a complaint includes more than one ele­ment, ­there are generally agreed-­upon (or legally required) protocols for how to ­handle a multifaceted pro­cess; make sure the right officials are involved. Caution! If the allegations about the integrity of research are handled entirely informally, this can leave the person accused of misconduct in an awkward or even perilous situation l­ater. The accused person can be unequivocally cleared only if she has no opportunity to alter the data a­ fter the concerns are first expressed. Depending upon the nature of the allegation, you w ­ ill likely need help from your institution’s research integrity officer to secure copies of the data very early in the pro­cess. This is usually enormously upsetting to the

Violations

243

person accused, so it is a good idea to be clear in your own thinking about why the university is securing copies of the data—in order to leave her better protected at the end of the pro­cess. In general, if an expression of concern about a potentially serious ­matter is received by a faculty member, the faculty member needs to know that he should at least inform the department head. This is the case even where the concern is obviously frivolous, mistaken, or the product of miscommunication, so that the information and judgments are shared that the prob­lem is not real. This advice applies to expressions of concern that clearly touch upon extremely serious ­matters addressed by institutional or ­legal regulations, including scientific misconduct, plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, compliance requirements, and crimes. Concerns that fall into ­those categories should be, from the beginning, handled with extreme care, and you as department head should ensure that the institutional officials responsible for compliance or the implementation of applicable policy are consulted. T ­ hose officials may or may not be involved in the eventual solution, but you need to consult them, ­because if the m ­ atter proceeds to a full-­blown case, it w ­ ill be impor­t ant to have responded appropriately from the outset. This is a stage where a ­g reat deal can go wrong for all parties if ­things are not managed carefully. ­These determinations are judgment calls. The ­factors to be considered include the potential seriousness of the allegations, the history of questions about the conduct of the individual concerned, and an assessment of the personalities of the parties. Caution is essential. Even professionals with outstanding reputations have been guilty of misconduct, and accusers with unstable personalities have been correct. (My shorthand expression for this is “Even flakes can be right.”)

244

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

The more serious the allegations, or the potential allegations, the more formally ­things should be handled. It is impor­tant to keep in mind that a formal and documented proceeding can offer better protection to an innocent faculty member who may be a victim of a vendetta or other malice. Fi­nally, if any of the parties is particularly volatile or appears unstable, the situation warrants especially careful ­handling. CONDUCT VIOLATIONS

Let’s move on to a category of prob­lems that can be even tougher to ­handle: prob­lems of academic conduct complicated by sex. By now, having read the e­ arlier chapters of this book, you should be acutely aware, at least in princi­ple, of the importance of bound­aries, including sexual bound­a ries, and of the pos­si­ble l­egal consequences of not paying attention to such issues. All this should be helping you to think more clearly about what is and is not your business with re­spect to intimate relationships or ­those who cannot keep their hands to themselves. Still, when you are the leader charged with the good of the department as a w ­ hole, you are responsible for providing guidance in this area, however uncomfortable that responsibility might be. This responsibility can be lessened if your institution has an effective all-­campus training program that sets bound­a ries and provides information about situations that may arise and how to respond to them professionally and appropriately. But it is your duty, in one way or another, to sensitize ­those who have positions of power over o ­ thers (read: just about every­one except the undergraduates) to their perceived power and its potentially pernicious effects. Stop ­here for just a moment and recognize that the closeness that develops between ­people who work hard together can be both stim-

Violations

245

ulating and, at times, highly erotic. Of course, some ­people are more susceptible to such feelings than ­others, but it’s a good starting place to acknowledge that it can be fun and engaging and intense to work closely with someone. Sometimes, this intensity spins out of control, or is exploited. Other times, the party with more power is abusing that power, and, worst case, is a predator. This is when you must know your institution’s policy on sexual harassment and who to call to report prob­ lems when you become aware of them. You must also know if t­ here is a policy, and if ­there is, what it prescribes about consensual sexual relationships between faculty and students or between teaching assistants and their students. Most of us understand that it’s pos­si­ble to become friends with a person and still assess that person professionally, properly, and objectively. So long as ­there i­ sn’t a sexual relationship, your ability to be objective is a call you are left to make for yourself. However, ­there is a conflict of interest involved in assessing the work of someone with whom you have an intimate personal connection. (That’s a euphemism for sex.) Once sex enters the picture, a boundary has been crossed and objectivity is considered out of the question. Two colleagues come to see you. They are concerned about the be­h av­ior at on-­and off-­campus seminars by a distinguished professor visiting from a Eu­ro­pean research institute. They report that Professor Geoff has been challenging the results presented by a visiting scholar in the department, Dr.  Grace Kim. Kim, a ­woman from ­Korea, is somewhat awkward presenting in En­g lish, and many members of the department have been helping her prepare for t­hese public pre­sen­ta­tions, which are difficult for her. While your colleagues believe t­here is some merit to Geoff’s challenges of her methodology and results, his criticisms are so aggressive

246

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

and so personal that the events are very uncomfortable for the audience—­let alone for Kim. Your colleagues ask you to get Professor Geoff to tone down his be­hav­ior. When you meet with Geoff, he becomes agitated and pours out grievances against Kim and her husband, saying he wants to file charges of theft of his intellectual property and violations of academic integrity in publication. He reports that he and Grace Kim had a short consensual fling that is now over. He has no supervisory authority over her, and they met when she sought him out for advice about the application of his techniques to her work. He says that when they w ­ ere lovers he provided her with unpublished data and other cutting edge information, and that she and her husband have just published much of the data in an article in which he is not mentioned. You then meet with Kim and she admits that they had a consensual affair. She says all the work she published is her own in­de­pen­dent work.

Now what? In this situation, t­here’s no formal supervisory relationship, which helps in one dimension. Yet a glaring warning sign ­here is the interlocking intimate relationships. Call the research integrity and Title IX offices and follow formal procedure from the beginning: t­ here is nothing about this situation that you are likely to be able to resolve happily through informal efforts. Let ­those who are trained in dealing with allegations of discrimination and / or misconduct guide e­ very step you take. But what about the next scenario? Five undergraduate ­women come to meet you, complaining that Professor Keane makes jokes and remarks of a sexual nature in a 100-­level class. For example, he illustrated a lecture with slides of nude w ­ omen. The students quote comments Keane has made about female students’ clothes and appear-

Violations

247

ance: “That’s a nice sweater.” “You look tired. W ­ ere you up all night making love?” They say he does not make similar comments to male students. He also talks about his divorce and recent dating experiences. The students report that he makes such remarks several times in ­every class period. Professor Keane has tenure. The class has 100 students. ­There are six weeks to go in the semester. As far as you can tell, the sexual jokes, comments, and examples have nothing to do with the course content. The students demand that Keane be replaced immediately.

Again, this has all the hallmarks of a situation in which you do not want to act on your own ­because of the complexity of the issues and b­ ecause of the large power differential between the tenured faculty member and the undergraduates. Pro­cess is your friend. Call the Title IX office for assistance. This w ­ ill likely be channeled through their pro­cess, but ­because it involves classroom speech, each and e­ very step w ­ ill require both ­legal and policy oversight. The students are presenting this as a complaint about “sexual comments,” but b­ ecause it involves the content of remarks made in a classroom setting, Keane ­w ill almost certainly invoke his academic freedom. As you know by now, it is not the case that e­ very remark made in a classroom is protected by academic freedom, but the time and place w ­ ill make this situation vastly more complicated to h ­ andle than if it had happened, say, in the hallways or the cafeteria. Some situations may be brought to you with one complaint—as with Professor Geoff and Dr. Kim—­a nd turn into something e­ lse when you pursue it. When that happens, make the referral to the proper office, make a note for your file, and keep it. Other times, you may spend a bit of time trying to assist, only to find that the campus offices want to manage the situation directly. Make a note of that, too, along the following lines:

248

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Professor Johnson asked me at the department coffee on Thursday, [month, day, year], to “­handle” a situation that her grad student Marya Porter f­aces: how to turn down per­sis­ tent requests for collaboration from visiting professor George Knowlton, who says Porter’s work is too close to his. Johnson had spoken with Knowlton and he h ­ asn’t ­stopped. Called the research integrity officer for advice. RIO ­w ill talk with Johnson, Knowlton, and if necessary, Porter. Dropped by Johnson’s office to let her know status. [Date / your initials] AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION

I hope that, having read ­these examples and case studies, you are now better able to recognize which issues fall into the category of academic misconduct rather than, say, the category of purely personnel ­matters. Recognizing which category a prob­lem falls into is key to knowing what steps to take next. I also hope that reading all ­these examples ­hasn’t made you feel overwhelmed or discouraged. D ­ on’t let t­ hese cases get you down. You can ­handle them. Just follow the advice ­you’ve read in this book and ­don’t let the prob­lems unsettle you. Take a deep breath, and remember that your job is to keep the greater good of your department and your institution in mind. Now read the following guidelines, which ­w ill help you stay on course. First of all, preferably at a time when you do not have a current prob­lem brewing, think about tone setting. The more you can sensitize every­one to standards of integrity and good conduct, the better off all ­w ill be. When a prob­lem does arise, always take reasonable precautions as soon as warning signs surface. If you hear about something falling into one of the categories h ­ ere and in the chapter on staying un-­sued, make note of it, the date on which you heard it, who said it, and what you did in response. (Your response

Violations

249

should always include consulting with someone who has knowledge and authority of which policy w ­ ill be involved if an allegation or complaint is filed or if l­ater it is proven that a violation has been committed.) Put your note ­either in a file you open for this par­t ic­ u­lar situation or in a stand-­a lone file where you keep rec­ords of vari­ous administrative items. Make sure you’ll be able to find it if you need it. The adage about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure applies in this area with a vengeance: unresolved prob­lems in ­these categories have a tendency to turn messy. Some such prob­lems may go away if ignored, but more often they w ­ ill fester in unhealthy ways. I know of an institution in which the compilation of a set of metrics for self-­study revealed that a certain department’s attrition rate for female gradu­ate students was almost twice that for male students and was significantly higher than ­those in peer departments at other institutions. Investigation showed that two of the department’s influential faculty members ­were widely perceived to treat ­women students unfairly. Further, it emerged that their grad students counseled one another not to do anything other than try to transfer when the treatment became unbearable, ­because the department head had a policy of refusing to meet with any student who had not first talked to the faculty member involved. The unintended consequences of this “rule” could have been anticipated if the department head had understood that differences in power m ­ atter and that quiet does not always equate with contentment. While it’s good practice to encourage p­ eople in a dispute to talk with each other directly to seek informal resolution before taking more serious steps, such conversations are not always feasible. This is an example in which a power difference distorts what would other­w ise be a sensible approach of trying to get disputants to resolve their prob­lems through conversation, not confrontation. Remember that

250

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

p­ eople with power often ­don’t understand how much power they have and how much they assume it when looking at situations that, to them, look merely annoying—­and to less power­ful ­people look dangerous and overwhelming. P ­ eople who are themselves tenured, or who are not but who have a history of success and safety, and who have themselves never been subject to abuses of power and had to put up with it, should exert extra effort not to be dismissive, and to take seriously other p­ eople’s sense of vulnerability. PRO­C ESS IS YOUR FRIEND

So, you ­mustn’t ignore warning signals, and you must be alert to indications of prob­lems that may escalate, absent a ­little benevolent intervention. Balancing that, though, is the maxim not to push prob­ lems to premature escalation. It’s a balance, and although some of it is acquired by experience (or temperament) it’s also impor­tant to keep in mind the rule that pro­cess is your friend, and to be sure to follow ­every step of the pro­cess in turn. (Remember Sandor Johansen from Chapter 1, and the unwanted consequences that might have flowed from less than assiduous attention to pro­cess while dealing with his case?) While you must stick with ­these prob­lems and keep them moving through the steps, pushing them at breakneck speed is rarely productive. Moving more deliberately gives ­people time to think, and if you can keep yourself from being frantic, your methodical approach may help ­others calm down a bit, too. One wise administrator I know uses the quick acronym “SPAM” to help him think through the seriousness of situations: does it involve Safety, ­People (as participants in research or in vulnerable situations in the institution), Animal subjects, or Money? T ­ hose are all signals to consult appropriate resources in the university before dismissing or closing a m ­ atter. Consider the following situation.

Violations

251

A postdoc, Susan Bidwell, discovered that her mentor, Professor Archer, had submitted a short report to a journal without her knowledge listing her as first author. She has reservations about the interpretation of the data in the report and about the omission of another researcher who made significant contributions to the work, and to whom she and Archer had promised authorship. Bidwell emailed the editor withdrawing the report and then spoke to Archer, who reacted with outrage: he promptly emailed the editor himself, seeking to reinstate the report, asserting that he, as “responsible investigator,” had a “duty and obligation” to interpret the data and assign authorship for work performed in his laboratory, and that both ­were correct as originally submitted. His email also impugned Bidwell’s contributions, relegating her to the status of a technician, though he did not contest her first authorship on the two full manuscripts describing the work. Professor Archer and Susan Bidwell had long had a troubled relationship. The head of their department knew this, and had previously negotiated an agreement between them about authorship. In discussion with the department head, who had been told about the dispute by the journal editor, Archer acknowledged that the agreement applied to the work described in the report. His view, however, was that the agreement applied only to full manuscripts, not to shorter items. Further, since in his opinion t­ here was no rule against what he’d done, only some ambiguous concepts of professional courtesy, he ­d idn’t think the ­matter should be of any concern to the department head. The issue of having listed Bidwell as first author while interpreting the data in a way she considered wrong was not discussed, as Archer withdrew the report a­fter the department head g­ ently, but firmly, inserted himself into the discussion.

252

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

This situation could easily have become a much larger prob­lem had the department head not intervened. It would not have taken much to turn it into an allegation of research misconduct requiring application of formal policies and procedures: the researcher whose name was omitted could have contested the ­matter, as could Susan Bidwell herself. In fact, low level disputes of this sort, especially ones in which personal relationships are strained or become so, underlie many misconduct cases that escalate into major prob­lems. Think about ­whether the department head’s intervention was only necessary or was also sufficient. Does anything in the situation indicate a need for additional action by the department head, or is the satisfaction of the parties, and their willingness to declare victory and leave the field, enough to close it all out? The answer, as in so many administrative dilemmas, is “It depends.” One point worth pondering is w ­ hether this is an isolated instance of bad personal chemistry between Professor Archer and Susan Bidwell, or ­whether Archer’s ­career has involved any pattern of disputes about authorship or corner-­cutting on agreements. In the real-­life case on which I based this scenario, the professor has a history of effective, strong collaboration and the postdoc had a good rec­ord at other places. The department head, upon reflection and review of his files, concluded that the data w ­ ere sufficiently complex and nuanced that significant difference in interpretation ­were plausible, and that such differences, plus the long-­troubled personal relationship between the two principals, ­were prob­ably at the root of the ­matter. He let it rest and no further warning signals have emerged (as far as I know) since then. But the department head did take reasonable precautions as he brought the dispute to closure: he wrote a formal letter to all the participants, including the journal editor, documenting the resolution

Violations

253

and the original agreement about authorship, and he retained a copy in the department’s files so ­there would be a rec­ord in the event of ­later recurrence of this or related prob­lems. Although it may seem counterintuitive, conducting a formal review can be in the best long-­term interest of an innocent person accused of wrongdoing. I was once involved in a situation in which the troubled person making allegations about a respected faculty member was so lacking in credibility that every­one who heard the accusations dismissed them out of hand. Against the inclination of several administrative colleagues, I advised the faculty member to report the allegations himself and to ask to have them reviewed. The dean, who saw the proposed review as an exercise in futility, nevertheless acceded and commissioned a review committee. At the conclusion of a thorough pro­cess, the committee produced a report—­w ith factual appendixes—­exonerating the faculty member. Many “I told you so’s” ensured. But then the accuser started a letter-­w riting campaign, sending denunciatory missives to ­every member of the faculty member’s disciplinary society, ­every member of the state legislature, the state’s congressional del­e­ga­t ion, the governor . . . Fortunately, the university, ­because it had conducted an arm’s-­ length investigation complete with documentation, was in a position to defend the faculty member by demonstrating that t­ here had been a thorough investigation (the faculty member waived his privacy rights on this); that the committee, the dean, the provost, and the chancellor had reviewed the report; that copies had been sent to funding agencies; and that the university had concluded that t­here had not been any improprieties in the situation. As a result, the faculty member’s reputation did not suffer, and in fact he garnered a fair amount of sympathy from his colleagues for having been a victim of irrational persecution. Without the thorough process—­conducted in

254

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

its entirety by the university—­the vigorous defense could not have been mounted. It’s quite likely that rumors would have dogged the faculty member throughout his c­ areer, and that some ­people would have assumed t­ here was fire to go with the smoke. Not only can policies and procedures be your friend when you are in charge of the pro­cess, they can be your friend when y­ ou’re the target, too. KNOW WHEN TO CALL FOR OUTSIDE HELP

When suspicions of misconduct arise, it’s tempting to keep them within the department or the institution. ­These prob­lems are messy, nasty, and distasteful—­not the sort of news we want the outside world to hear. In many instances, t­here are complexities that pull in two directions at once: with allegations of shenanigans in highly technical research, “insiders” (­whether inside your university or within the same research community) are often best situated to assess the charges; and insiders also have conflicts of interest that must be straightforwardly acknowledged and addressed before an unbiased judging pro­cess is pos­si­ble. My experience is that virtually all p­ eople of sufficient professional standing to serve on a misconduct-­investigation committee do see the larger princi­ples at stake and can do the right ­thing—if, at the beginning of the pro­cess, the issues of integrity are articulated. Without that, it’s all too easy for conflicts of interest to have a pernicious effect. No one has a greater stake in the integrity of the institution than ­those whose professional reputations are connected to it. If the hard questions are properly presented, we can judge our own and do it well. In ­matters that impinge upon central, distinctive aspects of our institution, such as questions of research and t­hose involving fundamental values like academic freedom and tenure, we can and do rise to the occasion. But in m ­ atters that are not unique to our settings,

Violations

255

and for which we do not have special qualifications, the nature of the complaint may mean that outsiders are required. Let’s consider another case of personalities, an ugly accusation against a well-­liked member of the department that may be tempting to just overlook. Joe Student works for a department as a gradu­ate assistant ­doing computer support work. Max Man­ag­er supervises Joe and thirteen other staff members of the department. Max is a long-­term support staff member of the department, much liked and trusted. Max and Joe ­were overheard by a fellow employee discussing what sounded like an arrangement to divide up the proceeds from the sale of some equipment off campus. While this seems unbelievable to you, you are told that Max asked Joe to pick up a delivery of computer equipment (value $6,500). This equipment was logged in as received and then ­later reported as lost or stolen. You remember the report and had the police over to review your security. The reporting employee, who wishes to remain anonymous, tells you what he overheard. The employee believes that this has happened before. You know and like Max and you also know that the employee who is reporting it to you is jealous of him. What should you do?

Does this sound implausible to you? Unfortunately, it happens all the time. This is an example of a situation where, if it’s true, it’s very serious, and you must ­handle it accordingly from the very first. No m ­ atter how much you think you might be able to resolve this by talking to Max quietly, you should not in this circumstance. Taking ­things that ­don’t belong to you is called stealing. It’s a serious boundary violation that damages the community. The p­ eople who deal with stealing are the police. ­Because this situation involves an allegation of a criminal offense—­even if you hope and believe it to be untrue— it needs to be reported immediately to what­ever police department

256

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

has jurisdiction over your university. Many campuses have their own police, which can sometimes make this hard step a bit easier, as it can reduce the fear of exposing a potentially unfounded allegation to outsiders. No one likes to believe the worst of someone, especially someone you know well and work with on a regular basis. And, no one likes to be in charge of a unit where something wrong has happened and is exposed. All too frequently, organ­izations quietly sweep incidents like this ­under the rug, letting p­ eople resign quietly if it turns out to be true, or just dismissing the report as sour grapes. That’s one approach, but it is not the correct way to h ­ andle the situation in the best interests of the larger institution. Nor does it send the right message to ­those who learn of and know about it—­and rest assured that it ­w ill be known about and discussed in your department and elsewhere. Imagine for a moment what could happen if you decide that it’s just a case of the reporter acting out his unreasonable jealously of Max. If public funds are involved in the purchase, ­there’s a larger issue of stewardship and, when ­later discovered (think: an audit or standard inventory pro­cesses), ­w ill trigger heightened scrutiny of possibly all your funded proj­ects—­and your leadership. Overlooking it, if true, means that the thefts are likely to continue. Any way you look at this, it is not the kind of situation that w ­ ill simply go away w ­ hether the report is a malicious lie or ­whether it turns out to be true. Serious allegations must be reviewed with a level of formality ­either to confirm or to debunk them. In this case, the police can (and ­w ill) do what­ever investigation is necessary, and ­w ill bring some closure to the ­matter. If it is true, they must be allowed to ­handle it according to prescribed procedures. If it is not true, the fact that they have investigated and cleared Max and Joe ­w ill prevent your jealous employee—­who ­w ill have experienced some “blue therapy” himself

Violations

257

by being interviewed in the course of the investigation—­from continuing to insinuate that it’s happening. ­Will Max and Joe and the would-be anonymous reporter be happy with you at the end of the pro­cess? Prob­ably not. Can you afford not to pursue such a situation? Absolutely not. Your responsibility to look out for the good of the w ­ hole demands that you act. And know what? While you or o ­ thers may fear looking bad b­ ecause this happened on your watch, in fact, you’ll look better for responding forthrightly and promptly. No stain ­will attach to your reputation the way that it ­will if you ignore the prob­lem and it mushrooms, or your non-­response is seen as a quiet collusion. Even if the situation becomes public and messy (well, messier), your plight ­will generate empathy and positive regard b­ ecause y­ ou’ve done the hard, right t­hing. ANONYMOUS ALLEGATIONS, REPRISED

Concerns regarding academic conduct can come from a variety of sources. Sometimes students of faculty with firsthand knowledge of practices that may be improper come to see you; some complaints are conveyed second­hand. Allegations span a spectrum from apparently insubstantial to discernibly serious. The first response to expression of concern can be crucial to the outcome for all the individuals involved and for the institution. B ­ ecause ­people expressing such concerns are often upset, angry, and frightened, it can be difficult during an initial interview to determine ­whether or not they are alleging misconduct. More often than not, the concerns raised are not about academic or research misconduct, but other issues like miscommunication or insensitivity, that require a response but are not (thankfully) as serious or as potentially damaging as allegations of misconduct. This is not to say you can ignore the concerns but only that they ­w ill usually be comparatively easier to ­handle.

258

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

Clearly ­there is a difference between poison-­pen letters slipped ­ nder the door and statements made by an identifiable person who is u afraid of pos­si­ble retaliation. If the allegations involve facts that can be in­de­pen­dently verified, the situation is dif­fer­ent from one that depends upon the credibility or interpretation of the (anonymous) in­ for­mant. In the former circumstance, it may be pos­si­ble to be fair to the accused person (by providing full notice and opportunity to respond) while still protecting the individual who raised the concern. In the latter, it is prob­ably not. It is unwise to promise anonymity for the duration of the pro­cess. Anonymity is difficult to protect on a practical level, and becomes increasingly troubling from the perspective of fairness as the pro­cess proceeds. Further, even where formal policies protect against retaliation and aim to protect whistle­blowers, be wary of overpromising what you can deliver. FORMAL VERSUS INFORMAL PRO­C ESS

Often by the time a person comes forward to express concerns about someone’s conduct, the situation is already quite complex from an interpersonal perspective. The concerns may range from issues of sloppiness to scientific integrity, and beyond. At this initial stage, the safest advice is: the more complex the m ­ atter, the more likely it should be handled within formal procedures. Go back and review the advice on complaints in Chapter 4, and remember: when in doubt go formal. Counterintuitively, formal procedure gives every­one involved much more protection, especially when the charges are false. ­These issues are not easy to deal with, but the way you approach them w ­ ill make an enormous difference—­not only for you but for ­those in your department and if it’s not too overblown to say it this way, for the integrity of our entire system. The idea is for you to stay centered and balanced so you can help every­one navigate a difficult

Violations

259

situation in the most constructive way pos­si­ble. Keep the big picture in mind, and understand that t­here w ­ ill prob­ably be some painful moments. Even if you extend yourself to the maximum degree to re­spect the dignity (and the presumed innocence) of all concerned, ­there are ­going to be aspects of ­these situations that are just plain uncomfortable. Try to see them in context. Persevere. And then, go home and take care of yourself.

10 CENTERING As word spreads about your new position as head of the department at Big U, you begin receiving email from colleagues around the country, forwarding material that a member of your department, Professor Dart, has been sending out via email and electronic discussion groups on the topic “Corruption and Politics as Usual at Big U.” ­These missives complain about the pro­cess used for your appointment, although the writer is careful to state that he has nothing personally against you, and that as far as he knows you may be a person of integrity. ­Others in the department also write to you, saying that they are looking forward to your ser­v ice and welcoming you to the role. Several mention that they believe something needs to be done about the department’s black eye.

When our ­children ­were small, my husband and I ­were puzzled whenever someone told us we w ­ ere lucky that they w ­ ere so polite. As far as we could tell, our c­ hildren had neither been born with the politeness gene activated nor been visited by fairy godmothers who sprinkled them with the politeness dust. T ­ here w ­ ere days when we thought we ­were prob­ably the only parents on the planet who spent ­every waking minute trying to graft a thin veneer of manners onto our forthright offspring. We d­ idn’t feel lucky, we felt tired. It was, of course, gratifying that ­people saw positive ­things about our c­ hildren, but it seemed odd to label their politeness a m ­ atter of “luck” and not hard work. If your department has an atmosphere of civility, if its denizens observe reasonable bound­aries and are able to devote most of their time to productive endeavors rather than internecine warfare, you

Centering

261

too, may be told you are “lucky.” And, in fact, ­there is an ele­ment of luck in the chemistry of any group. We’ve all had classes with ­g reat group personalities and classes that, no m ­ atter what we try, have an attitude that makes teaching them seem like pushing boulders uphill, for no discernible reason other than the way the group jelled, or ­d idn’t. But beyond the basic mix, if your department is harmonious and a good place to work, it is more likely that someone has put in a ­g reat deal of effort ­behind the scenes, ­whether that someone is you or one of your pre­de­ces­sors. ­W hether consciously and strategically or simply by instinct, someone worked to create an atmosphere of re­spect for all members of the department from the lowest-­ranking, lowest-­paid support staff member to the brightest superstar. Never underestimate how much effort it takes to establish and maintain such an environment. If ­you’ve inherited it, d­ on’t get complacent and think you can devote all your energy to other areas. The effect of entropy is such that, without careful tending, bound­aries ­will be pushed, advantage w ­ ill be taken, weight w ­ ill be thrown around, and the environment w ­ ill deteriorate. The best way to maintain a good environment is to have a strong conceptual model of what your role is and a full bag of techniques and strategies available for trying to build and maintain it. We’ve discussed vari­ous aspects of t­hose items in e­ arlier chapters. H ­ ere are two more concepts for you to consider as we bring this survival guide to a close. LIKABILITY ­M ATTERS

The first concept, from the negotiation lit­er­a­t ure, boils down to this: likability ­matters. If you think about it, this makes perfect sense. It’s easier to do t­ hings for p­ eople you like than for t­ hose you see as rude or nasty. Do you know someone who leaves you smiling ­after e­ very

262

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

interaction? How motivated are you to find ways to make ­things work for that person? Now, compare that with your feelings about someone whose exchanges with you are always contentious. How strong is your motivation to help that person? T ­ hese are qualitatively dif­fer­ent experiences. This works in both directions. Just as you respond more positively to ­people you like, in group life, where you interact with the same ­people over and over, the more pleasant you are, the more positively ­people w ­ ill respond to you. In a positive frame of mind, they ­w ill be more likely to listen to your point of view, carefully consider what you say, and pause before escalating any disagreement into unpleasantness. In contrast, the more you tend to be rude and cutting in interactions, the more you ­w ill find the rudeness reciprocated. How many p­ eople do you know who have actually been persuaded by insults and invective? When was the last time you heard someone respond to being called stupid by saying, “oh ­you’re right, thanks”? ­People d­ on’t always realize how they are affecting o ­ thers. I worked for years with a man who was terse and unfriendly, especially in email. He thought of himself as a warm, teddy bear kind of fellow who simply saved time by “cutting to the chase,” and he appeared to have no idea that t­hose around him perceived him as so mean-­spirited that they avoided him as much as pos­si­ble. Over and over interactions with him turned into shouting matches; he saw his colleagues as difficult and contentious, not recognizing his own contributions to the frequent combative exchanges. I, too, found him exceedingly disagreeable, but by being relentlessly cheerful and pleasant to him—by treating him as if he w ­ ere the teddy bear he thought he was—­I managed to elicit similar be­hav­ior from him. In other words, you reap what you sow. Being likable is not the same as having low standards for quality, a lesson that seems lost on some p­ eople in academia. And being un-

Centering

263

pleasant is certainly not evidence that you have high standards. In fact, making sincerely felt positive comments can reduce defensiveness and help you introduce change to raise standards or bring improvements. Thus, likability is a skill that ­w ill help you get the job done. THE PERSONA PENDULUM

The other concept to consider is related to the idea, discussed e­ arlier in the book, that you may need a special persona for your leadership responsibilities. By now you surely understand that you can be friendly, but not friends, when you are responsible for evaluating and supervising ­others. ­There’s another wrinkle, though: your job demands that you purposefully alter your relationships with members of your department depending upon where they are in their ­careers. This swinging back and forth like a pendulum can be disorienting, and it can be hard both for you and for t­hose you are supervising, especially if you have not thought it through with some care in advance. This aspect goes back to which “you” you should be in any given circumstance, and at its heart are the boundary issues you must internalize to succeed as an academic leader. Think about what you do when recruiting someone to join your department, w ­ hether as a faculty member, a grad student, or an administrative professional. Recruiting is a form of marketing: ­you’re selling yourself, your department, your university, and your community. You are saying, “Imagine yourself productive and happy in our department. H ­ ere’s what we can do for you (salary, working conditions, lab space, colleagues, opportunity to grow, and so on), and ­here’s how you’ll fit in and the contribution you’ll make h ­ ere. See the pretty picture? Your ­whole life ­here w ­ ill be good. The work ­w ill be challenging and in­ter­est­ing with ­g reat colleagues, and ­we’ll help

264

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

you find a ­house and good schools for your current or ­future ­children, and w ­ e’ll hook you up with like-­m inded ­people in the community, what­ever your interests may be.” In flat central Illinois when we recruit ­people (especially t­hose from places with flashier scenery or balmier climates), we dwell on the virtues of our community for raising a ­family and the support our university provides for ­people to do their best work. Once your target makes the decision to join your department, you switch from recruiting mode to a mentoring / cheerleading phase in which you help her get established and learn to feel at home. You express confidence, provide advice, and generally encourage the newcomer. This stage is focused on the needs of the recruit, with you ­doing all you can to support her success. Before long, though, you have to switch personas again, this time to the role of objective evaluator. W ­ hether this is the all-­important third-­year review or even a tenure decision for a faculty member, a three-­or six-­month review for a probationary staff member, or an annual evaluation, it’s time for you to assess the person’s pro­g ress. Note that you are not acting entirely in a supervisory, evaluative role. While you can remain friendly, your first obligation is to provide an assessment of the person’s job performance—­still aimed at supporting success, and all framed in terms of the university’s standards and goals. (I’ll have more to say about this stage in the next section.) Right ­after ­you’ve done this hard ­thing, providing a clear and objective evaluation, you’ll switch back to your cheerleading persona ­until it’s once again time to make the “up or out” choice: promotion, tenure, passing the prelims, or moving off probationary status. Yes, you may feel like a pendulum, swinging from one role to another and back again at set intervals—­and yet you must try to remain centered through it all.

Centering

265

BALANCE AND CLARITY

Switching gears from cheerleading to a firm-­and-­fair assessment that includes analy­sis and description of deficits in per­for­mance as well as strengths can be very difficult. You may respond to the difficulty by pulling your punches, especially if you have developed a genuine liking for the person you must now evaluate. This is not a helpful response. For the same reasons we discussed ­earlier about the importance of making your expectations clear when t­hings are not g­ oing well with a person you supervise, it is essential that you be clear and direct in both your positive and your negative assessments. We know from social psy­chol­ogy that ­humans are prone to biased and self-­serving assimilation of information, which means that the person you are assessing is much more likely to hear your positive comments than your negative ones. Especially ­because ­you’ve so recently been in a mentoring / cheerleading role, he w ­ ill be likely to discount any but the clearest statements of any shortcomings in his job per­for­mance. (A useful book for understanding this and related phenomena is How We Know What ­Isn’t So by Thomas Gilovich.) In an illuminating psy­chol­ogy experiment, fans of two rival teams watched a game tape and saw dramatically dif­fer­ent qualities of officiating, depending upon which team they ­were rooting for. In another, l­awyers or law students assigned to assess the monetary value of a case from identical facts or case descriptions came up with very dif­fer­ent numbers, depending on ­whether they ­were told they ­were representing one side or the other or acting as a neutral judge. All of us key in on facts in our ­favor and tend to pay less attention to the ones that are less positive for our side. Most of the ­people you evaluate ­will do the same t­ hing: ­they’ll see better, remember more clearly, and focus more strongly upon the encouragement that says ­they’re

266

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

d­ oing well, and they may not take in the caveats, particularly if they are too g­ ently or diplomatically phrased. You may encounter some ­people who have the opposite tendency: to overreact and go off the deep end at even a hint of criticism. This reaction is rooted in the insecure, overachieving personality ­we’ve discussed before. It also carries an ele­ment of emotional blackmail, so you’ll need to be especially balanced and evenhanded with ­those personalities. D ­ on’t go overboard in your attempts to provide reassurance, or, thanks to the self-­serving bias, your listener may take away the message that all is well. What­ever personality type y­ ou’re dealing with, it is up to you to provide an evenhanded assessment and to communicate it clearly—­and in writing. If an assistant professor is spending too much time on teaching or ser­v ice and not making enough pro­g ress in building a publication rec­ord, each and ­every written evaluation must say so. Your mantra should be “no surprises.” When it comes time for the tenure evaluation or the termination of the contract b­ ecause of insufficient publication, a retrospective look through ­every evaluation should show a clear development of straightforward warnings about what was required and the pro­g ress being made each time. Far too often, department heads and supervisors think they are ­doing someone a ­favor when they soften bad news by embedding it in encouragement. Remember the maxim that no good deed goes unpunished. Of course, you want to encourage the ­people in your department. But that worthy impulse carries a danger: if you work too hard to soften bad news, you may fail to communicate it at all. And then, when the story plays out, b­ ecause the person does not make the necessary changes to get back on track, the outcome w ­ ill be an unpleasant surprise. And guess who ­w ill be seen as the bad guy, instead of as someone d­ oing a ­favor?

Centering

267

Do not set yourself up to become the target of disappointment and anger when the final bad news is communicated. Think of the “third reader” discussed in Chapter 8, the outsider who assesses the situation without knowing the participants. When your disappointed employee shows her evaluation rec­ord to someone ­else (­whether just for commiseration or preparatory to filling a complaint or lawsuit), you want that third reader to say, “Your department head has been telling you each and e­ very year that you w ­ ere not making good pro­g ress.” Be specific. Consider the difference between the following two evaluations: Your publication rec­ord needs to be enhanced, and we are confident you can do it. vs. We understand t­ here has been a significant setup period of your work. To stay on track, you now need to focus strongly on getting your work published, so that by your next evaluation you w ­ ill have had manuscripts published or accepted for publication in the outlets we have discussed that w ­ ill help establish your reputation.

Or, for a staff member, consider the difference between t­hese two: More accuracy and timelines would be good and we see you making pro­g ress t­ oward ­those. vs. As we have discussed, the frequent errors in the late submissions of the bud­get reports for which you are responsible are a prob­lem. The bud­get reports must be accurate, complete, and submitted on time each period, so that they are routinely

268

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

signed off on the by the college office and not returned to us for correction and modification. If you feel more training would help you meet this goal, or if you feel ­there are prob­lems of which I am not aware that are preventing you from meeting it, it is your responsibility to bring this to my attention no l­ater than Friday, [date].

If you w ­ ere the person being evaluated, which type of wording would be most helpful to you? And if you ­were the third reader consulted by an employee unhappy about not being promoted, in which wording would you see more grounds for appealing the determination or filing a grievance or a lawsuit? Another aspect of academic life may also be disorientating: the fact that faculty members typically have two dif­fer­ent p­ ipers to dance to—­the internal community of the university and the external community of colleagues in their discipline. Of course, you think, every­one knows this, it’s a no-­brainer. But the prob­lem is, just as fish forget about the ­water they swim in, you may well lose sight of the effects of this arrangement on faculty members’ motivation. For example, since major rewards such as grants and professional recognition come primarily from their external audience (and since even the all-­important tenure decision depends heavi­ly on assessments provided by outside scholars), their reasons to pay attention to the internal audience may be diminished. This creates a very real tension that you should confront and discuss with ­every faculty member for whom you have assessment responsibilities—­especially t­hose just starting out. Being aware of the “two ­pipers” w ­ ill help you guide your faculty, particularly the younger members, to maintain a balance between the two sets of colleagues. Our old friend Janus exemplifies this situation well, I think. He is depicted with two f­aces looking in opposite directions, and this is

Centering

269

what it sometimes feels as if faculty members have to do. If y­ ou’re not clear about this Janus-­like responsibility, how can you expect the faculty to be? Outside the university, each faculty member’s field or discipline sets professional norms, while the university’s internal regulations and culture, both within a department and across the institution, also set expectations for and govern conduct. Membership in good professional standing must be maintained in both institutional and intellectual communities for an individual’s ­career to prosper. While research universities are at least implicitly aware of ­these overlapping responsibilities, a somewhat sharper understanding is also required. Before questions arise, you should be clear about the order of pre­ce­ dence and priority between internal and external standards if and when they come into conflict. If you have not considered t­hese potential conflicts, start thinking about them now. I once was involved in a case in which an engineering professor was alleged to be publishing the same work (without cross-­references) in multiple outlets. His response was that “of course” he did that, since in engineering, prac­t i­t ion­ers and theoreticians have dif­fer­ent outlets and multiple publication is seen as helpful. He asserted that he was fulfilling an obligation to reach as many members of his profession as pos­si­ble. His university’s policy used as an ethical standard “practices commonly accepted within the professional community.” The reviewing committee raised the question of which professional community was meant: the university’s, or that of the engineering profession? The answer was that university standards applied to all university faculty members, but the question was asked in ­g reat seriousness, as it should have been. If your faculty members ­aren’t clear about what their professional responsibilities and ethical codes are, it’s your job to rectify that.

270

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

PROFESSOR DART’S COMPLAINTS

It’s likely that your peers across the country and in your own institution are talking about the emails attributing your appointment to “politics and corruption,” and that they are watching to see how you ­w ill react. Your response w ­ ill say impor­tant ­things about you. First, know thyself: What is your reaction? Do the notes embarrass you? Make you cringe? Make you angry? Make you laugh? Cause you concern for the colleague who is writing them? What kind of concern? Why? If you take the criticism or complaint personally, y­ ou’re far more likely to overreact, be defensive, or other­w ise respond in an unconstructive way. The ability to accept criticism with openness and to acknowledge the critic’s feelings, without getting personal, is a far more effective way to keep friends and influence p­ eople. (Okay. Even if you accept all the reasons not to take t­hings personally, t­here are ­going to be some situations that hurt your feelings, and that you do take personally. The key in ­those situations is not to let it show.) Inside the department, ­don’t lash out, but also d­ on’t let Dart’s be­ hav­ior go unchecked. Call it for what it is: let it be known that you are having to spend an unfortunate amount of time on this, to the detriment of the department’s goals. If the time you must devote to responding to this tempest in a teacup delays your ability to respond to colleagues’ requests for specific items, say so directly. Take a tip from studies for good parenting: let actions have their logical (but nonpunitive) consequences. If the accusations Dart is disseminating are demonstrably unfounded, send him a short note documenting that fact and keep a copy for yourself. Keep a rec­ord of all the communications you receive from him, or from o ­ thers forwarding his missives. If you stay calm, clear, and consistent, and d­ on’t push the outcome, one of two t­hings w ­ ill happen: he w ­ ill wind down, or he

Centering

271

­w ill escalate in a way that creates a group willingness and a procedural basis for taking action against him. Hope for the former, and be prepared for the latter just in case. Assuming you did nothing out of the ordinary during the search pro­cess, you are neither the target of Dart’s diatribes nor responsible for the pro­cess about which he is complaining. Yet they are exposing your department to unwanted publicity and scrutiny, and ­people ­w ill raise the topic with you. It would be wise to prepare a response that portrays you, your department, and your institution in the best pos­ si­ble light. If t­here’s anything you can do to disarm negative effects of the complaints, all the better. What kind of response might you construct? In talking with ­others, one impor­tant ele­ment is to convey some sense of the integrity of the appointment pro­cess and your faith in it and the institution. (If you have such faith.) Another is to make it clear that Professor Dart has a right to his views and ­you’re sorry he feels the way he does; you might try a rueful smile and a humorous response about the ­favor he’s ­doing you by helping you thicken your skin so early in your term. If o ­ thers are ridiculing Dart, it’s crucial that you not participate, nor make any derogatory remarks. At most, you should convey a sense of empathy for how painful he must find it to feel that the institution he’s served for so long is heading down the wrong path. IN PRAISE OF PRAISE

My emphasis in this chapter on being clear when delivering bad news is not meant to downplay the importance—or the strategic value— of telling ­people when ­they’re ­doing well. It’s not just the insecure overachievers among us who need praise: every­one does. Not only that, but giving sincere praise is one way of being pleasant, and as

272

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE

­ e’ve already discussed, if ­you’re seen as pleasant and likable, you’ll w have a better chance of fostering an environment in which change is pos­si­ble. ­People are more likely to cooperate when they feel they and their work are recognized and valued. The less attractive the venture on which y­ ou’re asking them to cooperate—­budget cuts, say—­the more their sense of being respected w ­ ill count. This means that an overlooked secret to achieving your goals for your term of ser­v ice is to learn to praise. Bear this in mind and try to make positive statements, however small, as often as t­hey’re warranted. The praise has to be plausible, it has to be related to the job (no falling back on merely complimenting new haircuts), and you have to mean it (blatant hy­poc­risy is easily detectable). The praise you offer ­needn’t always be public, although a reasonable proportion of it should be. D ­ on’t praise what ­people are (as in “­You’re so smart”), but what they do, or even what they could do if they saw in themselves the potential that you see. Focus on the efforts they make that contribute to the mission of your unit. You may be surprised at how many admirable actions and traits you find when you are looking for them: from the staff associate who volunteers to stay late to get a grant application out on time to the star professor who always attends the ethics seminar for gradu­ate students to show that the faculty is committed to ethical conduct. Prizes and awards are common in the acad­emy; praise and encouragement, much less so. By giving praise and encouragement, you give something rare and valuable, and sometimes even memorable. And you may tacitly suggest to your colleagues that someday they might appreciate and praise you, too.

They are filled with smart, dedicated p­ eople. It’s your job, as a leader, to provide an environU NIV ERSITIES A R E WONDER FU L PLACES.

Centering

273

ment that brings out the best in t­hose ­people. If you d­ on’t, all t­hese quirky and in­ter­est­ing ­people may find their energies diverted in ways that do not serve the mission of advancing the frontiers of knowledge and fostering the intellectual growth of generations of young men and w ­ omen. While the outcome is not entirely within your control, in the small piece that is your responsibility, do what you can to leave the institution better than you found it. And step back ­every now and then to relish the excitement and the small victories.

FOR FURTHER READING

This is not your typical book about life in universities, so t­hese are not the typical recommendations ­you’re likely to find elsewhere. Give them a try. All are readily available, most in paperback. In addition to exploring printed resources, take a look at the online Leadership Collection we have created at Illinois through the National Center for Professional and Research Ethics: https://­ethicscenter​.­csl​.­i llinois​ .­edu​/­leadership​-c­ ollection​-­dashboard​/­. CHANGE MANAGEMENT

C. Heath and D. Heath, Switch: How to Change ­T hings when Change is Hard (Broadway Books, 2010). If you are undertaking a change initiative, this book w ­ ill provide some g­ reat conceptual background and ideas. Look for the bright spots, and try to expand them. NEGOTIATION AND PERSUASION

W. Ury, Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation (Bantam, 1993). Accessible and useful. This book is well worth revisiting from time to time for a ­mental tune-up about how to approach conflict and negotiation.

276

For Further Reading

R. Shell, Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable ­People (Penguin, 2006). An accessible, helpful book on the fundamentals of negotiation, or­g a­n ized first around habits of thought and preparation and then around strategies. 12 Angry Men (1957). This extraordinary movie is a masterly example of effective persuasion in action. Watch it to learn what circumstances help ­people change their minds in group situations. While it’s culturally out-­of-­date (all white men, for example, and ­they’re smoking), it has much to offer.

CONFLICT AND DEALING WITH DIFFICULT ­P EOPLE

R. Sutton, The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One that ­Isn’t (Warner Books, 2010). This is a fast, easy read with power­ful concepts and ideas. The “TCA” (“total cost of”) is a valuable concept well. I’ve used this as a text in leadership classes. Read it! D. Stone and S. Heen, Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well (Viking, 2014). This primer for receiving feedback should be read by every­one—­and it includes ­g reat personal scripts, too. D. Stone, B. Patton, and S. Heen, Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What ­Matters Most (Penguin Putnam, 2000). I recommend this book more often than any other. It is equally applicable to personal and professional interactions. K. Patterson, J. Grenny, R. McMillan, and A. Switzer, Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High (McGraw-­ Hill, 2011). I know ­people who find this easier to read and adopt then they do Difficult Conversations. Many of the same useful concepts.

For Further Reading

277

D. Ariely, The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Every­one—­Especially Ourselves (Harper, 2012). This is an impor­ tant book containing information that is valuable for all leaders to understand and consider. W. Ury, J. Brett, and S. Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved ( Jossey-­Bass, 1988). Pre­sents the “interests, rights, and power” model, which is worth incorporating into your working life. INFLUENCING ­P EOPLE

R. Cialdini, Influence: Science and Practice (Collins, 1998). A ­g reat primer on what social psy­chol­ogy has revealed about influencing ­people, for t­ hose outside the field. C. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psy­ chol­ ogy of Success (Random House, 2006). Dweck’s research on motivation is useful for anyone who supervises or teaches ­others. T. Gilovich, How We Know What I­ sn’t So: The Fallibility of H ­ uman Reason in Everyday Life (­Free Press, 1993). Especially valuable in the context of university life, where we all like to think ­we’re basing our actions on reason. LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT IN GENER AL

C. Duhigg, The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business (Random House, 2012). You count among ­those you wish to influence, right? It ­will help you transform your habits and get you thinking a ­little differently about your leadership. W. Oncken and D. Wass, “Management Time: Who’s Got the Monkey?” Harvard Business Review (November 1999). A classic article. Only six pages long, it has valuable concepts about problem-­ solving, del­e­ga­tion, and “being the boss.”

278

For Further Reading

R. Cross, W. Baker, and A. Parker, “What Creates Energy in Organ ­izations?”  MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 2003). Understanding the difference between energizers and de-­ energizers is helpful in many settings. Surround yourself with energizers. S. Kerr, “On the Folly of Rewarding A, while Hoping for B,” Acad­emy of Management Executive, vol. 9, no. 1 (1995). This is a classic article, and the concept explains so much of what goes wrong in our reward and incentive systems—­locally and writ large. It’s short and very clearly written. It’s worth finding in your library, or paying the fee to own. M. Bazerman and A. Tenbrunsel, Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It (Prince­ton University Press, 2012). If you are interested in an accessible, well-­w ritten book with impor­tant insights about our worldview, this is for you. Pay attention to the research misconduct case. Bazerman also wrote a book incorporating some of the same insights more directly into leadership concepts, The Power of Noticing. ­ ill Listen, and A. Faber and E. Mazlish, How to Talk So Kids W Listen So Kids W ­ ill Talk (Avon, 1980). One of my favorite parenting books. Topics like sibling rivalry turn out to be highly relevant to life in university departments. C. Cherry, Parents, Please ­Don’t Sit on Your Kids: A Parent’s Guide to Non-­Punitive Discipline (Fearon Teaching Aids, 1996). A clear and helpful explanation of non-­punitive discipline. The mindset is exactly what all the negotiation books are trying to teach. RESEARCH INTEGRIT Y

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Fostering Integrity in Research (National Academies Press, 2017).

CREDITS

The “Committees” section in Chapter 2 builds on ideas first presented in an essay written with Robert A. Easter and contained in the National Center for Professional and Research Ethics (NCPRE) Leadership Collection. The “Cultures of Excellence” section in Chapter 3 is informed by unpublished, collaborative work with my colleagues at the NCPRE in the Co­ ordinate Science Laboratory at the University of Illinois: Robert A. Easter, president emeritus; Nicholas C. Burbules, Professor of Education and Education Director for NCPRE; Elizabeth A. Luckman, Clinical Professor at Gies College of Business, and Se­n ior Advisor to NCPRE’s “Labs That Work . . . ​For Every­one” proj­ect. I am grateful for their ideas and stimulation, and for our interactions on t­ hese topics. Chapter 4 is informed by case studies and training materials I developed while working in campus administration at the University of Illinois and builds on material first presented in my articles “How to Blow the Whistle and Still Have a ­Career Afterwards” and “Preventing the Need for Whistleblowing: Practical Advice for University Administrators,” which appeared in Science and Engineering Ethics 4 (1998). Chapter 7 continues discussion of concepts originally presented in work published with Burbules, Luckman, and Easter in insidehighered​.­com columns.

ACKNOWL­E DGMENTS

Acknowl­edgments for the Revised Edition For most of the last de­cade I have had the privilege of working with a wonderful group of colleagues at the National Center for Professional and Research Ethics (NCPRE) at the University of Illinois. Embedded within the Coordinated Science Laboratory, one of the oldest interdisciplinary units on our campus, we have had the good fortune to collaborate with colleagues across the United States and around the world. Together, we have created an online Leadership Collection (https://­ethicscenter​.­csl​.­i llinois​.­edu​/­leadership​-­collection​ -­dashboard) of which I am exceedingly proud and that has resources that reinforce and extend the lessons of this book. My NCPRE colleagues Robert Easter, Nick Burbules, and BrandE Faupell have each read and commented thoughtfully on this revised edition—­some of them multiple times. Elizabeth Luckman helped me pinpoint areas needing special updating. Thinking about academic leadership with this group has been both rewarding and fun. Their questions and ideas have challenged and improved both my ideas and my writing; the book is the better for it. Gene Amberg and Sylvie Khan are the backbone of NCPRE; working with them is a privilege and a plea­sure. My colleague from the provost’s office at Illinois years ago, Karen Carney, helped me over a rough spot when I was stalled, and Andrew Kinney at Harvard University Press pro-

Acknowl­edgments

281

vided a thoughtful read with insightful comments. Chris Lehmann, the Research Integrity Officer at the University of Illinois, provided feedback on current practices and shared his thoughts on violations. Many of the ideas and concepts in the chapter on troubled units grew out of many years of work with BrandE in that area. She has been integral to how my thinking on t­hose topics evolved—as well as developing skills and tools for working with t­ hose facing challenges in them. Ruth Watkins and Dick Wheeler also ­shaped my thinking in the early days of formalizing some of the key concepts. I also owe a debt of gratitude to leaders and faculty over a number of years and range of institutions who trusted me enough to work with them to address challenging issues in their units. I have benefited a ­g reat deal from NCPRE’s staff, postdocs, and gradu­ate and undergraduate students over the years. I have learned from each of you and am in your debt. Many of the lessons learned and reflected ­here have grown out of our experiences and conversations together at NCPRE. Partnering with our colleagues at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore to adapt and revise materials to be more relevant to their international community has led to new thoughts and insights. Though she has also moved on to other endeavors, Elizabeth Knoll, editor extraordinaire, was generous with her expertise, wisdom, and time as the revision progressed. This edition, like the original volume, w ­ ouldn’t exist without her. Jovanna Stanley deserves a shout-­out, as always, for her careful reading with an ea­g le eye, her moral support, friendship, and (not least!) indexing. Knowing she has my back has been an im­mense comfort throughout. Michael, Kearney, and Anna Shea continue to be the bedrock on which my capacity to work productively rests. Anna Shea wrangled all the logistics and many pieces involved in a proj­ect of this magnitude. Her help kept it moving along and across the finish line.

282

Acknowl­edgments

Acknowl­edgments for the First Edition One of the privileges of working in a large organ­ization is that ­there are so many ­people from whom I could learn. I have been fortunate in my colleagues, mentors, teachers and friends at the University of Illinois. Over time, that network of teachers and friends has grown to include ­people at other institutions as well. I owe all of t­hose with whom I have worked a debt of gratitude, and thanks especially for bearing with me while I was growing up as a professional and learning many of the lessons described in this book, some of them quite painfully. Don Bitzer was the first person who invested in my ­career. Over the years, Don has had a remarkable track rec­ord of finding and nurturing potential, but in my case, he took a huge leap of faith. Don gave me unpre­ce­dented opportunities, starting when I was just sixteen years old. Over the de­cade that followed, I had the privilege of working in an organ­ization Don led—­and it was led, not managed. While I worked for Don and with many strange and talented ­people at the PLATO lab, I was able to earn two degrees, try my hand at disparate tasks, do my first l­egal and university administrative work, learn that I was not meant to be a computer programmer, and discover that I was a pretty fair or­ga­n izer. I also got married and had my first child. To say this was a de­cade of change and growth would be, at best, an understatement. Through all that time, Don provided inspiration and profound lessons in leadership. Dillon Mapother gave me my next opportunity. He and Sharon Tipsword showed me how to balance precision with effectiveness working in an administrative office. I owe them both a g­ reat deal. Ted Brown, who was the Vice Chancellor for Research in that era, taught me by example about compassionate leadership. During that part of my ­career, I met Judy Rowan and Steve Veazie, who have been shaping influences ever since. It would be hard to underestimate or precisely describe how much they have taught

Acknowl­edgments

283

me and how much their friendships have meant to me. How many years did it take you, Steve, to drum into me that “less can be more” in prob­lem situations? Knowing Judy has been life-­changing. Among her many gifts to me was her introduction to Tom Everhart. Tom was the next mentor who gave me wonderful and unexpected opportunities. While I worked in his office, I began working with chancellors and vice chancellors and their staffs, my colleagues for most of the next twenty years. Each had impor­tant lessons to impart. I am especially indebted to Ned Goldwasser for his faith in me. Tom, Ned, Judith Liebman, Bob Berdahl, Mort Weir, and Michael Aiken oversaw my ­career in “yucky jobs,” and supported me through a long period of difficult prob­lems that we all worked through together. Their commitment to institutional integrity was always central to their decisions. What can I say about Paula Hays, who entered my life as a student hourly in my office in that era, and has remained a friend and colleague ever since? Working and growing together with Paula has been a joy. Her wisdom has taught me much. Working for Larry Faulkner and with Nancy McCowen was one of the real privileges of my working life. Their intellects and humanity s­haped their decisions and continue to influence mine. Nancy was a true partner in a variety of endeavors and, to this day, I miss that working bond. Nancy’s experience and wisdom guide me constantly in how I approach dealing with ­people and prob­lems wherever I go. Larry gave me a standard by which to mea­sure ­those to whom I give my professional loyalty and effort. It’s the gold standard. During this era, working with colleagues across campus, and with Larry and Nancy’s constant support, we built networks and systems, revised policies, and worked to buttress institutional integrity and decisionmaking. We w ­ ere always guided by the question Larry invariably asked: “What’s in the best interest of the institution?”

284

Acknowl­edgments

The confederation of problem-­ solvers in ­ those days was challenging, rigorous, caring, and efficient. Nancy’s lessons, and t­hose of Harriett Weatherford and “the View from Tuscola,” became the foundations of all I know about working with and managing p­ eople. Kris Fitzpatrick was central to my learning, with her calm and patient tutoring in the world of policing with purpose, as was seeing how Paul Joffe’s diagnostic skills and caring for all employees and students could assist in complex situations. Mary Ellen O’Shaughnessy and I share the bond of losing our m ­ others too early in life, but her verve enriches my life—­and has taught me more about patience than I might have learned in other ways. Deb Kincaid’s unfailing good will, good cheer and strong work ethic kept all the pieces of all the proj­ects coordinated and made the work go as smoothly as pos­si­ble. Dick Wheeler, Elyne Cole, Bob Foertsch, Carol Livingstone, Shirley Apperson, Karen Carney, Lamar Murphy, Pam Hohn, Carol Kirkpatrick, Bill Riley, Melanie Loots, Anthony Walesby, Mike Owen, Matt Jones, Bob Damrau, Franci Miller—­the list of the talented and dedicated ­people I had an opportunity to work with and learn from is long. Jill Kagle started as a colleague, became a friend, and has come to be a surrogate ­mother to me. Love to you, Jill. And then ­there are all the department heads, deans, and other university administrators who not only educated me but honored me with their trust. P ­ eople who w ­ ere particularly generous with me in multiple situations include Hassan Aref, Phil Best, Paul Bohn, Sharon Bryan, Dave Daniel, Fred Delcomyn, Manny Donchin, Pete Feuille, Martha Gillette, Bill Greenough, Mildred Griggs, Bill Hall, John Hedeman, Jack Kamerer, Dave Kuck, Sarah Mangelsdorf, Kent Monroe, Elaine Nicholas, Dick Schacht, Alex Scheeline, Brad Schwartz, Ed Shoben, Olga Soffer, David Swanson, Hank Taylor, Mur Taylor, and Ted Valli. Matt Finkin has been patient in teaching me about academic freedom through the years (all the m ­ istakes in this area, though, are my own); Matt has saved me from missteps

Acknowl­edgments

285

more than once. I had the opportunity to work for Tom Mengler when he was interim provost and then again when I moved to the law school at Illinois. I owe Tom much. Fi­nally, my admiration for Kathleen Conlin knows no bounds; her creativity and principled problem-­solving shows how it can all work in practice. This appreciation for special ­people ­wouldn’t be complete without mentioning Jesse Delia. As department head, dean, and provost, Jesse’s depth of vision and wisdom about higher education and the ­people who work in it is part of what has s­haped the University of Illinois in which I believe so deeply. Carol Robison’s proofreading and safeguarding of versions of the manuscript, as well as her constant willingness to help, have been much appreciated in my time at the College of Law. The welcome from my new colleagues at the College of Law has been helpful and impor­tant for me. Thank you especially to Andy Leipold, Dick Kaplan, and Nina Tarr for your warmth and support. Greg Northcraft was generous beyond reason when I started to teach negotiation, sharing his wisdom, experience, materials, time, and advice. My most recent working partnership with Steve Beckett has given me new energy and direction. Thanks, Steve. I owe much to my supporters while this book was being written. Ken Tolo has been a friend since our first supercomputer meeting many, many years ago. Bob Secor and Russ Snyder encouraged me and convinced me that ­there ­were ­things we had learned at Illinois that would be helpful to o ­ thers, which was l­ater reinforced by Lynne Hellmer. Joe Zolner gave me the privilege of working with the wonderful groups in the Harvard Management Development Program that he has ­shaped and guided with such wisdom over many years. Horace Freeland Judson first suggested I write a book. Joyce Hudson has been a support through thick and thin. Lisa Huson read and commented on the manuscript—­thank you, friend! Deb Aronson helped to tighten the manuscript and its structure. Becky McCabe read several

286

Acknowl­edgments

chapters and gave me useful feedback. I’ve learned from watching Gene Amberg’s many years of principled and caring leadership of the Urbana School District and am proud to know him. The good fortune and privilege of meeting a wonderful editor with vision and patience cannot be overstated, nor overvalued. Elizabeth Knoll coaxed this proj­ect along through two dif­fer­ent incarnations. Her belief in the proj­ect and me is what made it all come together. Thank you, Elizabeth. And thank you, Drummond Rennie, for introducing me to Elizabeth. And then t­here’s my f­amily: Jovanna Stanley read and commented on several versions of the manuscript; I’m lucky she came into my life. Nancy Delcomyn has been like a ­sister to me for de­ cades, and knowing the Delcomyns as a ­family has been a plea­sure and a privilege for all of us. Of course, the fact that I grew up as one of seven ­children in a complicated ­family, most of whom became scientists, cannot help but have formed me. Certainly, many of the lessons recounted ­here ­were ­shaped by my f­ather’s academic and scientific ­career. My ­daughters, Kearney and Anna Shea, are the lights of my life and have taught me many of the lessons that appear in this book. They surface ­here in many forms, not least of which is the concept of “another l­ater.” Kearney read and commented on the manuscript, and has always believed in me and my ability to bring this proj­ect to completion. I love you, sweetie. Anna Shea’s willingness to make room for this book in our lives and her thoughtfulness and caring and—­dare I say it?—­patience with this proj­ect have been affirming for me. I love you, button. And, always, Michael is the foundation on which all e­ lse in my life rests. I still cannot believe I was smart enough to choose you when I was so young and other­w ise so mixed up. My life and work are what they are ­because of our partnership.

INDEX

academic freedom, 1, 18–19, 75–79, 114–115, 150, 254–255; limits on, 75–79, 114, 150 academic units, 1, 178–179, 189; healthy, 175; troubled, 170–174, 179–185, 190; vibrant, 175–177 accusations, 151–157, 224–225, 253–254, 270–271. See also allegations administrivia, 13 aggression, 140, 148–157, 164 allegations, 51, 62–63, 108, 206–208, 214, 255–257; anonymous, 191–192, 217–222, 257–258; of research misconduct, 7–8, 223–228, 230–233, 240–254 American Association of University Professors (AAUP), 18, 75 American with Disabilities Act (ADA), 195, 207–208 anchoring, 136–138 assessments, 19, 62, 148, 172–175, 228, 243, 264–268. See also evaluations assistants: administrative, 31, 39, 46, 203–204, 208–209; gradu­ate, 214–215, 255; research, 11, 32; teaching, 11, 28, 30–32, 43, 245 attacks, personal, 26, 163, 169 authority, 11–12, 38, 42, 61–64, 73, 120–121, 125, 164–167; arrogation of, 165; figure, 11, 23–28, 37–40, 58, 63, 97, 122–128, 197; limits of, 28 authorship, 228–239, 251–253; first, 237–238, 251 avoidance, 79, 152

bad news, 41, 109, 266–267, 271 balance, 45, 48, 250, 265–268 be­h av­ior, 15, 26–27, 35–37, 75, 121–123, 165–169, 197, 270; bad, 78–80, 89–91, 111, 245–246; bullying, 148–157, 162–164 bias, 148, 266; personal, 201; sinister attribution, 104 blackmail, emotional, 81, 266 blue therapy, 156, 256 body language, 29, 104, 125 bound­aries, 30, 36, 41–45, 61–66, 72, 97–105, 159, 244; conversational, 55; personal, 151, 228; professional, 42–44; setting, 71; time, 49, 99 bullies: in academia, 150–152; aggressor, 150; characteristics of, 148–150, 157; examples of, 145–146, 152–157, 158, 159–160, 165–169; insult, 147; memo, 147; victim, 150 bullying, 148–149, 150–153, 164–165; verbal, 163; victim, 157 bully-­proofing, 147 change: culture, 187; efforts, 93, 176; incremental, 70; initiative, 173; management, 173, 180–181, 189–190; necessary, 190, 266; positive, 184, 189; pro­cess, 186; systemic, 8 charges, 109–110, 151–152, 200–201, 205–206, 211, 246, 254, 258–259 civility, 167–168, 260–261

288 Index

clarity, 44, 53, 229, 265–269 coauthors, 229–230 colleagues: ju­n ior, 95; se­n ior, 65, 91; untenured, 91 collegiality, 75, 79–80, 148, 150 comments, sexual, 209–210, 247 communication, 23, 37, 67, 74–75, 119–126, 233–234, 240 community, 14, 37, 59, 80, 226, 263–264; external, 268–270; internal, 268–270; orga­n izational, 68–71; of scholars, 75–76 complaints, 35–36, 61–62, 90–91, 100–102, 166–168, 249, 267; h ­ andling, 96–97, 103–110, 114–117, 145–147, 211–212, 242, 247; l­egal, 213–214 compromises, 83, 176 conduct: aggressive, 133; bad, 8, 78; escalating, 152, 154; exploitive, 80; inappropriate, 152, 162, 233; personal, 80, 154; professional, 37, 72, 122, 148, 228; successful, 36; threatening, 152; violations, 244–248 confidences, 99–100 confidentiality, 50–51, 99–100, 109, 114–115, 214–215 conflict, 3, 128, 132, 140–141, 164, 169; aversion, 79, 148, 152, 158; of interest, 245, 254 consensus, 7, 59, 168 conversations, hard, 107 Craver, Charles, 132–133 credibility, 105, 185, 187, 253, 258; personal, 138 credit, attribution of, 229–230, 240 data, 80, 113, 173, 223–225, 228, 230, 236–237, 251–252; falsifying, 225; gathering, 178–182; recording and retaining, 239, 241; -­related prob­lems, 239–244 decisionmaker, 201 decisions, 18–19, 31–32, 44–45, 60–61, 71, 120–121, 176, 233; personnel, 202–203

disability, 207, 210, 216–217; ser­v ice office, 217; status, 216–217 discomfort, personal, 161 discrimination, 26, 110, 195–196, 203, 206, 214–215, 242, 246 dismissal, 110, 200–201. See also termination documentation, 20, 24, 40, 73, 213, 253 due pro­cess, 199, 200–203, 213 duties, distribution of, 22–23 dysfunction, 146–147, 178–179, 182–183 effectiveness, 15–17, 141 efficiency, 166 email, 43–45, 50–54, 75, 98–99, 104–105, 145–146, 251, 262; hygiene, 52 emotions, 58–61, 89, 109 employment, 6–7, 19–25, 36–37, 44, 149, 213–214; security, 4 encouragement, 187, 265–266, 272 entropy, 261–262 environment, 14–15, 42–43, 63–64, 71–74, 94, 146–149, 150–151, 157–160, 261; academic, 1–4, 11–12, 66, 74–75, 89–91, 135, 147, 193–194; antiauthoritarian, 44, 123; ethical, 113–114; hostile, 35–36, 162, 209–210; learning, 64, 69–71, 154–156, 210; professional, 26–27, 38, 162–164; toxic, 152, 171, 178; university, 7; working, 68–69, 146, 183, 200 equity, 30–32 escalation, 82, 164, 250 ethics, 6, 37, 223, 272 evaluations, 55, 159–160, 195–196, 206, 264, 266–267; institutional, 18. See also assessments evaluator, objective, 23, 264 excellence, culture of, 66, 73–74, 95, 176–178 expectations: clashing, 224; employee, 205; group, 27; setting, 37, 54, 63, 92, 160, 178, 269; unmet, 16

Index

fact-­checking, 219–220, 224 facts, 58–63, 99, 106, 136–137, 198, 211–213, 233, 258, 265–266 faculty: contingent, 69–70; factionalized, 178–179; gradu­ate, 234; ju­n ior, 93, 95, 161; new, 120, 135, 183; non-­, 13, 206; pre-­tenure, 94; re­sis­t ance, 65; se­n ior, 42, 65, 92, 94; status, 13; tenured, 76, 114, 156–157, 175, 247; tenure-­line, 68–69; untenured, 65, 93; visiting, 80, 152 fairness, 61, 90, 101–102, 114, 132, 160, 258 ­Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 211–212 Faulkner, Larry, 47 ­f avors, personal, 43–44 focusing, 32, 127–128, 130–131, 140, 176, 236 foundation, 18, 27, 75, 84, 165–168 framing, 18, 83–84, 177 Gert, Bernard, 229 Gilovich, Thomas, 265 goals, 14–16, 23–25, 45, 49–50, 56, 66, 141, 272; educational, 30; institutional, 9, 40, 174, 183–184, 204, 264; leadership, 20; in negotiation, 128–133 good ­w ill, 46, 93, 122, 185–186 gossip, 199, 213 grievances, 8, 24–27, 31–32, 38–41, 53–54, 105–106, 196, 206, 268 groundwork, 84, 168, 241 group: interactions, 163; life, 262; planning, 177; willingness, 270–271 guidance, 37–42, 58, 68, 98, 113–114, 206, 217, 244–245 habits, 26–27, 49–50, 52, 74–75, 82, 176 harassment, 63–64, 195; gender, 225; sexual, 6, 42, 242, 245 hiring, 65, 170–172, 181–185, 188, 192, 195, 202; freeze, 22

289

home, professional, 17–19, 36 ­human resources, 19–24, 40, 108–109, 115, 199, 205, 210–213, 220 impediments, 66–67, 74–75 improvising, 199, 216 initiatives, 86, 93–95 insiders, 254 instincts, 15, 107, 139–140, 217, 226–227, 238, 261 institutional: action, 78, 193, 202; censorship, 77–78; culture, 10, 116; evaluation criteria, 18; goals, 9, 40; integrity, 8; policies, 50, 79, 100, 195; property, 228; values, 18–19, 83, 142 institutions, 2, 5–7, 37, 65–68, 77, 111, 150, 193; academic, 86, 108; private, 50, 221; public, 18, 202, 209, 219, 220–221, 228 integrity, 6–8, 150, 224–225, 254, 258, 260, 271; academic, 201; research, 226–227, 232–233, 242–243, 246, 248; standards of, 248 intellectual property, 246 intention, 43, 124 interests, 63, 83–84, 92, 127–130, 134–138, 140–141, 159, 256; research, 187; shared, 185 Janus, 41, 97, 268–269 job per­for­m ance, 26, 264–265 Joffe, Paul, 149–150 knowledge, 67, 113–114, 139–140, 197, 202–203, 225–226, 239, 248–249, 273; workers, 1, 147 laws, 100, 150, 207, 216, 241 lawsuits, 5, 10, 27, 41, 106, 109–110, 192–199 ­lawyers, 108, 192, 194–195, 202, 213–214, 220–221, 265

290 Index

leadership, 10, 15, 59–60, 67, 78, 119, 121, 170–173, 256; academic, 8, 10, 281; bad, 9; duties, 9; gap, 4; goals, 20; position, 10, 12, 48–49, 56, 157, 161, 227; responsibilities, 263; role, 2–5, 11–12, 45–46, 103, 190–192; skills, 7 ­legal, 30, 90, 110, 115, 192, 194–196, 204, 247; action, 162; advice, 102, 110, 115; concepts, 199–203; consequences, 102, 194, 244; counsel, 24, 51, 172, 194; implications, 2, 196; issues, 32, 200, 204, 207; notice, 228; office, 40, 207, 219; options, 102; prob­lems, 32, 202; staff, 194, 201, 206–207, 210, 242; system, 193, 195, 199 letters, anonymous, 191, 217–218, 221 Lewicki, Roy, 132 likeability, 133, 261–263 listening, 97–98, 119–126, 144, 173; active, 127; effective, 97, 119; skills, 58, 97, 105, 115, 124, 127–128, 134, 139–140; tour, 92 low-­i ncidence, high-­severity prob­lems, 150, 227 malice, 104, 126, 227 management, 4, 50–52, 65–66, 84, 219; preventive, 9, 82 medi­cations, 216 meetings, 49, 57, 73, 81–82, 106, 168–169, 176–177, 189–190; departmental, 93–94, 168; difficult, 57–59; effective, 56–57; evaluation, 159–160; faculty, 27, 87, 92–94, 145, 168, 174; group, 59; hygiene, 56; minutes, 56, 58, 68, 189; remote, 56, 59–60, 98 ­mental health, 207–208, 216 mentoring, 37–38, 70, 94–95, 175–176, 228, 233–234, 264–265 mind-­reading, 37, 151 mirroring, 125–126 miscommunication, 104–105, 138–139, 243, 257 misconduct, 153, 182, 228, 242–243, 254–255, 257; academic, 235, 248; allegations of,

240, 257; research, 6–7, 150–151, 195, 225–227, 233–234, 241, 252; sexual, 2 mission, 18, 21, 39, 67, 69–71, 80, 173–174, 225, 272–273; educational, 113, 142–143 motive, 62–63, 171, 197 negotiation, 118–121, 140–144, 261–262; problem-­solving, 141–142; skills, 121–132; stages of, 132–139; types of, 130 norms, 67–68, 178, 226, 234; accepted, 74, 148; of authorship, 230; group, 27, 56, 66, 162–163; professional norms, 77, 160, 174, 269 notice, 153, 199–201, 209, 217–218, 228, 258 overachievers, insecure, 28, 81, 271 pandemic, 2, 59–60, 68 participants, 56–60, 85, 97, 110, 158, 225, 236, 267 patterns, 6, 53–54, 75, 164, 176, 178, 186; interaction, 16; rhetorical, 166 ­people prob­lems, 3, 9–10 perceptions, 84–85, 103, 178, 181, 189, 197 persona, 9, 58, 123, 141; cheerleading, 264–265; leadership, 121; pendulum, 263–264; professional, 17, 34 personalities, 18, 27, 58, 60–63, 84, 141, 170, 176, 233; difficult, 3–4; group, 261; key, 189; large, 73, 177; types, 62, 266; unstable, 243 personal life, 16, 50, 149 personal time, 46 personnel, 8, 58–59, 106, 108; actions, 108, 110; decision, 192, 202; files, 19, 23, 237; issues, 2, 203–210; m ­ atters, 150, 168, 196, 248; office, 205–210, 219; prob­lems, 3–4, 17, 57, 209 perspective, 20–22, 29, 61, 71, 113, 124, 127, 129–130; interpersonal, 258 persuasion, 120 plagiarism, 202, 229, 233–234, 238–239, 243 planning, 47, 128, 158, 164, 171, 177, 179

Index

police, campus, 154, 156 policies, 18, 29–32, 81, 114, 166, 196, 202, 214, 236–237; academic, 6; formal, 252, 258; institutional, 50, 79, 100, 195, 210, 215; university, 192; written, 154, 211, 216 postdocs, 2, 46, 68, 71, 87, 199, 237–238, 251–253 power, 42–43, 100–101, 147–148, 197, 206, 225, 244–245, 250–251; curve, 42, 62, 70, 99; differential, 108, 247–249; dynamics, 72–74; imbalance, 227; misuse of, 151; play, 28, 34; strug­g les, 130 practices, 69, 184, 229, 239, 257, 269; best, 59–60; detrimental research, 229; good, 8, 52, 74 praise, 61–62, 89, 135, 271 pre­ce­dents, 29, 33, 132 preparation, 1, 116, 121, 128–129, 139–140, 142 pressure, 34, 36, 47, 112, 129 prevention, 6–8, 151, 248–250 princi­ples, 8, 18–19, 68–69, 79, 88, 144, 174–175, 254 privilege, 33, 83, 221–222 privileges, 75, 81–83, 234 prob­lems: bullying, 151; difficult, 66, 167; early-­stage, 227; ­f uture, 7; intractable, 146; ­legal, 202; major, 8, 252; personal, 99; resolving, 133; unresolved, 196, 249 problem-­solving, positive, 181 proceedings, 110, 200–202; formal, 226–227 pro­cess: discovery, 106; external review, 170; formal, 62, 108, 258–259; informal, 258–259; and procedure, 196–197; tenure, 93 professors, 42, 65, 75–77, 241 psy­chol­ogy, social, 144, 265 publication, 229, 238–239, 245–246, 266–267, 269 recognition, 28, 38, 83, 87–89, 229, 268 rec­ord, public, 219, 221 recruiting, 46, 135, 174, 188, 263–264

291

Redbook, 75–77 reframing, 32, 140 regulations, 150, 152, 192, 202, 231, 233, 243, 269 rehabilitation, 111–114 relationships, 44, 74, 120, 130, 176, 203, 212, 263; institutional, 78; interlocking intimate, 245–246; personal, 72, 228, 237, 238, 241, 252; sexual, 108, 244–245 reputation, 19–20, 85, 100, 138, 174, 179, 188, 253 resources: constraints, 86–89; external, 172; ­human, 23–24, 40, 108–109, 115, 120, 199, 205, 213, 220; institutional, 208; scarce, 75 responsibilities, 27, 44, 75–76, 92, 205, 263; administrative, 1, 5, 6, 20, 203; assessment, 268; overlapping, 269; supervisory, 43, 110 restraint, 76, 78 retaliation, 7, 64, 109–110, 114–115, 116, 220–221, 235, 258 rewards, 18–19, 90, 148, 158, 164, 188, 268; intangible, 87–88 rights, 31, 77, 116, 209, 213; academic freedom, 78; civil, 209–210; employment, 23; privacy, 253; voting, 94 role: administrative, 1; -­based limitations, 215; leadership, 2–5, 5, 11–12, 45, 46, 103, 190, 192; new, 15, 27, 28, 203, 209; professional, 9, 42, 99, 122–123, 141 sabbaticals, 191–192, 217, 220–221 salary, 18, 40, 44, 66, 82, 194, 205, 219, 263 scenarios: Archer, 251–252; Chandler, 101–102; Choler, 145–146, 165–169; Cooper, 152–157; Dart, 260, 270–271; Geoff, 245–247; Holdover, 96, 114–117; Honcho, 118, 142–144; Johansen, 19–26; Keane, 246–247; Knowlton, 248; Major, 11, 19, 27–34; McNabb, 191–192, 219–222; Murtha, 15–16; Ranking, 35–36, 63–64; Stellar, 84–86; Stotler, 230–235; Strasse, 76–77, 83, 89–91

292 Index

scholarship, 67, 75, 226 scripts, personal, 27, 54–55, 71–73, 98–99, 100–102, 115–116, 183, 186, 215 self-­control, 15–16, 154 sentences, key, 100–102, 103, 232 ser­v ices, personal, 44, 233 social media, 2, 5, 43–44, 50, 74, 78, 79, 104 special treatment, 28, 33, 82–84, 147 staff, support, 29, 166, 204, 206, 209, 255, 261 stakeholders, 29–31, 34, 114 standards, 24, 116, 196, 223, 234, 239–240, 248, 262–263; ethical, 151; group, 26; positive, 151; scholarly, 179; university, 269 stars, academic, 80, 81–86, 108, 149, 228, 272 star system, 66, 75, 81 stress, 15, 109, 148, 152, 160, 187, 197, 238 student: abuse of, 91; experience, 84, 86; gradu­ate, 30, 42, 43, 51, 58, 69, 87–88, 199, 215; insulating, 7; interactions, 183; mentoring, 176; outcomes, 180; placement, 180; privacy, 90, 195; undergraduate, 43, 96, 180, 214, 246–247 substance abuse, 2, 115

evaluation, 266; -­line faculty, 67–69; procedures, 57; pro­cess, 93; system, 77; -­t rack, 160 termination, 110, 213, 266. See also dismissal text­i ng, 54 theft, 199, 246 third reader, 142, 198, 267–268 time: bound­a ries, 49; limits, 58, 68, 98, 237; management, 47 timing, 33–34, 177 Title IX, 77, 215, 246, 247 tone-­setting, 248–249 train-­w reck, example, 7–8 triggers, 15–16 trust, 25–26, 44, 73–74, 80, 132, 140, 152, 175–176, 221 12 Angry Men, 144

teaching: assistants (see assistants: teaching); evaluations, 35, 96; method, 76; -­oriented school, 66; outcomes, 180; quality, 179; schedule, 28, 29, 33; style, 36, 80; technique, 36 team, 6, 24, 91, 149, 190, 230, 233, 265; -­building, 177–178; core, 184, 185, 189; external, 184–185 tenure, 4, 18, 46, 66, 75–79, 95, 234, 247; cases, 91; clocks, 68; decisions, 264, 268;

values, 18, 39, 80, 88, 111, 144, 175, 225, 254; group, 27; stated, 19; under­lying, 67 victims, 145, 147, 148, 161; direct, 161; indirect, 161–162 violations, 42, 69, 71, 111, 150, 221, 234, 246; boundary, 255; conduct, 244–248 vio­lence, 6, 152, 154, 218 vulnerabilities, 15, 250

university: administrators, 6; business, 50; counsel, 195; email, 50; equipment, 50; governance, 81; ­lawyers, 195; policy, 24, 86, 200–201, 220, 232, 242; standards, 269; time clock, 44 Ury, William, 127

whistle­blower, 61–62, 221, 258