Tomorrow's Professor Msg.#301 MANAGING CONFLICT BETWEEN DEANS AND CHAIRS

Folks:

The excerpt below looks at the differing perspectives of deans and
department chairs and gives some ideas for managing conflicts between
them. It is from, Chapter 10, Can We Agree to Disagree?
Faculty-Faculty Conflict, by Cynthia Berryman-Fink, in: MENDING THE
CRACKS IN THE IVORY TOWER: Strategies for Conflict Management in
Higher Education, Susan A. Holton, editor: Bridgewater State College,
Copyright (c) 1998 by Anker Publishing Company, Bolton, MA.
http://www.ankerpub.com/ All rights reserved. Reprinted with
permission.

Regards,

Rick Reis
reis@stanford.edu
UP NEXT: Collaborative Learning in the Virtual Classroom

Tomorrow's Academic Careers

---------------------- 1,014 words -------------------

SPANNING THE ABYSS: MANAGING CONFLICT BETWEEN DEANS AND CHAIRS

Differences in Perception Between Deans and Chairs

Cynthia Berryman-Fink

Up until this point, I have written about how the cultural climate of
the university and the leadership style of the dean determine whether
conflict becomes dysfunctional or actually improves decision-making in
the college. I have also provided several suggestions about how a toxic
culture can be changed and how deans and chairs can recognize and
resolve conflicts that are caused by dissimilar perceptions of deans and
chairs can be a significant source of conflict. Once this is
understood, it is easier to 1) appreciate how apparently irreconcilable
differences are often simply the results of individuals viewing issues
based on their positions in a university, 2) identify common problems,
and 3) engage in successful problem solving.

Deans and chairs view any given situation through very different
windows. Because deans feel they must consider what is good for the
college, their focus is how a department's goals fit the overall
strategic plan of the college. Chairs, on the other hand, who have to
live with faculty on a daily basis, tend to see themselves primarily as
advocates for faculty, and that often means preserving the status quo of
the department. One chair I interviewed commented:

"Chairs are first-line managers, first among equals, with
responsibility but not enough authority to make decisions that would be
good for their faculty and for the department. For example, when
working on faculty development with each individual, a chair needs to
prioritize among teaching, scholarship, and service. A faculty member
may be an excellent teacher, be heavily involved in committee work and
student advisement, but not do any publishing. The chair accepts this,
but the dean wants everyone to publish. How can a chair let a faculty
member know that his contributions as a quality teacher, his individual
work with students, and his heavy service commitment to the department
are appreciated, and yet tell him he has to publish if he is to achieve
the goals set by the dean? The faculty member is more likely to stop
doing all the things he has been doing because he feels such activities
are not really valued."

Yet, a little later in the same interview, acknowledging the fact that
there will be differences in perception between chairs and deans, this
chair said:

"Chairs must learn to manage upward. Some deans do not have the
necessary leadership and communication skills. Accept that and don't
take it personally. In dealing with the dean, stay issue oriented and
avoid defensiveness. The dean and the chair are both acting
in role, so
the task is to avoid becoming personal about things. Put issues on the
table. Recognize that you would make the same decision if you were in
that role. You want to find the best overall decision. But sometimes
decisions involve sacrifices, that is, just taking a solution that
works, rather than the best one. Seeing the big picture is extremely
important. Chairs must make decisions that are good for the
quality and
growth of the department, not just for an individual faculty member."

The dean's view of this difference in perspective is that some chairs
won't make hard decisions if they think they will be unpopular in the
department and will make the dean the bad guy by letting him or her
resolve the issue. For example, in one college at a large university,
steadily declining enrollment had resulted in a decision by the provost
to reduce the number of faculty in the college. To avoid downsizing,
the dean asked several chairs to develop some criteria that could be
used as a basis for transferring some faculty to another college in the
university which needed more full-time faculty. Several chairs needed
to do this, so the dean had to make the decisions. The dean said he
then became the bad guy with the faculty in those departments. In other
departments, chairs explained to their faculty that this was the only
way to avoid downsizing, so the chairs, with their faculty, developed
criteria and accepting responsibility. Those chairs who passed the
decision up to the dean actually prevented their faculty from having
input into decision-making. The chairs who called their faculty
together to determine the criteria to be used, not only took an active
role in decision-making with their colleagues, but also demonstrated
effective leadership ability.

Effective deans recognize that chairs often feel they are primary
advocates for faculty and are aware that perspective sometimes makes it
difficult for them to support and implement administration decisions.
However, there are times when a policy put in place by administration is
irrevocable. At such moments, chairs need to consider carefully hoe
they frame the policy they have been asked to implement, so that when
they consult with their faculty members, they can brainstorming
creatively to generate action steps that serve both them and the college
well. Poor framing of the issue can result in faculty rebellion so that
they simply dig in their heels and refuse to live with consequences that
hurt them and the department.

While acknowledging that many chairs do keep in mind what is best for
the discipline-not just what is best for individual faculty
members-deans believe that other chairs feel their primary task to push
the department's agenda forward, and that this difference in perception
is one of the main sources of conflict between chairs and deans.
However, effective deans manage the role conflict inherent in the
position of chair-to represent both faculty and upper administration-by
creating a shared vision with all of the chairs in the college so that
they develop a commitment to that vision. They feel that it is the
dean's leadership responsibility to communicate the big picture of the
college to the chairs, to remind them constantly of their common goals,
and to reinforce them for achievement of these objectives. By creating
a shared vision, by sharing information and resources, by assisting
chairs and faculty to achieve their goals, by helping them feel good
about themselves so that they know they make a difference, deans support
chairs in taking the administrative view, not just the faculty
perspective.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOMORROW'S PROFESSOR MAILING LIST

is a shared mission partnership with the
American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) http://www.aahe.org/
The National Teaching and Learning Forum (NT&LF) http://www.ntlf.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------