inside rethinking the chair’s roles and responsibilities · interim chairs by william f. rayburn...

Inside

Learning to Leadby Anne V. Massaro p. 5

The Emerging Importance of Interim Chairsby William F. Rayburn p. 7

The Chair as Coach and Referee in Tenure Applicationsby Christopher Gould p. 10

Fostering Faculty Friendshipsby Cynthia Schubert-Irastorza p. 12

Promoting Departmental Community and Civility ThroughCovenant Developmentby Carol A. Mullen p. 13

Creating a Chairs Councilby Jeffrey L. Buller p. 16

Campus Computing 2009 Survey p. 18

Implementing Service Learning Across the Curriculum: A Catalystfor Changeby Marie Thielke Huff, Carol Burton, and Linda Seestedt-Stanford p. 20

Integrating Globalization into the Academic Department: Keys for Chairsby Karl E. Anderson and Michael T. Miller p. 22

Transitioning Traditional Programs to Online Programsby Mindy Haar p. 24

What Is Unique About Chairs? A Continuing Explorationby Robert E. Cipriano and Richard Riccardi p. 26

Lawsuits and Rulings p. 29

Review p. 30

A RESOURCE FOR ACADEMIC ADMIN ISTRATORS

Spring 2010

Vol. 20

No. 4

Rethinking the Chair’s Roles andResponsibilities

by Judith M. Gappa and Andrea G. Trice

Department chairs occupy key decision-making roles within

their colleges and universities. They arethe pivotal midpoints of the adminis-trative and communications systems asinformation and instructions flow upand down, and to and from, individualfaculty members, faculty governancebodies, deans, provosts, and, ulti-mately, presidents and governingboards. Thus, chairs are simultane-ously respected peers in the senior fac-ulty where they serve as spokespersonsfor their concerns, and front-line ad-ministrators responsible for imple-mentation of campus missions andpolicies within their departments.

The significant growth and diversi-fication of faculty members and facultyappointments today have increased thecomplexity of the department chair’srole. The total number of faculty mem-bers in the United States doubled from686,000 in 1980 to 1,371,000 in 2007.Much of this growth was in part-timefaculty who now represent 49% of allfaculty members (Snyder, Dillow, &Hoffman, 2008). By 2003, only 24% ofall faculty were tenured, and only 11%were on the tenure track. Nineteen per-cent of all faculty members occupiedfull-time, nontenure-track positions,but the largest group of faculty (46%)held part-time, temporary positions(Curtis & Jacobe, 2006). During this

period, the representation of womenalso increased substantially (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006; Snyder, Tan, &Hoffman, 2004). Today, 4% of all fac-ulty members are women; however,they occupy a disproportionate num-ber of full-time off-the-tenure-trackpositions (38%) compared to males(26%) (Snyder et al., 2008). The repre-sentation of ethnic minority faculty hasalso increased. They currently make up17% percent of faculty members, withblacks representing 7%, Hispanics 4%,Asian Pacific islanders 6%, and AmericanIndian/Alaska Natives 1% (Snyder et al.,2008).

These shifts in faculty appoint-ments and demographics call for re-thinking faculty workplaces andcareers: What do all faculty membersneed today to do their best work? Howcan departmental governance and deci-sion making contribute to faculty pro-ductivity? And how can chairssuccessfully recruit and retain enthusi-astic and talented faculty while also ful-filling their other responsibilities? Thisarticle looks at the impact on the chair’swork of the changes that have occurredin faculty appointments and roles, thensuggests some possible answers to thelarger question of how chairs can suc-cessfully cope with the changes in theirfaculty members’ demographics andappointments.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI:10.1002/dch.20038

2 THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR Spring 2010

DOI:10.1002/dch

Expanding Roles andResponsibilities of ChairsMany of a chair’s traditional roles havenot changed significantly in recentdecades. Chairs remain a critical per-son in the daily lives of all departmentfaculty members. They orient new fac-ulty to the department, foster collegialenvironments, provide support serv-ices and office space, determine facultyassignments and workloads, and over-see peer reviews of faculty perform-ance. They also guide faculty membersin their careers and help them find ap-propriate professional developmentopportunities to increase their skillsand knowledge.

But what has changed in most de-partments is the number of facultymembers for whom the chair is re-sponsible as departments increasinglyrely on nontenure-track, largely part-time faculty to fill teaching needs.These changes in faculty appointmenttypes coupled with the willingness offaculty to relocate (Xu, 2008) requireacademic departments to engage in acontinuous cycle of faculty hiring andorientation in order to create andmaintain a nimble, flexible workforce.In turn, this necessitates more frequentsearches for faculty, more faculty ori-entations, and continuous redistribu-tions of faculty workloads, all of whichrequire more of the department chair’stime and attention.

Ensuring faculty satisfaction andproductivity is only one part of thechair’s overall job. Chairs also mustwrestle with budget cuts, declining en-rollments, required productivity re-ports, mandated accountabilitymeasures, fundraising, and changingtechnologies. For chairs to be success-ful in this demanding (and often part-time) position they, along with theirinstitutions, must establish a realisticand comprehensive understanding ofeach of the chair’s roles and responsi-bilities and what it will take in re-sources to fulfill his or her duties. Todo this, the institution working withthe chair must ensure that:

• The responsibilities of the chair as-signment are clearly understood andagreed on, and a sufficient time basehas been designated for the chair to ac-commodate these responsibilities.

• Chairs are selected, trained, sup-ported, and rewarded in keeping withtheir complex responsibilities.

• Chairs have the tools and supportthey need to accomplish their assign-ments including opportunities to par-ticipate in chair training programs atcampus, system, state, and national levels.

Given the new and increasing re-sponsibilities of the department chair,it also may be time to rethink currentacademic organization. As presentlystructured and supported, the chair’sroles of academic leader and adminis-trator, on a part-time and rotatingbasis, may be a weak link in ensuringthat faculty work and workplaces areproperly supported throughout the or-ganization. Continuous decentraliza-tion of some administrative functions(e.g., processing travel requests, over-seeing regulatory aspects of faculty hir-ing) may be unnecessarily timeconsuming for chairs to perform. Morecentrally located support staff and pro-fessionals with requisite skills andknowledge could release significanttime for chairs’ roles as academic lead-ers. One example of services that arealready typically handled centrally istechnology infrastructure planningand decision making. Why not con-sider others?

Essential Elements of Faculty Work TodayAt the same time that the chair’s rolehas increased in complexity, exter-nal pressures on higher education in-stitutions have led to cost savings andmandates for increased faculty produc-tivity within academic departments.The need to fully utilize the skills andexpertise that all faculty (full- andpart-time, tenure and nontenure-track) bring to their departments be-comes essential in this environment.

Chairs must focus on their currentfaculty members’ productivity andon the recruitment and retention ofnew faculty who contribute enthusi-asm and talent to their academic departments.

Our research on faculty roles indi-cates that the presence of five EssentialElements in their work and the work-places puts all faculty members in aposition to do their best work. Theseessential elements are employment eq-uity, flexibility, professional growth,academic freedom, and collegiality.Colleges and universities must ensurethat these elements are embedded ininstitutional policies and practices forevery academic appointment, whethertenured, tenure track, renewable con-tract, or temporary.

The foundational requirement forthese five essential elements is re-spect—the basic human valuing ofeach and every faculty member forwho they are and what they uniquelycontribute. Departments must ensurethat every faculty member, regardlessof appointment type, feels welcomeand respected. Thus, for example, allacademic titles used for faculty ap-pointments should convey respect.We prefer “fixed-term faculty mem-ber” to “contingent” for temporaryappointments, and “contract-renew-able” to “nontenure-track” (a blunt,negative statement of what these fac-ulty are not) for continuing facultywithout referencing the time base ofthe appointment. Respect also meansfostering a culture of inclusion. Byincluding all faculty members acrossvarious appointment types in orien-tation programs and department fac-ulty meetings, social events andinformal hal lway conversations,recognition and awards programs,and positive publicity about the insti-tution, departments can ensure thatall faculty are fully participatingmembers of the academic commu-nity.

The five essential elements that arecritical for faculty productivity are

THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR Spring 2010 3

DOI:10.1002/dch

built on this foundation of respect.Although we briefly address only threeof these elements here, we discuss allfive in depth in our book RethinkingFaculty Work: Higher Education’sStrategic Imperative (Gappa, Austin, &Trice, 2007).

• Equity: We have defined equity asthe right of every faculty member tobe treated fairly, to have access to thetools necessary to do his or her job,and to have status as a full-fledged, al-beit necessarily different, member ofthe faculty. For faculty in fixed-termand contract-renewable appoint-ments, employment equity requiresrethinking policies and practices ateach college and university. For exam-ple, every faculty member should beevaluated regularly and given per-formance feedback. Compensationshould be based on an institution-wide salary system and include a de-fined package of appropriate fringebenefits. And, all faculty membersshould have sufficient office space,equipment, services to support theirwork, and sufficient flexibility to si-multaneously manage their profes-sional and personal lives.

• Professional development: Facultymembers, regardless of their appoint-ment type, need opportunities togrow professionally. Providing facultywith the opportunity to completechallenging and creative work, withenough ownership to experience asense of accomplishment from theirwork, will help them to stay engagedand make significant contributions totheir unit.

• Collegiality: As faculty membersand their appointment types becomeless homogeneous and their individualpriorities and circumstances becomemore complex, collegiality and thesense of belonging to a community ofscholars take far more time and atten-tion for department chairs to developand support.

Maximizing the potential and thecontributions of all department facultymembers requires that each of them,

regardless of appointment type or timebase, experience respect and these es-sential elements in their work andworkplaces. To what extent are theseessential elements present in your de-partment?

Rethinking Faculty Assignmentsand ResponsibilitiesShifts in faculty appointment typesdiscussed earlier have had a profoundeffect on faculty responsibilities forstudent advising and other departmen-tal duties traditionally handled bytenured faculty. These responsibilitiesrequire significant faculty time.

Thus, we suggest approaching de-partmental planning in a much moreholistic and inclusive way. Ratherthan assign departmental responsi-bilities first to tenured and tenure-track faculty, why not lookholistically at the department’s totalneeds? Which courses would be besttaught by full-time professionalsworking in the field who teach part-time in the department? Would stu-dents benefit from having a seasonedfaculty member teach an introduc-tory course even though that is nothow the course traditionally has beenstaffed? Regardless of appointmenttype, who is in the strongest positionto network and identify new intern-ship opportunities for students? Whoamong the tenured faculty has cho-sen to focus little effort on researchin recent years but could contributeto the department in important waysthrough increased administrative orcommittee work or additional teach-ing responsibilities? Asking these andother questions, as well as surveyingall faculty members about their tal-ents and interests with regard to de-partmental service and academicassignments, might very well en-hance departmental planning and ac-complishments.

ConclusionThe significant shifts in faculty ap-pointment types and demographics

require department chairs’ thoughtfulattention to creating respectful, sup-portive environments where the indi-vidual strengths and experiences of alltheir faculty members contribute tothe department’s work. And, simulta-neously, the multiple roles, responsibil-ities, and rewards of chairs today needreview by central administrators. Afterall, department chairs are the key fig-ures in ensuring the well-being andproductivity of their faculty, and thus,of their college or university. ▲

Judith M. Gappa is professor emerita at PurdueUniversity where she also served as vice presidentfor human relations. Andrea G. Trice is an inde-pendent consultant to colleges, universities, andgovernmental agencies, primarily on faculty-related projects. This article is based on the au-thors’ book (with Ann E. Austin) Rethinking FacultyWork: Higher Education’s Strategic Imperative( Jossey-Bass, 2007). Email: [email protected],[email protected]

References

Curtis, J. W., & Jacobe, M. F. (2006).Contingent faculty index. Washington,DC: American Association of Univer-sity Professors.

Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J.(2006). The American faculty: The re-structuring of academic work and ca-reers. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Snyder, T. D., Dillow, S. A., & Hoffman,C. M. (2008). Digest of education statis-tics 2007 (NCES 2008–022). NationalCenter for Education Statistics, Insti-tute of Education Sciences, U.S. De-partment of Education. Washington,DC: Government Printing Office.

Snyder, T. D., Tan, A. G., & Hoffman, C.M. (2004). Digest of education statistics2003 (NCES 2005–025). U.S. Depart-ment of Education, National Center forEducation Statistics. Washington, DC:Government Printing Office.

Xu, Y. J. (2008). Faculty turnover: Disci-pline-specific attention is warranted.Research in Higher Education, 49(1),40–61.


DOI:10.1002/dch


DOI:10.1002/dch

Anew department chair recentlyemailed me in response to a “wel-

come” message I sent him. In that emailhe said, “There will be no shortage ofthings to learn. I just have to figure outwhere to start!” I believe these two state-ments reflect what most new chairs feeland experience—an appreciation thatthe learning curve will be steep, and acuriosity about what to learn first, sec-ond, and third. This particular chair waspromoted from within his own depart-ment. Faculty who assume departmen-tal leadership roles at a new universityhave even greater challenges.

The most profound issues facultyface when moving into the chair roleinclude:

• Building relationships with depart-ment faculty and staff, other depart-ment chairs, and the dean

• Understanding others’ expectations• Comprehending the current culture,

structure, and governance mechanisms• Learning how to get things done• Grasping the administrative tasks

associated with the role, such as sched-uling and budgeting

Given these challenges, and more,there are cognitive shifts and behavioralstrategies that can help a new academicleader transition smoothly and reach alevel of productivity in a fairly quicktime frame. “Over night” is not theequivalent of “a fairly quick timeframe.” Transitioning, learning, and lis-tening should be the primary responsi-bilities for the new chair’s first month.With the right support mechanisms inplace, and an intentional focus onlearning from the start, a new chairshould consider using the three-monthmark as a time to begin actively leading.

Shifting ThinkingIntegrating new practices into one’sdaily routine is difficult; many requireshifts in thinking and doing. Some may

require a more passive stance than fac-ulty are accustomed to. As noted byDanielson and Schulte (2007), new de-partment chairs who documentedtheir journey from faculty member tochair, “We had to learn how to listen aswell as how to make ourselves heard.We needed to get the faculty and staffmembers involved in our decisions,and the best way to do that was to askthem for their input and listen to thembefore acting” (p. 79). What is de-scribed by these two new chairs is ashift from autonomous decision mak-ing to collective decision making andan emphasis on listening and askingquestions, rather than telling anddoing.

Intellectually, the shifts just de-scribed sound simple and based oncommon sense. In reality, it takes com-mitment and purposeful action tochange behavior, especially behaviorsthat have become unconscious habitsand that serve faculty well. A fairamount of teaching is predicated onbeing the expert with the answers. Asignificant portion of research is inde-pendent thinking and writing. Al-though these behaviors lead to successas a faculty member, they can lead tofailure for a department chair. For any-one who has an accomplished history,it is challenging to fully understandthat past actions resulting in past suc-cesses may not create successes in thefuture. It is imperative for new chairsto adjust from thinking and acting in-dependently to an emphasis on involv-ing others and focusing on thecollective.

Building RelationshipsMeeting with department faculty andstaff is a must for new chairs. Depend-ing on the size of the department thistask alone can be a big time commit-ment, but it is critically important

because of the chair’s responsibility tolead the department with a shared vi-sion and to create a plan that leveragesindividual strengths. While facultywho are promoted from within theirown departments will have a tendencyto believe they know their peers andrelationships are already established,the criticality of one-on-one meetingsremains. A relationship as peers hasbeen previously established. A new re-lationship must be invented, one char-acterized by mutual respect, anunderstanding of what motivates anddrives both parties, a commitment toasking for input, and a belief that sug-gestions (once expressed) will beheard. In general, faculty tend to beskeptical that “administration” caresabout them or wants to hear theirideas. In addition, faculty peers don’ttypically discuss the future direction ofthe department or wrestle with howindividual interests add to the disci-pline as a whole. Reducing skepticismand inviting this kind of inquiry willlay a solid foundation for shared direc-tion and mutual respect between thenew chair and each of his or her facultymembers.

When planning one-on-one meet-ings with faculty, a new chair mightconsider framing the conversationaround three categories: perceptions,strengths, and priorities. Asking the fol-lowing questions will communicatethat the new chair cares about each in-dividual and the department in totality:

• What is your perception of our de-partment?

• What strengths do you bring towhat we are about and the students weare here to serve?

• What are your priorities for thenext year?

• What departmental priorities doyou believe are most important for ouradvancement and academic excellence?

Meeting one on one with the deanshould be another high priority for thenew chair. Understanding the dean’sstyle and preferences and obtaining in-formation about the dean’s direction

Learning to Lead

by Anne V. Massaro


DOI:10.1002/dch

for the college are reasons to make thisa priority. Is the dean someone whoexpects to know an abundance of de-tails, or is a high-level, big-picture per-spective sufficient? What are themeetings the dean leads and what arethe expectations for pre-meetingpreparation? These are questions re-lated to the dean’s style. A new chaircan adjust and accommodate if prefer-ences are understood.

The dean’s vision for the future ofthe college, and the chair’s departmentin particular, will influence the depart-ment goals the new chair sets. In somecases the dean will have very specificexpectations for the chair’s depart-ment. The more explicit these expecta-tions are, the more likely the chair canmeet them. Lastly, the dean should be asource of information about the uni-versity. If major initiatives or changesare planned, it is in the new chair’s bestinterests to learn about these early andunderstand how they will affect his orher department and faculty.

It has been suggested that the newchair meet with department facultyand staff as well as the dean. There maywell be additional stakeholders the newchair will want to meet with in the firstthree to six months. Reflecting on de-partmental priorities and functions,the new chair should consider makinga list of additional stakeholders anddeliberately planning conversationswith each person or group on the listover the course of six months. Wergin(2003) offers a stakeholder frameworkthat may be helpful to new chairs asthey engage in this reflection about keyconstituencies (see Figure 1).

Understanding Culture, Structure,and GovernanceThere are exact and inexact ways to discern the department’s currentculture, structure, and governancemechanisms. Both approaches are recommended. The easiest and mosttangible way to learn about how deci-sions are made, and by whom, is tocarefully review the existing pattern of

administration for the department.This document should describe the de-partment’s committee structure, fac-ulty meetings, key processes, andcommunication patterns. It is as im-portant to understand what is notwritten as it is to comprehend what iswritten. This is the imprecise, or intu-itive, way of learning. For example, onedepartment chair perceived a deep lackof trust between the faculty and theprevious chair given the length, infinitedetail, and depth of description in thecurrent pattern of administration forher new department. Having this in-sight helped the chair gain credibilityand carefully approach processchanges.

Learning Administrative TasksLearning the administrative and tech-nical aspects of the chair’s role canoccur in three ways. Many universitiesoffer workshops and online tutorialsrelated to budgeting, hiring, and evalu-ating. New chairs who take advantageof these opportunities gain new

knowledge and, more importantly,learn about campus resources. If thesetypes of structured learning opportu-nities are not available to new chairs,seeking out and meeting with thosewho are accountable for various uni-versity processes is equally valuable. Anew chair might discover the personresponsible for fiscal affairs, assemble alist of questions, meet with this personto express an interest in understandingfiscal matters, and acquire from his orher point of view what a new chairneeds to learn. A third option forlearning about the budget and otherfiscal matters is to identify a seasonedpeer who is highly proficient in thisarea. The dean will likely be able topoint the new chair in the direction ofa veteran chair who has mastery in aspecific area.

Reflecting with a Trusted PartnerIdentifying a trusted partner is highlyrecommended for new departmentchairs. This partner might be a friend,peer, mentor, or coach. This is someone

Dept.Faculty

Central Administration

Pare

nts St

ud

ents Dean

AlumniO

ther departm

ents

Prof

essi

onal

/Dis

cipl

inar

ySo

ciet

ies

Figure 1. Stakeholders’ Circles

Source: Wergin (2003).


DOI:10.1002/dch

with whom the new chair can share observations, challenges, mistakes, andwonderings. In conversation with thistrusted partner the new chair can bevulnerable and frustrated but feel safein genuinely expressing him or herself.This partner should be from outsidethe new chair’s college and have no hi-erarchical authority over the chair.More than title or status, the qualitiesof this person are paramount. The newchair should seek out someone who:

• Listens for complete understanding• Commits to keeping conversations

with the chair confidential• Offers support• Challenges the new leader when he

or she is “stuck” in one way of thinking

ConclusionTransitioning into the department chairrole is much more than learning how todo new tasks. While the new tasks maybe daunting and require fast attention,it is the building of relationships andunderstanding the current culture thatare the real foundations for success. Se-curing a relationship where the chaircan confidentially reflect on relation-ships and the circumstance leads to

greater personal health and satisfaction.Getting to know the department facultyand the dean, as well as accurately as-sessing the current state of affairs, isworth delaying changes and postponingnew directions or programs. Rushing toperform or produce results without un-derstanding the people and the situa-tion can damage a new academic leaderbeyond repair. First impressions arelasting. A new chair who asks questions,seeks input, fosters collective inquiry,and plans thoughtfully will be highly re-garded and will be in a more stable lead-ership position for stretching thedepartment in new ways. ▲

Anne V. Massaro is project manager in the Officeof Human Resources at Ohio State University.Email: [email protected]

References

Danielson, L., & Schulte, L. (2007).Voices of women in the field: The top10 things we learned about being a de-partment chair. Journal of Women inEducational Leadership, 5(1), 77–81.

Wergin, J. F. (2003). Departments thatwork: Building and sustaining cultures ofexcellence in academic programs. Bolton,MA: Anker.

a time of transition. Although beingan interim chair may appear to be athankless burden to some, many viewthis service as an opportunity tostrengthen and solidify their leader-ship skills.

Such an appointment has longbeen undertaken by university presi-dents or deans to fill gaps, and the lit-erature is limited about interim chairsand their qualifications. The recent ac-ademic literature about interim chairsis reviewed here to assess the frequencyof interim appointments and to offerrecommendations in preparing suchleaders to be effective during this timeof transition.

Prevalence of Interim ChairsFor a typical medical school withtwenty-four departments, one mightexpect two departments to be search-ing for a new chair at any given time.To plan for this constant turnover,deans and certain chair societies arenow working more closely to identifyand train individuals with futures inacademic leadership. Opportunitiesfor those persons to shadow success-ful chairs either at their institution orat other schools are often offered toself-assess their interest, expand theiradministrative capabilities, and ac-quire skill sets for potential tempo-rary or permanent employment as achair.

A subsequent, more detailed re-view of interim chairs, using datacollected longitudinally from the As-sociation of Professors in Gynecol-ogy and Obstetrics, disclosed that amedian of five interim chairs are ap-pointed nationally in obstetrics andgynecology at any time. Of note,fewer women were named as interimchairs, leav ing them without thebenefit of chair training before ac-cepting a permanent position. Whenincluding the many other depart-ments, it would be anticipated thatmore than one hundred inter imchairs would be present nationally atany time.

The Emerging Importance of Interim Chairs

by William F. Rayburn

How long should a departmentchair serve? Despite an impres-

sion that a prolonged tenure may bedesirable, the expectation of a chair toremain for a lengthy period is less real-istic. For example, retention of medicalschool chairs in both clinical and basicscience departments has declined from9.9 years for those whose appoint-ments began in 1979 through 1983 to8.0 years for the most recent cohort ofchairs (Rayburn, Alexander, Lang, &Scott, 2009). The annual turnover rateof chairs in medical schools (average8.2%, range 6.3% to 9.9%) is remark-

ably similar between clinical and basicscience departments.

Inter im chair is the term com-monly used for the individual ap-pointed to the leadership role when asearch is being conducted to replace aprior department chair with one whois new and permanent. It is not to beconfused with being an acting chair,where the person assumes administra-tive tasks while the permanent chairtakes a temporary absence before re-turning. The administrative roles areassumed to be the same as for anychair while providing stability during


DOI:10.1002/dch

Succession PlanningTransitions in department leadership areoften unpredictable, resulting from seri-ous illness, death, or abrupt resignationrather than from retirement. Some formof succession planning would, therefore,make sense. Identifying individuals,preferably from within the department,who are poised to assume the leadershiprole in case of an anticipated or unex-pected loss of the permanent chair pro-motes organizational stability andperformance efficiency. Mallon, Grigsby,and Dupont (2009) published an excel-lent monograph on developing andmanaging a “talent bank” and focusingon organizational and talent assessment.

Selecting an interim chair who islikely to be the next permanent chair of-fers the advantage of already knowingthe institution’s rules, norms, and cul-ture. Moreover, interim chairs do notface hardships associated with relocatingto a new residence or managing familytransition. In contrast, an interim chairwho does not wish to be permanent butinstead pass the baton serves to assist ex-ternal chair candidates and the subse-quent permanent hire to questionexisting policies and bring a fresh per-spective to the department’s work.

If succession planning seems logi-cal and is common in nonacademicbusiness settings, why is it not encour-aged more or discussed more openly inacademic departments? There is notmuch evidence about succession plan-ning in academic departments. Severalissues are to be considered when iden-tifying any individual who is poised toassume an interim leadership role:

• What if more than one facultymember would qualify to be an interimchair? Would this be a set up for fa-voritism?

• What if a preexisting vice chair isnot considered to be the interim chair?

• At what stage of a chair’s tenure is itbest to begin considering or determin-ing a succession plan?

• Will a succession plan affect the re-lationship between the current chairand the university president or dean?

• What if a faculty member falselybelieves he or she is worthy of being aninterim chair? Is it the departmentchair’s responsibility to candidly dis-cuss that person’s limitations and tocoach that person?

Skills to AcquireWhat ski l l s are necessar y beforebeing appointed or while functioningas an interim chair? Quillen, Aber,and Grigsby (2009) evaluated theskill sets of eighteen interim chairs atthe Pennsylvania State UniversityCollege of Medicine. Establishingclear expectations from the dean andcultivating mentors among fellowchairs or senior administrators (e.g.,associate deans of academic affairs)were essential first steps. Providingstability was the common theme bypromoting core values (trust, fair-ness/equity, accountability), mini-mizing negative thoughts, dealingwith difficult faculty, and communi-cating openly and often while seek-ing others’ assistance. The steepestlearning curves for many interimchairs were in negotiation skills andin department finances. The depart-ment would benefit during times oftransition from a SWOT analysis(identifying strengths, weaknesses,opportunities, and threats) and from

a reexamination, and revision if nec-essary, of the department’s mission,vision, and shared values statements.

An Internal Candidate asPermanent ChairBeing an interim chair is no guaranteeof becoming the next permanent chair.An interim chair is, however, invariablythe preferred internal candidate fromhis or her department. Therefore, thisposition is extremely important astwo-thirds of medical school depart-ment chairs are internal hires (Rayburnet al., 2009). As presented in Figure 1,the percentages of new chairs areshown who were internal hires in eitherbasic science or clinical departments atall U.S. medical schools between 1979and 2007. This percent increased beforeremaining fairly stable at 65% after1994.

It is unknown what proportion ofinterim chairs really wish to become thenext permanent chair. We reported on254 chair turnovers in academic depart-ments of obstetrics and gynecologyfrom 1981 to 2004 (Rayburn et al.,2006). An interim chair who served forat least one year was found in 110(43.3%) instances. Half of those interimchairs became permanent chairs(1981–1988: 7 of 34, 20.6%; 1989–1996:19 of 39, 48.7%; 1997–2004: 18 of 36,

100

80

60

40

20

0

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2007 Average

Year of apointment

Ch

airs

as

inte

rnal

hir

es (

%)

Clinical departments Basic science departments

Figure 1. Percent of First-Time Chairs Who Were Internal Hiresin Clinical and Basic Science Departments at U.S. MedicalSchools, 1979–2007


DOI:10.1002/dch

50%). Most interim chairs remained attheir institution, while few becamechairs elsewhere (7 of 110, 6.4%).

Who is likely to be a more success-ful department chair—one who is aninterim chair and internal candidate orone who is an external candidate? Mostlikely, this is an individual matter.Murray (2009) conducted a survey oftwenty-one nonmedical departmentchairs at Georgia Southern University.Little difference was noted between in-ternally and externally hired chairs interms of the ease with which they un-dertook tasks and of their perceived ef-fectiveness during the first year on thejob. External chairs rated themselvesslightly higher, most probably becauseof greater or more varied leadershipexperience. No mention was made inthe report, however, as to whether theinternal candidate was an interimchair. We compared internal versus ex-ternal hires for department chairs at allU.S. medical schools (Rayburn et al.,2009). First-time chairs who werehired externally were more likely to beretained by five years (80% vs. 64%)and by ten years (57% vs. 40%), evenafter including the time served as aninterim chair.

Time Needed to Select aPermanent ChairA common perception of any searchfor a permanent chair is that it takes along time, especially for academicmedicine than for other professions orindustries. Searches may be moredrawn out than expected because ofdifficulties in scheduling search com-mittee meetings and chair candidateinterviews and in lengthy negotiationswith the top candidate. This delay maybe purposeful to permit an interimchair to develop requisite skills and toallow for healing if there was unrestunder the prior chair’s direction.

Mallon et al. (2009) reported onthe perspectives of executive searchconsultants about the search process ofdepartment chairs. Their findings indi-cated that the average length of a

search for department chairs and cen-ter directors was 11.9 months. The av-erage search for clinical chairs lasted12.5 months when medical schools didnot use a search firm compared with9.5 months when using a search firm.Searches for basic science departmentchairs took the longest time, averaging13.5 months.

ConclusionThe loss of a department chair cancreate instability and may negativelyimpact the organization. Interim de-partment leadership is now common,especially at medical schools. Someform of thoughtful succession plan-ning by the dean with the current de-partment chair is a sensible, proactivemove rather than being reactive, es-pecially when chair changes are nowmore frequent and sometimes unan-ticipated. An interim chair positionrepresents an opportunity to promotewomen and underrepresented minor-ity faculty if they are prepared for therole and likely to succeed. The emerg-ing role of an interim chair is of greatimportance because interim chairsare often empowered to act bydemonstrating skills and leadershipabilities that are the same for a per-manent chair. For many, being an interim chair is a remarkable oppor-tunity for professional growth andfor consideration as an internal hirefor the permanent department chairposition. ▲

This article is based on a presentation atthe 120th annual meeting of the Associ-ation of American Medical Colleges,November 7–11, 2009, Boston, Massa-chusetts.

William F. Rayburn is professor and chair of theDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology at theUniversity of New Mexico School of Medicine.Email: [email protected]

References

Mallon, W. T., Grigsby, R. K., & Dupont,B. M. (2009). Finding top talent: How tosearch for leaders in academic medicine.

Washington, DC: Association of Ameri-can Medical Colleges.

Murray, J. D. (2009). Internal versusexternal hires and perceived effective-ness. The Department Chair, 19(4),15–17.

Quillen, D. A., Aber, R. C., & Grigsby,R. K. (2009). Interim department chairsin academic medicine. American Jour-nal of Medicine, 122(10), 963–968.

Rayburn, W. F., Alexander, H., Lang, J.,& Scott, J. L. (2009). First-time depart-ment chairs at U.S. medical schools: A29-year perspective on recruitment andretention. Academic Medicine, 84(10),1336–1341.

Rayburn, W. F., Schrader, R. M., Cain,J. M., Artal, R., Anderson, G. D., &Merkatz, I. R. (2006). Tenure of aca-demic chairs in obstetrics and gyne-cology : A 25-year perspective.Obstetrics and Gynecology, 108(5),1217–1221.

QUANTITY DISCOUNTS

Quantity subscriptions to The Department Chair are available

at the following discounts:

Copies Price Each Discount1–4 USD $99.00 0%

5–19 USD $79.20 20%20–34 USD $74.25 25%35–49 USD $69.30 30%

50–100 USD $64.35 35%> 100 USD $59.40 40%

For information on U.S. quantitysubscriptions, contact Sandy Quade

at 203-643-8066 [email protected].

For information on Canadianquantity subscriptions, contact Stacey

Clark at 416-646-7995 [email protected].


DOI:10.1002/dch

While the process of applying fortenure varies from one institu-

tion to another, one feature remainsfairly constant: The role of the chair ispivotal and complicated. Tierney andBensimon (1996) explain, “As a go-between for the candidate and variouscommittees . . . the chair is more coachand confidant than evaluator. At thesame time, the chair is often the onewho evaluates a candidate’s [record]and expresses his or her opinion to thecommittees at large, which in turn, willuse this information to reach their deci-sion” (p. 33). In the latter role, the chairadopts an impartial stance, while in theformer role—as coach and confidant—the chair prepares a junior colleague tomeet the expectations of the various in-dividuals and groups who review appli-cations for tenure. Successful chairsmanage these conflicting roles in waysthat advantage qualified candidateswhile elucidating the consensus of thedepartment’s senior faculty.

The Chair as Coach/ConfidantRecognizing that classifications canharden into stereotypes, departmentchairs are understandably hesitant toclassify their colleagues. Bearing thathesitancy in mind, however, I proposethat most pre-tenured faculty mem-bers can be placed into one of four cat-egories based on two intersecting axes:performance and self-confidence.Members of each group benefit from adistinct type of coaching as they pre-pare to apply for tenure.

First are candidates who combinestrong performance with high self-confidence. Typically, these are low-maintenance colleagues who quicklyinternalize expectations and manage tomeet or exceed them with a minimumof angst. Having submitted annual re-ports throughout their probationary

appointment, they have usually devel-oped productive habits that prove ben-eficial when applying for tenure:

• Maintaining and continually up-dating electronic records of teaching,research, and service

• Starting on the document early, al-lowing time for feedback and revision

• Listing and explaining relevant ac-complishments without replication

• Following prescribed formats andediting meticulously

A second type of candidate also ex-emplifies strong performance, butwithout commensurate self-confi-dence. These colleagues need and ex-pect frequent reinforcement. Coachingthem presents more of a challenge.

My first piece of advice to these col-leagues is to review the criteria fortenure. At my institution, they are“proficiency and a pattern of growth in. . . teaching, scholarship and research/artistic achievement, and service.” Iemphasize key words and phrases: pro-ficiency (not unqualified excellence)and a pattern of growth (not an uninter-rupted record of top-tier student evalu-ations, prestigious publications, andsimilar accolades). Excellence should, ofcourse, be noted; this is not the time forunwarranted modesty. On the otherhand, evidence of conscientious reflec-tion and improvement can go a longway; moreover, it is likely to stand outamong applications that list a welter ofnugatory or irrelevant accomplish-ments. Candidates who bear this inmind are less likely to over-document.

Between the extremes of pufferyand diffidence lies the golden mean ofthorough documentation and clear ex-planation. I offer the following adviceto all qualified tenure applicants:

• Make sure that course objectivesand learning goals appear prominentlyin sample syllabi.

• Highlight relative strengths andareas of improvement in student evalu-ations.

• In the case of a published book, tellwhere, how, and by whom it has beenreviewed.

• For articles, cite information aboutcirculation, acceptance rates, and thereputation of the journals.

• Present available informationabout where and how often publica-tions have been cited.

• Explain the circumstances of coau-thorship.

• Clarify roles in grants (e.g., evalua-tor or principal investigator).

A third type of tenure applicant isthe inexplicably self-confident colleaguewho, year after year, falls short of expec-tations. In these unhappy cases, nonper-formance arouses denial, while denialrationalizes nonperformance. When ultimately denied tenure, this facultymember may allege that the chair, seniorcolleagues, the dean, or members of thereview committee have not followed dueprocess. If allowed to bully or wheedle hisor her way to tenure, the self-confidentunderperformer can become a detri-ment to departmental morale for yearsto come. In these cases, the chair’s beststrategy is to follow published policiesand procedures throughout the proba-tionary appointment, leaving a papertrail of admonitory annual evaluations.

A final type of tenure applicantcombines uneven or subpar perform-ance with disarming humility. Thiscolleague is often popular with seniorfaculty members, who may be inclinedto grant him or her the benefit of anydoubt. In these cases, the leadershipand discretion of the chair are put tothe test. A convincing case for tenuremust present a plausible rationale forbelieving that this candidate’s trackrecord does not augur future perform-ance. As coach, the chair must help thecandidate understand that this is notan easy argument to make.

Fortunately, some of the most com-mon extenuations—illness, disability,parental obligations—lie within the

The Chair as Coach and Referee in TenureApplications

by Christopher Gould


DOI:10.1002/dch

scope of the Family and Medical LeaveAct. (Like many other institutions, myuniversity extends the reach of FMLAto guarantee postponement of tenure.)Junior faculty members, sometimes re-luctant to avail themselves of these ben-efits, must be reassured that doing sowill not jeopardize their prospects fortenure. The chair may also have to edu-cate senior colleagues who want to raisethe bar for candidates who “have beengiven extra time.”

There are, of course, instances inwhich postponement is unavailable tothe underprepared tenure applicant.These cases demand careful delibera-tion, bringing the chair’s role as refereeto the forefront.

The Chair as RefereeCharacterizing the chair’s role as ref-eree in tenure decisions is compli-cated by procedural variations amonginstitutions. I speak as one whoseuniversity adheres to perhaps themost common arrangement: The de-partment’s senior faculty present a

collective recommendation (some-times binding) to the chair, who artic-ulates the case for or against tenure ina letter to the dean or a review com-mittee. The most challenging casesusually arise from a close vote or inde-cisive recommendation by the seniorfaculty. Following are two hypotheticalscenarios:

Professor J was hired to build anew program from the groundup. This popular degree optionhas stemmed an ominous declinein undergraduate majors. Whilegrowing the new program, how-ever, Professor J has neglected hisresearch, and his cumulativerecord does not clearly and un-equivocally meet departmentalexpectations for tenure. Compli-cating matters is the fact that de-spite the chair’s admonitions toreduce his service commitmentsso as to publish more, J has vol-untarily undertaken responsibili-ties usually assigned to tenured

colleagues who are no longer re-search active. Senior facultymembers have voted in favor oftenure and promotion by the nar-rowest of margins.

Professor F is a gifted teacherwith a more-than-adequate re-search record. Tenure would beassured were it not for a series ofill-considered disputes with col-leagues, during the course ofwhich F has made exaggerated—and, in some instances, un-founded—accusations. Aftervigorous debate, senior facultymembers have approved tenureand promotion with substantialdissent.

Each scenario offers a plausible ra-tionale for denying tenure. Professor J,having disregarded the chair’s writtenadmonitions, should have little causefor complaint. Although Professor Fpresents more of a dilemma, case lawhas affirmed the use of collegiality as acriterion for tenure and promotion,

Earned Doctorates, 2007

All Life Physical Social Otherfields Education Engineering Humanities sciences sciences sciences fields

Doctoral degrees conferred 48,025 6,428 7,734 5,103 10,617 8,028 7,186 2,929

Median number of years from bachelor's 9.4 16.5 7.9 11.3 8.6 7.8 9.6 12.2

degree to doctorate

Median number of years from enrollment 7.8 12 6.9 9.3 7.1 6.8 7.9 9.3

in graduate school to doctorate

Proportion of doctorates who attended a 13.80% 23.80% 6.40% 13.30% 15.00% 9.40% 16.20% 14.20%

community college

Proportion with a master's degree in any field 73.60% 89.30% 78.10% 85.50% 52.80% 65.50% 81.90% 83.80%

Proportion with a master's degree in a related 53.30% 35.70% 61.10% 69.60% 38.30% 54.30% 66.70% 62.20%

field

Sex

Male 54.50% 32.60% 79.30% 50.70% 48.60% 71.90% 41.30% 49.20%

Female 45.50% 67.40% 20.70% 49.30% 51.40% 28.10% 58.70% 50.80%

Citizenship

United States 27,568 5,199 2,242 3,674 6,523 3,488 4,912 1,530

Non-U.S. permanent visa 1,832 136 290 243 420 338 243 162

Non-U.S. temporary visa 15,115 602 4,579 795 3,028 3,662 1,472 977

Unknown 3,564 492 634 397 659 549 564 269

Source: National Opinion Research Center


DOI:10.1002/dch

though only when breaches of collegial-ity have a demonstrable impact on a de-partment’s mission in teaching, research,or service. In both instances, however,there is enough ambiguity to give mostchairs pause, especially with the affirma-tive vote of senior faculty members.

In such cases, a chair may betempted to write a lukewarm, equivo-cal, or even inscrutable letter of recom-mendation—a dereliction of dutycertain to antagonize deans and reviewcommittees, who expect and deserveinformed professional guidance. In-stead, the responsible chair/refereeshould be prepared to write a cogentargument for or against tenure, unde-terred by the possibility that there is anequally plausible argument to the con-trary. So resolved, the chair might con-sider the following advice derived fromeight years of refereeing:

• Get the bad news out in paragraphone. If obliged to cite a numerical vote,do so candidly.

• End the first paragraph with a suc-cinct, unequivocal recommendation(e.g., Though obliged to report the reser-vations of a minority of my colleagues—and I acknowledge the legitimacy and sincerity of their views—I want tomake it clear that I support tenurewholeheartedly.).

• Present the counterarguments ofsenior colleagues fairly and accuratelybefore attempting to refute them;demonstrate that you’ve listened toand weighed opposing views (e.g.,These concerns are not easily brushedaside. Nevertheless, I must point outthat . . .).

• Reaffirm your recommendation ina brief concluding paragraph.

ConclusionIn sports, coaches and referees haveone thing in common: No one evercomes to the game to watch their per-formance. Both operate outside thespotlight until they make the atypicalbad call. The best coaches and refereesneed to have the strongest, which is notto say the biggest, egos on the playingfield. Department chairs do well to fol-low their example. ▲

Christopher Gould is director of the Center forFaculty Leadership at the University of North Car-olina Wilmington. Email: [email protected]

References

Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M.(1996). Promotion and tenure: Commu-nity and socialization in academe. Al-bany: State University of New YorkPress.

ensure productivity during these diffi-cult economic times while, I hoped,becoming a better department chair inthe process.

The extensive benefits of positive,caring work environments are con-firmed in Rath’s comprehensive study offriendship that he conducted for theGallup Organization during 2006. Inorder to reap those benefits, we need tosupport, facilitate, and encourage the de-velopment of personal linkages with andamong faculty serving in all academicdepartments . . . and anywhere else thatwe can. As a believer in the power of pos-itive relationships and as a departmentchair, I’m committed to fostering facultyfriendships and ensuring a positive workenvironment in our department.

Rath (2006) describes the eight VitalRoles that workplace friends fulfill foreach other as builder, champion, collab-orator, companion, connector, energizer,mind opener, and navigator. From theperspective of a department chair,the capacity to assume at least some ofthese roles for our colleagues signifi-cantly influences our ability to meet fac-ulty needs and create positive workingrelationships. Which of the vital roles doyou assume for the faculty members inyour department? Which do you avoid?

Eight Vital RolesConsider the following descriptions ofthe vital roles that workplace friends as-sume for each other and reflect on yourresponses to the following questions.

The builder believes in you andgenuinely wants to see you grow andsucceed. Do you hold high expectationsfor everyone you work with and com-municate a sincere desire to see otherssucceed? Can you genuinely celebratethe success of others? Do you go out ofyour way to help create opportunitiesfor faculty to develop, display, and gainrecognition for their accomplishmentsin teaching, scholarship, and service?Builders do not compete, they givecredit and they help others succeed.

The champion sings your praisesand defends you when necessary. How

Fostering Faculty Friendships

by Cynthia Schubert-Irastorza

Increasing accountability, shrinkingresources, and a shaky economy are

taking a serious toll on faculty moraleand motivation. Maintaining a positiveattitude becomes a daily challenge andit’s getting harder to help fellow facultykeep the spark alive. This article ex-plores effective strategies for ensuringproductivity, building motivation, andpromoting job satisfaction by creatingpositive workplace relationshipsthroughout the academic department.Content focuses on strategies and

behaviors that foster the developmentof faculty friendships.

People who have friends in theworkplace are happier, more produc-tive, and more engaged in their work.They are more likely to stay in theirjobs longer and enjoy better health.These observations from Tom Rath’sbook Vital Friends (2006) were “mindopeners” for me and set me on acourse to discover how I could use hisfriendship-building ideas and strate-gies to boost faculty morale and


DOI:10.1002/dch

frequently do you communicate withyour faculty members? Are you fair, hon-est, and equitable in evaluating the per-formance of all faculty? Do you make theeffort to recognize and publicize theachievements of individual faculty whileprotecting their privacy? Do you alwaysget the faculty member’s side of the storybefore coming to conclusions based onstudent or coworker complaints? Cham-pions hold high expectations and en-courage others to fulfill them.

Collaborators share your interestsand want to work with you. How openare you to new ideas and suggestionsfrom faculty? Are you currently pro-viding mentoring assistance to any ofyour faculty? Are you involved in com-munity outreach efforts? Do you en-courage teamwork? Do you participatein work teams yourself? Collaboratorsdemonstrate that sharing resourcesand pooling individual efforts pro-duces maximum results.

Connectors put you in touch withothers and help you build your re-sources. How frequently do you organ-ize meetings and activities thatpromote meaningful faculty interac-tion? Do you encourage departmentmembers to participate in outreach ac-tivities? How often do you introduceindividual faculty members to newcontacts within the department, school,university, or community? Being a con-nector means knowing how to bringpeople together for everyone’s benefit.

The mind opener expands yourhorizons and challenges you to makepositive changes. How often do youengage department members in seri-ous conversation about their interests,activities, goals, and values? Are youactive in implementing positivechange? Do you stay current in yourfield? Do you promote activities thatfocus on innovation and positivechange in all areas of education? Themind opener leads by setting a positiveexample and keeping an open mind.

The companion is trustworthy andis always there for you. When the needarises, do you take the time and have

the patience to listen to others and hearwhat they are saying? Are you willing tobe a friend? Do you know both theareas of strength and those of neededgrowth for each faculty member? Doyou keep confidences and follow up onthe commitments you make? A com-panion is a friend, someone you cantrust. Companions care about yourwelfare and they cover your back.

Energizers are fun to be with andget you moving. Do you project a posi-tive attitude? Can you maintain yoursense of humor, even in times of stress?Do you make an effort to cheer peopleup when they need it? How frequentlydo you go out of your way to send awritten thank-you note or complimentto faculty members on a specific taskor action they have completed success-fully? Energizers make success an en-joyable experience.

The navigator provides a realitycheck and helps keep you on course.How skilled are you at confrontingproblems? Can you deliver constructivecriticism honestly and effectively? Doyou regularly monitor faculty perform-ance? Are you aware of individual fac-ulty teaching, scholarship, and serviceactivities? Do you encourage facultymembers to discuss their performancewith you? Navigators provide guidance,help steer the ship, and stay the course.

Applying the ConceptsAccepting these concepts, agreeingwith them, is only a starting point.

Applying them to your everyday chal-lenges is what counts. A good way tobegin is to think back, recall situa-tions and indiv iduals you haveworked with where you were calledon to assume one or more of the vitalroles. How did you perform? Thinkabout your response to the facultymember who needed assistance witha research problem or how you han-dled an emotional request for per-sonal leave. Did you assume any ofthe vital roles in dealing with a cur-riculum dispute, resolving a student-faculty issue, developing a newprogram, or announcing a facultyaward? Would you, could you, havedone it differently or better?

Moving into the future, thinkabout how you can strengthen your ca-pacity to provide faculty with the kindof help and support represented by thevital roles and you will be taking an-other step forward in fostering facultyfriendships. ▲

This article is based on a presentation atthe 27th annual Academic ChairpersonsConference, February 11-12, 2010,Orlando, Florida.

Cynthia Schubert-Irastorza is chair of the teachereducation department at National University.Email: [email protected]

References

Rath, T. (2006). Vital friends: The peo-ple you can’t afford to live without. NewYork: Gallup Press

Promoting Departmental Community andCivility Through Covenant Development

by Carol A. Mullen

Department chairs struggle to fostercommunity and civility within

their academic units. While leadingcommunity-building initiatives, energyis unfortunately directed at negative behaviors. Bullying, for example, iscommon—it undermines individuals’

work and self-esteem. De Luca andTwale (2010) provide insight into thisdelicate topic. Many of us would preferto sweep this intensely uncomfortable,litigious subject under the carpet. How-ever, students and junior faculty, womenand ethnic minorities, are particularly


DOI:10.1002/dch

vulnerable to abuses disguised as aca-demic freedom. Harassment occurs insubtle and devious ways, as in rumorsthat both isolate and discourage faculty.Thus, mean-spirited acts must be care-fully monitored and prevented.

A complex web of incivility infestsour workplaces with dynamics that canthwart efforts to create a vibrant com-munity of scholars. Not discussedmuch is bullying upward—that is, theundermining of administrators andfaculty supervisors whose intentionsare selfless and community oriented.More attention is also needed on therole of top administrators in support-ing department chairs to promote civility and community. Middle man-agers are expected to shoulder this re-sponsibility but it does not belong tothe domain of any one leader. Becauseall leaders’ perspectives and resourcesare inevitably circumspect, and be-cause department chairs can them-selves become the target of bullying,solutions should be sought that arecommunity based.

Covenant as LighthouseOne initiative that can redirect negativeenergy while promoting positive energyis the departmental covenant. Facultymembers who create a covenant to-gether make their expectations, beliefs,and values transparent. Alongside myfaculty I have produced a covenant thatguides our core beliefs and embeds ourgroup’s conscience, cultural values, andprofessional aspirations.

In my highly diverse unit, we aremindful about working against per-sonal isolation and social competitive-ness. Historically, in major citiescovenants were legally binding agree-ments that restricted housing occu-pancy to white, U.S.-born Protestants.Contemporary covenants are a type ofpolitical work giving cultural minori-ties and immigrants access to crucialnetworks, opportunities, and resources.Deep participation of all faculty mem-bers in academic community develop-ment can change negative behaviors,

class structures, and deficit views of tra-ditionally disenfranchised groups.

Community life and faculty civilityare inextricably linked. The covenantpractice is not contradictory to policiesof ethical conduct. I do think, however,that the covenant may offer more of aboost for promoting cultural care andnurturance of one’s fellow colleagues,for enabling faculty peers to see them-selves in relation to others, and forimagining pathways for self-improve-ment. Policies are probably morealigned with an ethics of justice thatsome faculty may associate with ad-ministrative oversight and punitivecontrols.

Our departmental covenant is a liv-ing document and lived process.Standing the test of time, it offers alighthouse for our private strugglesand vigorous challenges that arise indaily living. Covenants should not beabandoned once developed, so we re-think ours. We don’t want to succumbto having ours become a monolithicartifact that fails to guide actions anddecisions within complex situations.Our document addresses who we areand what we are about as social justiceadvocates who seek to make a differ-ence through scholarship, teaching,and service. We have articulated simi-larities in our viewpoints and differ-ences across status, gender, ethnicity,and sexuality. Faculty and administra-tors who agree to live by their ex-pressed tenets will have made anenduring promise to one another. Suchgroups may have given themselves alifeline for modeling human civilityand even celebrating social success.

We think through our philosophi-cal and personal tenets side by side—tenured and tenure-earning faculty,clinical and part-time faculty, male andfemale, white majority and ethnic mi-nority, U.S.-born and internationalalike. We refer to the product of ourjoint reflection as a “Statement ofCommitments.” We use our covenantas a guide for expressing our ideologyof inclusiveness, openness, and accept-

ance within an institution that haschanged from a teaching environmentinto a high-stakes research culture thatvalues quality teaching and engagedcommunity work. We have had to re-think our covenant to fit the univer-sity’s changing tenure and promotionpolicies. Actually, we were required to undertake approval via our dean,university provost, and university attorney. Our covenant received en-dorsement as an official set of promo-tion and tenure guidelines. We receivedconstructive feedback at these levelsand sought input from the departmentchairs serving in our school. As a team,we addressed the input received to en-sure departmental consistency withuniversity policy.

Covenant as Social CapitalCovenants are a form of social capital.They are a type of diverse peer networkand resource for supporting individu-als and groups. The covenant that isdeveloped by faculty members, or al-ternatively by supervisors with theirstudent advisees, can be used as a mapfor overcoming human incivilitiesproblems (e.g., bullying) and attitudi-nal deficits (e.g., disillusionment).Covenants that facilitate navigationalcapital enable people to find their wayin academic cultures. As resistancecapital, covenants promote a criticalcapacity for challenging systemic andhuman inequities that deviant behav-iors worsen.

In our department, we have usedthe covenant as a strategy for faculty tothink beyond the classroom and makepromises to each other that shape ourcommunity in desirable ways. We de-veloped the covenant in person as awhole group, with members of all sta-tuses actively involved. For example,together we placed emphasis on indi-viduals’ continuous growth throughsuch means as improved experimenta-tion with one’s pedagogy and demon-strated articulation of that growth.After agreements were made, we con-tinued to gather to explore feelings of


DOI:10.1002/dch

uncertainty and confusion where ourinternal departmental values seemedinconsistent with institutional values.Efforts to write the covenant to addressall technical, linguistic, and legalisticissues was handled via email, with spe-cialists among us in politics, law, andmentoring taking the lead at this stage.A key motivation for aligning the pro-motion and tenure guidelines with theschool and university guidelines andfor incorporating our own guidelinesinto the covenant was the reality thatalmost half of our department faculty(and recent hires) were in need of justsuch a document. They sought explicitand detailed guidance on the expecta-tions of their peers and school.

This covenant consciously informsour major decisions and activities andethical approaches to organizationaleffectiveness. We believe that profes-sionalism through integrity is a qualitythat should permeate everything lead-ership stands for and everything we dowithin our community. For example,the programmatic advising guides werecently developed summarize our so-cial justice ideology and specify navi-gational capacities that students needfor success in their programs. As an-other example, in our position adver-tisements we embed values from ourcovenant. We state that we are search-ing for people who, like us, seek to un-derstand and change the norms,policies, and practices that are enacted

in educational and cultural contexts.We also indicate that we value demo-cratic participation, compassion, andeducational quality and seek candi-dates who will add to the diversity ofthe department through such means asrace, gender, and academic specialty.Our department is the most culturallydiverse in our school, which is a directreflection of the social capital ourcovenant has accrued.

Covenant: More AppliedDimensionsIn our department we share AlbertEinstein’s view that “not everythingthat can be counted counts, and noteverything that counts can becounted.” Our stance on promotionalsuccess is countercultural in that aca-demic norms prioritize the quantifica-tion of one’s publications and othercontributions over the quality of these.

To meet our commitments, the de-partment is dedicated to a mentoringculture that nurtures the growth oftenure-earning faculty and graduatestudents. Effective mentoring canremedy negative faculty behaviors andprovide direction to tenured facultywho share responsibility in the successof their junior counterparts. The men-toring culture that is envisioned in thecovenant has materialized in facultymentorships, shared research in-quiries, published coauthored writ-ings, joint presentations, and more.

Tenure-earning faculty and their men-tors have produced scholarship onsuch topics as culture, politics, andcapital within learning communitiesand demographically changingschools.

Underscoring the assessment per-taining to promotion is our culturalexpectation of collegiality. Because col-legiality can be misused by powerfulindividuals, in our covenant collegial-ity is viewed as necessary in a commu-nity of intellectual peers for thebetterment and collective governanceof the department. To us, collegialitymeans being present, cooperative, andavailable for colleagues and students. Italso means displaying civility in dia-logue while supporting the careers andlives of other faculty by offering andencouraging opportunity, communi-cating accurate and appropriate analy-ses of career progress, and providinginformation as required for unit deci-sion making and reporting.

Collegiality also represents to us areciprocal and respectful relationshipamong colleagues that enables theprogress and success of its academicmission, good citizenship, and pro-fessionalism. We seek relationshipswith colleagues who are willing towork respectfully, courteously, andproductively with faculty, staff, andadministration while foster ing a healthy environment where col-leagues and students can thr ive.

Growth in Undergraduate Enrollments by Type of College

2007 1997 10-year increase

Public, 4-year 5,813,773 4,902,034 19%

Private nonprofit, 4-year 2,436,841 2,048,469 19%

Private for-profit, 4-year 735,536 191,175 285%

Public, 2-year 6,323,810 4,951,167 28%

Private nonprofit, 2-year 33,486 21,764 54%

Private for-profit, 2-year 260,325 121,855 114%

All degree-granting institutions 15,603,771 12,236,464 28%

Source: U.S. Department of Education


DOI:10.1002/dch

Examples include peer reviews ofone’s teaching, co-teaching, andcourse development and programimprovement. Collegiality throughservice is demonstrated by the men-toring of students, volunteer partici-pation in activities and events, andfollow through on assigned tasks.

ConclusionIf the negative aspects of departmentalcultures are to be changed, entire facul-ties must commit to the vision of be-coming a community. Vision requires

collective work and professional in-tegrity. Covenants can help facilitatethis change process. ▲

Carol A. Mullen is professor and chair of the De-partment of Educational Leadership and CulturalFoundations at the University of North Carolina atGreensboro. Email: [email protected]

References

De Luca, B. M., & Twale, D. J. (2010).Mediating in the academic bully cul-ture: The chair’s responsibility to fac-ulty and graduate students. TheDepartment Chair, 20(3), 1–3.

promotion and tenure across units, andaddressing other issues of shared con-cern. Most department chairs find thata council of their peers also providesthem with a critical support groupwhen they need the advice of thosewho have faced similar challenges.

A chairs council is a convenient con-duit for information that must be ex-changed between the institution’s upperadministration and its faculty members,but only when the conduit operates inboth directions simultaneously. In otherwords, councils that are expected toserve largely as the mouthpiece for poli-cies set by the president, provost, anddean are likely to be as ineffective asthose that view their role primarily as away to pass the concerns of facultymembers to higher levels. Departmentchairs are well placed to understandboth the practical, day-to-day needs ofindividual disciplines and the larger,more global issues that affect the insti-tution as a whole. In this way, they canhelp faculty and administrators alikeunderstand how the “big picture” and“life in the trenches” intersect.

Chairs councils can help individualdepartments avoid reinventing thewheel each time a new policy, proce-dure, or proposal needs to be devel-oped. Even if one’s fellow chairs havenot already dealt with that same issuein their own areas, they probably haveaccess to colleagues at other institu-tions who can offer useful suggestions.The chairs council thus becomes amechanism for the dissemination ofexperience and best practices while itprevents chairs from feeling that everychallenge they face must be met alone.

Effective chairs councils can bestructured in many ways. The chairscouncil at Iowa State University, for ex-ample, includes chairs drawn fromevery academic department in the uni-versity. This provides the best possibletype of representation, but it some-times proves to be too large a group fornimble response to rapidly developingsituations. For this reason, a subset ofthe council, the Department Chairs

Creating a Chairs Council

by Jeffrey L. Buller

One limitation of many colleges anduniversities is that individual units

too frequently operate in silos. One de-partment or college may not know whatanother is doing and can develop in-consistent policies as a result. Despite allthe improvements that have occurredwith rapid electronic communication,much of academic administration oper-ates within an information vacuum.The consequences can be inefficiency,duplication of effort, frustration, lostopportunities, wasted resources, andunnecessarily high workloads. To helpremedy this situation, most institutionstry to develop at least three differentkinds of organizational structures: ver-tical groups (where individuals at dif-ferent levels of the same unit orprogram meet) such as a departmentmeeting or college assembly, horizontalstructures (where individuals on thesame level in different units or pro-grams meet) such as a dean’s advisorycommittee or chairs council, and cross-functional teams (where individuals ondifferent levels and in different units orprograms meet to address a shared taskor problem) such as a committee wherestudents, faculty, administrators, andstaff from across the institution meet todevelop the academic calendar.

Chairs councils can be extremelyimportant in breaking down the silomentality of an institution. Chairscouncils can be developed within indi-vidual colleges or established universitywide. Their purpose may be simply toshare information and offer advice, orthey may have specific responsibilitiesassigned to them by their institution’sbylaws. However these groups are con-figured, many schools discover thatchairs councils work best when theymeet together on a regular basis withregular tasks assigned to them. Com-mittees that gather only as needed aredifficult to sustain as schedules becomeincreasingly crowded year after year.Committees that do not have clear-cutmissions tend to waste time debatingwhat their mission actually is. In someinstitutions, chairs councils promoteinterdepartmental cooperation in amanner that is difficult to attainthrough other structures. They can ex-plore interdisciplinary possibilities andprevent the likelihood that a course of-fered by one department duplicates tooclosely the material covered by another.They can also play an important role inpromoting faculty development, offer-ing academic leadership training,maintaining comparable standards for


DOI:10.1002/dch

Cabinet, includes one member selectedfrom each college and four memberselected at large. The DepartmentChairs Cabinet meets monthly, keepsthe rest of the council informed aboutimportant issues, and periodically es-tablishes subcommittees and taskforces(Iowa State University, 2008).

A committee of the whole thatmeets periodically with a smallergroup that can act as a steering com-mittee is particularly common at largeinstitutions that employ numerous department chairs. For instance, atCalifornia State University Northridge(2009), the “Council of Chairs consistsof all department chairs from the eightColleges at the university, and repre-sentatives from the University Libraryand the College of Extended Learning.An Executive Committee made up ofone representative from each College,the Library and Extended Learningserves the Council.” Smaller collegestend to favor structures where chairsfrom all departments meet regularly asa committee of the whole, sometimeseven expanding the group by includingother types of directors or unit heads.The result is a structure that broadensthe range of perspectives heard whendiscussing academic issues while stillmaintaining a committee size that ismanageable.

Just as the composition of a chairscouncil can vary widely, so can itscharge or mission. Rowan University’sChairs Council plays a significant rolein mentoring new chairs and providingthe chairs’ perspectives on tenure andpromotion, sabbaticals, the evaluationof upper administrators, curricularmatters, and scheduling, but does nothave the authority to make any finaldecisions in these matters (Mosto,2004). Many chairs councils similarlyview their role as advisory and infor-mational rather than as executive oroperational.

But this is not always the case. Con-sider the approach taken by the Collegeof Liberal Arts and Social Sciences(CLASS) at Georgia Southern Univer-

sity. There the CLASS Advisory Coun-cil, consisting of all the unit’s chairsand associate deans, serves as the col-lege’s official curriculum committeeand is authorized to render final deci-sions in college-level appeals of pro-motion and tenure cases (GeorgiaSouthern University, 2008).

Most chairs councils keep regularminutes of their meetings. Those filescan provide useful records whenever itis necessary to recall precisely what arecommendation was, when a certainmatter was discussed, why a particularpolicy was adopted, or who was con-sulted when a specific innovation wasbeing considered. It is all too easy formany committees to vote to approvethe minutes of past meetings withoutcarefully reading them. Such a practice,inadvisable for any group, can be par-ticularly problematic for chairs coun-cils. Because so much of the work ofchairs councils consists of offering rec-ommendations and suggestions, themeeting minutes often serve as the medium by which these proposalsare shared with others. It is not un-common for the minutes of chairscouncils to be posted on a website ordistributed via email, and these docu-ments may be read very carefully byfaculty members and other adminis-trators who are looking for a reliablesource of information about futureproposals that may affect their lives. Amisleading or ambiguous set of min-utes can easily divert energy from moreproductive activities into chasing downproblems that don’t really exist. Chairscouncil meeting minutes are invalu-able methods of communication anddeserve widespread distribution, butthey must be very carefully written andthoroughly vetted before they’re dis-seminated to others.

Department chairs who serve at aninstitution without its own chairscouncil have several good reasons forcreating one. To get started as quicklyas possible, the group could begin as aperiodic informal gathering of chairsto discuss issues of common interest

and to provide mutual support. Ifthese informal discussions prove fruit-ful, the group might consider develop-ing formal bylaws, establishing regularmeeting times, and following a plan forsecuring official recognition within theinstitutional structure. Then, as thecouncil is being developed, several im-portant questions will need to be an-swered:

• What should be the scope of thegroup? Is it more beneficial to includechairs from across the entire institu-tion or to restrict the group to chairsfrom a particular college, school, or di-vision?

• In addition to academic depart-ment chairs, are there other individualswho should be considered for mem-bership (such as assistant and associatedeans, program directors, or divisionheads)?

• If the entire group becomes solarge that meetings are difficult toschedule and inclusive discussionswould be a challenge, should we estab-lish a steering committee of electedchairs that meets frequently while theentire council meets only once ortwice a year?

• Will the council be authorized tomake decisions on any issues or will itbe merely an advisory body? If it willhave formal responsibilities, whichpermissions might need to be obtainedor which bylaws may need to be re-vised? If the committee serves only toprovide advice and recommendations,how will those suggestions best be con-veyed to others?

• Do we need to establish a formalassessment process to ensure that weare achieving our goals?

Because chairs councils exist at somany different types of institutions, itis not necessary to reinvent the wheelwhen creating one. A few calls to col-leagues at peer institutions or a bit ofskillful Internet sleuthing should pro-duce useful examples of bylaws andduties that you can easily adapt to suitthe needs of your own college or uni-versity. ▲


DOI:10.1002/dch

Jeffrey L. Buller is dean of the Harriet L. WilkesHonors College at Florida Atlantic University andauthor of The Essential Department Chair (Anker,2006) and The Essential Academic Dean (Jossey-Bass, 2007). Email: [email protected]

References

California State University Northridge.(2009). Council of chairs. Retrievedfrom www.csun.edu/coc

Georgia Southern University. (2008).CLASS policies and procedures manual.Retrieved from http://class.georgia

southern.edu/Policies%20and%20Procedures.pdf

Iowa State University. (2008). Depart-ment chairs council: Constitution andbylaws. Retrieved from www.provost.iastate.edu/office/bylaws.pdf

Mosto, P. (2004). Honing the skills of de-partment chairs at Rowan University.Retrieved from www.acenet.edu/resources/chairs/docs/Mosto_Honing_Skills.pdf

15% of the survey respondents’ votes.And five other issues—supporting on-line/distance education, upgradingERP systems, IT staffing, instructionalintegration, and user support—eachpolled about 10% of the votes.

“The absence of a clear ‘single mostimportant issue’ in the 2009 surveysuggests that institutional IT officersare fighting lots of ‘digital fires’ on theircampuses,” says Green.

Budget cuts may also be a catalystfor reorganizing IT units. Almost two-fifths (38.8%) of the survey respon-dents report that their campus hasreorganized academic computing inthe past two years. Another fourth(25.2%) anticipate the reorganizationof academic computing in the nexttwenty-four months. Moreover, fully asixth (15.8%) of the survey respon-dents indicate that their campuses didreorganize academic computing in thepast two years and expect to do it againin the next two years. The numbers aresimilar for administrative computingunits: 34.4% have reorganized, 23.6%expect to reorganize, and 14.8% havedone it once and expect to do it again.

Some campuses have found a littlerelief from budget cuts in the federalstimulus funds. Approximately a thirdof the survey respondents from publicuniversities, public four-year colleges,and community colleges report that“federal stimulus funds will help sus-tain IT resources at my campus.” How-ever, their counterparts in the privatesector are less sanguine about the ben-efits of stimulus money: Less than afifth (18.0%) of CIOs in private uni-versities and just 5% of IT officers inprivate four-year colleges report anybenefit from stimulus funds. “Whilethe relief is welcomed at many institu-tions, the short-lived federal stimulusmoney is not a long-term solution tothe need to maintain IT budgets and toretain IT personnel,” says Green.

The survey indicates that campusescontinue to invest in notification sys-tems. A new item on the 2009 ques-tionnaire reveals that more than

Campus Computing 2009 Survey

For the second time in the currentdecade, campus IT officers are

struggling to deal with the rising de-mand for IT resources and serviceseven as their budgets have experiencedsignificant cuts, often followed by mid-year budget rescissions. Almost half(48.0%) of the institutions participat-ing in the 2009 Campus ComputingSurvey report budget cuts for the cur-rent academic year, compared to lessthan a third (30.6%) in 2008 and just13.1% in 2007. Concurrently, the pro-portion of campuses reporting in-creased funding for central IT servicesfell from 49% in 2008 to 21.4% in2009. Public institutions have beenhardest hit by the current cuts: Fullytwo-thirds (67.1%) of public universi-ties reported budget cuts for central ITservices for 2009, as did almost two-thirds (62.8%) of public four-year col-leges. In contrast, just over a third(36.9%) of community colleges experi-enced central IT budget cuts this year.Among independent institutions, morethan half (56.9%) of private researchuniversities and two-fifths (41.9%) ofprivate four-year colleges also reportedreduced resources for central IT serv-ices for the current academic year.

“These budget cuts wreak havocwith efforts to respond to the rising

demand for IT resources and services,”says Kenneth C. Green, founding direc-tor of the Campus Computing Project,the nation’s largest continuing study ofcomputing, eLearning, and informa-tion technology. “College and univer-sity IT units were just beginning torecover from the budget cuts that cameearly in the decade. No question thatthe current round of IT budget reduc-tions has consequences for infrastruc-ture, instruction, and support servicesfor students and faculty.”

The budget challenges confrontingcampus IT officers are reflected in theannual polling about the “single mostimportant IT issue confronting mycampus over the next two to threeyears.” In past years the polling pro-vided a clear “leader”—an issue thatmight garner the votes of a clear plu-rality of the respondents. In the earlypart of the decade, survey respondentsidentified the instructional integrationof information technology as the singlemost important issue confronting theirinstitution over the next two to threeyears. More recently, IT security con-cerns emerged as the leading issueamong survey respondents. However,in 2009, two issues—financing IT andthe replacement/upgrade of the cam-pus network—each received about


DOI:10.1002/dch

four-fifths (83.6%) of campuses par-ticipating in the survey contract withcommercial firms for campus notifica-tion services, often software and serv-ices that integrate and facilitateconcurrent voice, text, and email mes-sages to students, faculty, and staff. Yetas noted in last year’s report, the effec-tiveness of these systems is probablylimited by the fact that most campuses(73.5%) have an “opt-in” registrationpolicy for the notification service—that is, students, faculty, and staff mustregister for the service.

The 2009 survey data point tosmall gains in the number of campusesthat are in compliance with the broadterms of the P2P provisions of theHigher Education Act of 2008. For ex-ample, 84.2% of public universities re-port that as of fall 2009 they “havedeveloped plans to effectively combatthe unauthorized distribution of copy-righted material,” up from 80% in2008. But beyond the mandate forplans, campuses may have opted towait for the recently announced HEAregulations on P2P ahead of develop-ing institutional policies or commit-ting funds in response to actual orinferred federal mandates. In this in-stance, just a third of private researchuniversities (32.6%, up from 23.8% in2008) report that “current campusplans [to stem P2P] include the use ofa variety of technology-based deter-rents” as mandated by the HEA legisla-tion. More challenging for mostcampuses will be the mandate from the2008 Higher Education OpportunityAct to “offer alternatives to illegaldownloading or peer-to-peer distribu-tion of intellectual property” given thedemise over the past year of many ofthe commercial music services thatwere targeting the campus market andoffering institutional licenses. More-over, as noted in the 2008 CampusComputing Report, compliance withthe P2P mandates cost real dollars: For2009, public universities estimate thatthey will spend, on average, more than$62,000 to address P2P compliance,

compared to more than $78,000 in pri-vate universities, $28,000 in publicfour-year colleges, and approximately$13,000 in private four-year collegesand community colleges.

Campus IT officers seem somewhatbullish on the future of eBooks, ac-cording to the 2009 survey. Fully three-fourths (76.3%) agree or strongly agreethat “eBook content will be an impor-tant source for instructional resourcesin five years.” Moreover, the surveynumbers are fairly consistent across allsectors from community colleges to re-search universities. However, the sur-vey respondents appear slightly lessconfident about the role of eBook plat-forms: Just two-thirds (66.0%) agreethat dedicated “eBook readers will beimportant platforms for instructionalcontent in five years.”

Begun in 1990, the Campus Com-puting Survey is the largest continuingstudy of computing and informationtechnology in American higher educa-tion. The 2009 report is based on sur-vey data provided by senior campus ITofficials, typically the CIO, CTO, orother senior campus IT officer, repre-senting 500 two- and four-year publicand private/nonprofit colleges anduniversities across the United States.Survey respondents completed thequestionnaire in October 2009. ▲

Copies of the 2009 Campus ComputingSurvey are available as either print docu-ments ($37.00, plus $2.00 shipping andhandling) or as PDF site license files. Thereport can be ordered from the CampusComputing web site: www.campuscomputing.net. Reprinted with permission.


DOI:10.1002/dch

Service learning is an experientialapproach to education that con-

nects students with the communitythrough meaningful service activitiesthat are designed to enrich and en-hance students’ learning experiencesand promote civic engagement. Itcombines education, action, and re-flection to enable students to under-stand the connection between whatthey learn in the classroom and theirfuture careers. Research suggests thatstudents often do not see a relationshipbetween their coursework and real-world application. By participating inservice-learning activities, students canbegin to integrate their classroomlearning experiences with real commu-nity problems and solutions.

Although traditional academicprograms may require students to par-ticipate in volunteerism or fulfill com-munity service hours, service learningis a more systematic way to enhancelearning. It is more than episodic vol-unteerism or a community service re-quirement added onto an existingcurriculum. Service learning is uniquebecause it is linked to academic con-tent and standards and includes struc-tured time for students to reflect ontheir experiences through discussionsor writing. Not only do communityagencies and their clients and con-sumers benefit from the service activi-ties facilitated by the students and theiracademic programs, service learningcan extend learning outside the class-room and promote a sense of empathyand caring among students.

There is a growing interest inhigher education to provide service-learning opportunities to help bridgethe gap between the classroom and thecommunity as exemplified by theCarnegie Foundation’s new classifica-

tion on Community Engagement. TheCarnegie Community EngagementClassification, established in 2006 andissued a second time in 2008, definescommunity engagement as “the collab-oration between institutions of highereducation and their larger communi-ties (local, regional/state, national,global) for the mutually beneficial ex-change of knowledge and resources ina context of partnership and reciproc-ity.” The Carnegie Foundation valuesthe importance of engaged learningand the integration of activities insideand outside the classroom. Because ofits emphasis on service learning andreaching out to the community, West-ern Carolina University (WCU) is oneof 196 institutions that received thisclassification in 2008.

Universities that want to encouragefaculty to implement more service-learning opportunities within theirclasses can provide support in severalways. For example, WCU emphasizesthe importance of synthesis of learningin its Quality Enhancement Plan(qep.wcu.edu), a major component ofits reaffirmation of accreditation by theSouthern Association of Colleges andSchools. Faculty are encouraged andrewarded through the tenure and pro-motion process to participate in service-learning activities that helpstudents synthesize their curricularand outside college experiences to helpprepare them for life after college.

Faculty, students, and staff charteda course to enhance the undergraduateexperience at WCU by developing theQuality Enhancement Plan (QEP) Syn-thesis: A Pathway to Intentional Learn-ing in 2007. Defining synthesis as “theability to integrate seemingly unrelatedparts of experience from different areasinto an original whole” (WCU, 2007,

p. 3), the university embarked on a co-ordinated approach to reduce the aca-demic and administrative silos thatfrequently characterize the collegiateexperience and to institutionalize ef-forts that foster integrative, engagedlearning. Institutional data, facultyfeedback, and student survey responsesindicated that students tend to viewtheir academic and co-curricular expe-riences as comprised of disparate ele-ments and lacked the skills andopportunities to integrate their under-graduate education into a holistic uni-versity experience. The QEP serves asthe “framework for infusing synthesisintentionally and systematically withinthe broader curricular and co-curricu-lar frameworks” (WCU, 2007, p. 4).

Four curricular initiatives exploredin the QEP emerged as examples ofmethods that enhance synthesis andintegrative learning: service learning,undergraduate research, study abroad,and internships. Derived in part fromKolb’s (1984) model of learning, serv-ice learning is an experiential educa-tion approach that targets disciplineapplication (grounded in theory andconcepts) merged with social issues ofthe greater community; students mustsynthesize their educational prepara-tion using concrete, real-world experi-ences. Structured reflection is a keyaspect of synthesis and of servicelearning; students make the connec-tion between in-class and out-of-classlearning by engaging in formal reflec-tion processes and creating artifactssuch as research papers, professionalreports, and formal presentations. Theresult is that students enhance their in-tellectual, social, personal, career, civic,and academic development while con-currently addressing community needs(WCU, 2007). Of the five global learn-ing outcomes identified in the QEP,three outcomes are most closely linkedto service learning: (1) integrate infor-mation from a variety of sources,(2) civic engagement, and (3) clarifyand act on purpose and values, each ofwhich we define here.

Implementing Service Learning Across theCurriculum: A Catalyst for Change

by Marie Thielke Huff, Carol Burton, and Linda Seestedt-Stanford


DOI:10.1002/dch

• Integrate information from a varietyof sources: Students will make connec-tions between personal interests andabilities, general education, academicmajors, general electives, experientiallearning opportunities, and co-curricu-lar activities, and relate the implicationsand value of these connections to real-world scenarios.

• Practice civic engagement: Stu-dents will identify their roles and re-sponsibilities as engaged citizens bybeing involved in the community andby considering the public policies thataffect their choices and actions, byrecognizing commonalities and inter-dependence of diverse views and val-ues, and by acting responsibly topositively affect public policy.

• Clarify and act on purpose and val-ues: Students will examine the valuesthat influence their own decision-making processes, take responsibilityfor their own learning and develop-ment in a manner consistent with aca-demic integrity and their own goals andaspirations, intentionally use knowl-edge gained from learning experiencesto make informed judgments abouttheir future plans, and act on thoseplans.

Faculty incorporate QEP learninggoals at the program, individualcourse, and co-curricular (e.g., in pro-fessional clubs and organizations) lev-els. Service learning occurs at program,individual course, and institutionallevels and WCU supports servicelearning in a variety of ways. For exam-ple, the Center for Service Learningwas moved from student affairs and iscurrently imbedded in academic affairsunder the supervision of the provost’soffice. Each college has a ServiceLearning Faculty Fellow who receiveseither a course release or stipend toserve as a liaison between the Centerfor Service Learning and the college tosupport faculty who choose to developand implement service-learning activi-ties within their courses. Service-learn-ing activities facilitated by faculty areacknowledged in both the faculty

member’s annual evaluation and thetenure and promotion processes. TheCenter for Service Learning recognizesboth students and faculty by giving an-nual service-learning awards. In addi-tion, WCU has “service-learningdesignated courses” that are noted onstudents’ official transcripts.

Service learning offers numerousadvantages for students by providingan intellectually stimulating learningenvironment where students “learn bydoing.” Students can explore variousmajors and career options as theyhone their knowledge and skills in aparticular area. Service learning alsoencourages lifelong community en-gagement and helps prepare studentsfor professional work as they begin tonetwork with other working profes-sionals. For example, students in anemergency and disaster managementcourse, under the direction of theirprofessor and consistent with the ob-jectives of the class, worked with alocal community to review, analyze,and revise components of their datedcommunity disaster plan. Studentspresented a formal report to the com-munity board with their recommen-dations. This activity provided linksbetween classroom learning and reallife, connected students with commu-nity leaders, and provided a muchneeded service to the citizens of thearea.

Faculty benefit as they engage inreciprocal relationships with the com-munity by applying scholarly activitiesto help solve real problems facing theregion and state. By using a scholarlyapproach faculty can measure the ef-fectiveness of their interactions, whichmay result in opportunities for schol-arly papers, grants, or products thatwill count toward tenure and promo-tion. To illustrate, a faculty member inenvironmental health, whose researchfocus has been on an encephalitis car-rying mosquito, recently wrote a grantto support the community in reducingthe risk of contact with this insect.Students participate in the program as

part of their service learning in thecourse, collecting specimens, analyz-ing environmental conditions, andproviding information to communitymembers. Data is being compiled re-garding the efficacy of the program inreducing this insect menace. Uponpublication this research will supportthe faculty member in the tenure andpromotion process and may become amodel of mosquito eradication for theregion.

Motivating faculty to facilitateservice-learning activities can be achallenge because these activities mayrequire an increased investment oftime, resources, and energy. Facultyneed the support of their universityas well as their department chairs inorder to successfully integrate servicelearning into their courses. Some spe-cific strategies that chairs might useto encourage faculty to incorporateservice learning into their coursesare:

• Make service learning and engage-ment a part of the department’s mis-sion statement, goals, and strategicplan.

• Sponsor a service-learning work-shop or invite speakers who can shareinformation about how to effectivelyimplement service-learning activitieswithin the curriculum.

• Acknowledge and celebrate servicelearning within the department.

• Work with administration to for-mally integrate service learning intothe department’s tenure and promo-tion process.

• Designate a portion of the depart-mental budget to support service-learning initiatives.

• Provide and encourage opportuni-ties for interdisciplinary service-learn-ing projects. Faculty can share theworkload and increase the number ofstudents involved with a particularproject.

• Provide opportunities for faculty toshowcase their activities in departmen-tal and institutional meetings or openhouses.


DOI:10.1002/dch

The benefits of integrating service-learning activities into the curriculum,for both chairs and their departments,are plentiful. If done well, these activi-ties can bring visibility to the programthrough media releases and an-nouncements. With visibility oftencomes additional resources in theform of community partnerships andgrants, research and consulting oppor-tunities, increased enrollment, andoverall better connections with thecommunity.

Although WCU’s QEP was initiatedas part of the university’s bid for reaf-firmation, it is now in its third year ofimplementation and its sustainabilityis directly correlated with the degree towhich the plan expands beyond the ac-creditation boundaries; faculty sup-port and student engagement arecritical to the plan’s institutionaliza-tion and its ultimate success. Establish-ing faculty development, rewards, and

evaluation processes for adopting serv-ice learning are critical for sustainabil-ity and success. ▲

This article is based on a presentation atthe 27th annual Academic ChairpersonsConference, February 11–12, 2010,Orlando, Florida.

Marie Thielke Huff is associate dean of the College of Health and Human Sciences, Carol Burtonis assistant vice chancellor for undergraduatestudies, and Linda Seestedt-Stanford is dean ofthe College of Health and Human Sciences, all atWestern Carolina University. Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

References

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learn-ing: Experience as the source of learningand development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Western Carolina University. (2007).Synthesis: A pathway to intentionallearning. Cullowhee, NC: Author.

The most common advantages ofengaging in globalization activitiesthrough partnerships were identifiedas:

For faculty• Enhancing research• Better understanding of other cul-

tures• Better understanding of global re-

lationships and perspectives• Networking• Global interrelationship under-

standing• Professional development• Professional competence

For students• Global perspective and under-

standing• Opportunity to study abroad• Research collaboration• Foreign language exposure and ap-

plication• Networking

The majority of advantages associ-ated with international partnershipswere identified as being for faculty andstudents (rather than for administra-tors), and this suggests that depart-ment chairs and faculty members findthemselves on the front line of workingwith these arrangements. Yet there areseldom clear guidelines about how todevelop partnerships, and many part-nerships are initiated and reliant on singular faculty members. Further, wefound that international affairs officeswere often the most common locationidentified for coordinating these activi-ties, even though they have no oversightfor faculty, research, academic pro-grams, or travel. Based on the conclu-sions of our study, we have identifiedthe following key recommendations forchairs.

Five Keys for Chairs1. Make international partner-

ships everyone’s business. The mostcommon partnerships are developedby individual faculty members whohave an interest in some particularcountry or part of the world—oftendeveloped through personal exposure.

Integrating Globalization into the AcademicDepartment: Keys for Chairs

by Karl E. Anderson and Michael T. Miller

Few colleges and universities in theworld have been untouched by the

trend to internationalize higher educa-tion, and many have worked diligentlyto incorporate different aspects ofglobalization and multiculturalisminto their curriculum and communi-ties (Schoorman, 2000). Colleges haveincreased their global perspective byintensifying the use of study abroad,faculty exchanges, revising curriculum,international grant and contract work,and developing partnerships that in-clude elements as varied as sharedwebsites, recognition of academiccredit, and travel tours that providebrief exposure to other institutions.The problem many department chairsface is the lack of clarity about existingpartnerships, their use and formality,

and the role of different organizationalunits within the university’s responsi-bility for and oversight of partnerships.

To identify some of the challengesand opportunities for higher educationleaders working with internationalpartnerships, we surveyed fifty land-grant universities and found that morethan half reported they maintainedover one hundred international part-nerships, and two-thirds received nofunding for their maintenance. Themost common types of partnershipsidentified in the study were, in order:

• Study-abroad arrangements• Academic curriculum agreements• Administrative related• Recruitment/student articulation• Faculty exchanges• Research collaboration


DOI:10.1002/dch

When partnerships are based on indi-vidual effort, they rarely survive be-yond the faculty member’s energy level(or tenure at an institution—and thisapplies to the partnering internationalinstitution as well). For departments tomake partnerships last, they must en-gage multiple faculty who are willingto put the effort into the collaborativearrangement. This particularly chal-lenges the chair, who must temper in-dividual enthusiasm with the bestinterests of the larger unit.

2. Find real advantages for stu-dents and faculty. For a partnership tobe successful, there must be multiple,real advantages in order for differentconstituents to reach consensus on thepartnership arrangement. These ad-vantages can take the form of real cur-riculum change, financial incentivesfor teaching or working abroad, oreven the simple opportunity to visit in-ternational locations. And consideringthe growing trend of documenting stu-dent learning, assessment measuresthat can demonstrate the real advan-tages of international partnerships be-come increasingly important and arevital to basic formation of a partner-ship.

3. Partnerships should have aca-demic relevance. As many partner-ships are developed by individualfaculty members, there is a need tohave a strong, rational cause for engag-ing in the partnership or agreement.For example, with growing immigra-tion from certain countries such asChina, India, and Mexico, there is areal academic need for practitioners incertain fields to have exposure to othercultures, expectations, and influences.Although there is a tremendous tradi-tion in the United States of celebratingthe northern European heritage, manyinternational destinations that are con-sidered desirable for travel may notmake the most sense for departmentsto invest limited resources. In addition,international collaboration thatstresses increased and ongoing globalintegration will have a better chance at

survival than those based on personaltravel desires.

4. Funding mechanisms are fun-damental to longevity. For interna-tional partnerships to survive, theremust be some initial consideration ofthe protocols that will enable thearrangement to function financially.Ideally, for partnerships to be mean-ingful and effective, each arrangementor contract should recognize the needfor continued, long-term funding witha specific budget agreed on by all con-stituents involved in the partnership.In addition, an annual assessmentshould be conducted to assure thefunds are being allocated and spentaccording to the partnership agree-ment. Many institutional partnershipsare based or arranged on externalgrants or contracts, and if the term ofthe grant is for a specified time period,the formal arrangement or contractmight be best served if it is similarlyscheduled to begin and end accordingto the terms of the grant. Also, endinginternational partnerships can be awk-ward and can potentially damage theopportunity for additional work in thefuture. Therefore, care should be takenwhen negotiating the conclusion ofthe partnership so that the possibilityof future partnerships can be pre-served.

5. Consider interdisciplinary sup-port and collaboration. To develop acritical mass of expertise and interest,department chairs may best be servedby exploring tangential disciplines, dis-ciplines in area studies, or disciplineswith a deliberate international focus,such as international relations or inter-national business. This can diffuse theworkload of hosting guests or findingvolunteer faculty members to visitother countries, and it can provide asignificantly larger potential body ofstudents to participate in a study-abroad program or work collabora-tively with students in other countries.As a side note, American terminologydoes not always translate easily withmany cultures, and interdisciplinary

work can improve the chance that stu-dent, faculty, and institutional needsare met.

Future International PartnershipIssuesAs a concluding component of oursurvey, we asked senior internationalaffairs administrators to indicate whatthey believed would be the most im-portant future issues facing interna-tional partnerships. The mostcommonly identified issues were:

• Increase in joint/dual-degree pro-grams abroad

• Partnerships that are more focusedand specific to a particular area

• Growing numbers of partnerships• Increased number of partnerships

in critical/dynamic regions of theworld

• Increased number of formal re-search collaborations

• Multiple institutions participatingin partnerships

• More rigorous partnership assess-ment

• More short-term exchange andstudy abroad

• Increase in online and distancelearning partnerships

All of these future issues have directrelevance to the academic department.Chairs must recognize that they are in-deed the front line in institutional rep-resentation. They must build criteria forengaging in partnership formation andbe increasingly intentional in assessingand maintaining partnerships. ▲

Karl E. Anderson is an international student advi-sor at Kansas State University. Please contact himif you are interested in an executive summary ofthe study referenced in the article. Michael T.Miller is associate dean for academic affairs in theCollege of Education and Health Professions at theUniversity of Arkansas and served for six years aschair. Email: [email protected], [email protected]

References

Schoorman, D. (2000). How is interna-tionalization implemented? A frame-work for organizational practice. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No.ED444426)


DOI:10.1002/dch

As online courses offer students in-creased flexibility and convenience,

more institutions and departments areconsidering increasing their number ofvirtual offerings. This decision is some-times made to accommodate growingstudent interest in successful programsor, conversely, to bolster faltering pro-grams. Having overseen the conversionof a traditional MS in Clinical Nutri-tion program to a totally online formatover a two-year period, many lessonslearned in this process can be shared.

Faculty NeedsTraining to teach online. Lecture

notes and PowerPoint presentationsfrom traditional face-to-face (F2F)classes cannot just be transferred on-line and the course conducted in asimilar way. Training must be giventhat includes clarifying differences ineducational theory underlying tradi-tional and online education, strategiesand approaches appropriate to onlineeducation, as well as the technical in-struction needed to create and managean online course. Most institutions re-quire some certification as an onlineinstructor. New York Institute of Tech-nology formerly required a one-dayeight-hour course, but due to develop-ments in the complexity of online plat-forms, this has been expanded to twodays.

Ongoing technical and pedagogi-cal support. Colleges offering onlineprograms must have some technicalsupport available, although at someschools this may only be during thehours of nine to five. Informal mentor-ing within departments can fill in thegaps in current university support in-frastructure. Departments wishing toincrease online offerings should beprepared to help from within. If the in-

troduction of an online program is togrow revenue, consideration must begiven to increased support costs.

Dealing with the expectations oftraditional program hires. Facultywho expected upon hiring to teachonly F2F may be leery of switching tosome or all online teaching. In ourcase, the only viable option for con-tinuation of our graduate programwas transitioning to fully online ac-cess to increase student population.The college has attempted to expandfaculty enthusiasm with the develop-ment of the Center for Teaching andLearning, which provides resources,monthly workshops, and one-on-onementoring.

Recognizing a faculty member’stime investment for launching acourse. The first time a faculty mem-ber develops a course for online deliv-ery, he or she is paid for an additionalcredit. The issue that has developedand still has not been rectified is thatfaculty creating several online coursesat once have had to reduce theirscholarly output, ultimately affectingthem in terms of reappointment andtenure decisions. Some schools haveelected to recognize online course de-velopment as scholarly activ ity(Moore, 2008).

Setting appropriate levels ofstudent/instructor interactivity. Theinstant response students expect fromemails to faculty multiplies in onlinecourses that use discussion boards andother venues for interactivity. Most on-line courses include more written as-signments, with students havingunrealistic expectations for assignmentreturn. This often leads to a sense offaculty exhaustion and overload. In-forming students at the outset of eachsemester as to expected response time

and assignment return time and tryingto maintain some consistency acrossthe department can help.

Institutional InfrastructureTraditional registrar and bursar

processes in an online world. In ourcollege, first-semester students registerin person with an advisor who signstheir form for submission to the regis-trar. After the first semester, the advi-sor’s approval can be submittedelectronically and the student can reg-ister online. Although a future changeis planned, presently this system re-mains the same for our online stu-dents, with the first-semesterregistration sheet needing to be faxed,in some cases, back and forth acrossthe country. Some bursar transactionsrequire visits to campus as well. Forschools implementing more onlineprograms, all procedures should be re-viewed for complete online access.

Student evaluation of courses. InF2F courses, student course evalua-tions are handed out in class towardthe end of the semester and com-pleted by most students. In onlinecourses, where the maximum popula-tion is twenty students and our de-partment’s courses average ten,students are requested by email toclick on a link and complete a form.The response rate is usually too lowfor the Office of Institutional Re-search to process, and these missingevaluations have become an issue forfaculty seeking reappointment andtenure. Consideration of an incentivesystem for students to fill out onlineevaluations is important.

Instructor evaluation. In manyschools the evaluation of instructorsuses an instrument approved by theunion. This form may not be com-pletely appropriate for evaluation ofan online instructor, and considera-tion should be made to adapt presentinstruments to better reflect the vir-tual environment. In addition, theevaluating faculty should have somefamiliarity with the online environ-

Transitioning Traditional Programs toOnline Programs

by Mindy Haar


DOI:10.1002/dch

ment. Due to the structuring of somedepartments, this may not always bethe case, to the detriment of the onlineinstructor.

Orienting Students to the OnlineEnvironment

Helping students deal with timemanagement issues. As many studentserroneously perceive online classes tobe easier and less time consuming,there is a tendency to take on too manycourses. We have become much moreaggressive in our advisement of stu-dents against overload. We recommendthey take out their calendar and plotout time for jobs, family, and school,with the expectation that a three-creditgraduate course can amount to twelvehours of work per week.

Disproportionate number of in-complete grades. Not being in classand seeing the instructor allows greatertendency toward procrastination. As adepartment, we have found that con-sistency in clearly communicating ex-pectations at the outset, enforcingpenalties for late work, and remindersabout due dates and cutoff dates wherelate work is no longer accepted hasdramatically reduced our epidemicnumber of students asking for incom-pletes.

Importance of “live” faculty sup-port. Students need to know that thereare set times when they can speak to alive person as opposed to email, dis-cussion board, and chat rooms withinthe course. With full-time facultymembers holding regular office hoursin our Long Island, New York, campusproviding this support, students havereported increased satisfaction and thishas ultimately resulted in program re-tention.

Marketing IssuesDefining your target audience/ad-

vertising issues. As we have definedour target population of students,we’ve narrowed our advertising specif-ically to that niche. We’ve advertised inseveral nutrition journals and have had

booths at specific conferences. Eachtime an inquiry for information camein by phone or email, we made sure totrack the source of information. Otherprograms have used different phonenumbers or contact persons in ads sothat that the source is known withouthaving to ask. More expensive or largerads have not always correlated with in-creased response. Some college publicrelations departments will cover publi-cizing a new program while others ex-pect all expenses to come out of thedepartment’s budget.

Researching your competitors’programs and tuition differences. Inthese tough economic times, many stu-dents’ selection of programs will bemade based on price. In our college, asour tuition was significantly higherthan all competitors, our CFO agreedto reduce the tuition for new onlineprograms starting from zero enroll-ment. In our transitioning program,this tuition reduction would presentan immediate drop in revenue thatmay not be justified by projected in-creased enrollment.

Distinguishing your programfrom other similar programs. Eachyear the number of programs similarto ours has multiplied but we havetried to distinguish ourselves bysmaller classes and more personal at-tention. Having different admissionsrequirements can open certain nichesas well.

Developing Best Practice Modelson a Departmental andInstitutional Level

Integral and optional elements.Already established lists of best prac-tices can be used without reinventingthe wheel. In deciding which ele-ments are critical and must be in-cluded and which are just icing onthe cake, considerat ion must bemade of making the workload palat-able to faculty.

Synchronous versus asynchro-nous activ ity. In courses that areasynchronous, there may be times

when the instructor wants to presenta synchronous activity on a weekly oroccasional basis. Students must be in-formed of these times in advance ofregistering. As programs expand na-tionally and even internationally,finding a mutually acceptable timefor students in different time zonescan become almost impossible.

New technological enhance-ments. Newer versions of LearningManagement Systems (LMS) such asBlackboard have additional featuresincluding an alert system where stu-dents are automatically sent a textmessage if they don’t log into thecourse based on a formula set by theinstructor; they also include space forjournals and blogs. In addition tothese LMS features, there are optionsto purchase synchronous tools suchas Elluminate and Marratech, allow-ing for instructor and class presenta-tions and interactions. Purchasing thenext LMS version or other compo-nents are budgetary decisions madewith projected possible enrollmentincreases.

ConclusionAside from our own experience, manyof the issues described here are consid-ered in two recent reports by the Asso-ciation of Public and Land-GrandUniversities in conjunction with theSloan Foundation (McCarthy &Samors, 2009; Seaman, 2009). Atten-tion to these issues at the earliest possi-ble point in the planning process canmaximize the ultimate success of anonline program. ▲

This article is based on a presentation atthe 27th annual Academic ChairpersonsConference, February 11–12, 2010,Orlando, Florida.

Mindy Haar is director of the Graduate Program inClinical Nutrition and Didactic Program in Dietet-ics at the New York Institute of Technology. Pleaseemail the author for additional resources andlinks. Email: [email protected]


DOI:10.1002/dch

References

McCarthy, S. A., & Samors, R. J. (2009).Online learning as a strategic asset: VolumeI: A resource for campus leaders. Retrievedfrom www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1877

Moore, J. C. (2008). A synthesis ofSloan-C effective practices. Journal of

Asynchronous Learning Networks, 12(3),2–20.

Seaman, J. (2009). Online learning as astrategic asset: Volume II: The paradox offaculty voices: Views and experienceswith online learning. Retrieved fromwww.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=1879

10. Number of full-time faculty in de-partment: 2.9% had 1–3 members,8.0% had 4–5 members, 13.4% had 6–8members, 11.0% had 9–10 members,23.9% had 11–15 members, and 39.9%had 16 or more members.11. Formal training in becoming achair: 2.4% had formal coursework inbecoming a chair during their graduatedegree programs; 96.2% had no formalcoursework in chairing departments.12. Formal management training inchairing a department: 18.0% hadmanagement training in chairing a de-partment, 80.7% had no such training,and 1.6% did not reply.13. Term limits: 18.8% had term limits,80.4% did not have term limits, and1.1% did not respond.14. What will you do after serving aschair:

• 16.4% indicated they would re-tire—19.4% of current chairs selectedthis response, and no former chairs indicated they would retire.

• 16.1% reported they would gointo administration—7.0% of currentchairs and 63.3% of former chairs re-ported this option.

• 15.5% indicated they didn’tknow.

• 49.3% indicated they would go backto the faculty—52.9% of current chairs,and 30.0% of former chairs.

• No respondent indicated an interestin leaving higher education.15. Overall satisfaction as chair: 35.4%were very satisfied, 51.7% weresatisfied, 8.3% were not satisfied, and0.3% (1 person) were totally unsatis-fied.

Pleasant and Unpleasant TasksPerformed by ChairsA review of the literature revealed thatthere are 27 tasks and responsibilitiesthat department chairs regularly per-form. Table 1 summarizes the pleasanttasks chairs perform, and Table 2 pres-ents the unpleasant tasks chairs perform.

Evaluating non-faculty personnel(e.g., administrative assistant) was re-ported as an unpleasant task by 48.0%

What Is Unique About Chairs? A ContinuingExploration

by Robert E. Cipriano and Richard Riccardi

There has been a dearth of informa-tion regarding the roles and re-

sponsibilities, demographics, andcharacteristics of those who serve as de-partment chairs in our nation’s 3,600colleges and universities. We have beensurveying chairs across the country forthe past three years using a survey de-signed to elicit responses about demo-graphics (gender, highest degree held,academic rank, etc.), personal informa-tion (degree of satisfaction in serving aschair, plans after term as chair ends,etc.), perceptions of the skills and com-petencies needed to function effectivelyas chair, and the tasks chairs need toperform that are deemed pleasant orunpleasant. In 2007 we surveyed de-partment chairs (N = 203 respondents)from one university system on the past,present, and future aspirations of chairs(see Cipriano & Riccardi, 2008). InFebruary 2008 we conducted a follow-up study that broadened the responsesto chairs across the country (see Cipri-ano & Riccardi, 2010). We mailed atotal of 317 surveys in 2008, and 150were returned; a 47.3% return rate. In2009 we conducted a larger study (900surveys mailed, 374 returned; 42.0%return rate). We have a combined totalof 727 responses (43.1% return ratefrom 1,686 surveys) from chairs fromthe three studies. We will report thecombined three-year findings in a sub-sequent issue of The Department Chair.

Here we highlight salient responses ofthe 2009 survey and look in-depth atone interesting reply that was missingfrom both the 2007 and 2008 surveyresponses. The 2009 study also com-pared responses from both currentchairs (N � 314) and former chairs (N � 60). This article will only reportthose differences that are significantlydifferent between and among thesetwo cohorts.

Demographics1. Gender: 64.6% were male; 34.9%were female.2. Highest degree held: 9.7% held amaster’s degree, 2.4% held a sixth-yeardegree, 74.3% held a doctoral degree,and 11.5% held a postdoctoral degree.3. Academic rank: 3.8% were assistantprofessors, 23.1% were associate pro-fessors, and 70.5% were full professors.4. Age when first became chair: 47.5. Current age: 54.6. Total years as chair: 6.7. Tenure status: 87.1% were tenured;11.8% were not tenured.8. Consider self as a member of thefaculty or the administration: 71.6%considered themselves a member of thefaculty; 24.1% considered themselves amember of the administration.9. Came to the position: 31.4% wereappointed, 22.3% were elected, and45.8% indicated a combination of ap-pointed and elected.


DOI:10.1002/dch

of the respondents. Fifty-five percentof former chairs and 46.6% of currentchairs rated this as an unpleasant task.It appears that terminating faculty andstaff, evaluating department members,reducing departmental conflicts, andrequesting added resources are themost unpleasant tasks chairs are re-quired to perform. In the existing cli-mate besetting higher education, it islogical that chairs will be asked to cutbudgets (i.e., terminate full-timeand/or part-time faculty), adhere tostricter evaluative criteria for depart-ment members, and make due withless in the form of additional re-sources. Further, there is the risk that

all this will lead to a less collegial andcivil environment, thus causing moreconflicts both within and external tothe department.

It was edifying to analyze the tasksthat chairs indicated they did not do, ofwhich there were only two that werenoted by more than 35% of the re-spondents:1. Raising external funds: 50.1%2. Obtaining and managing grants,gifts, and contracts: 36.5%

Skills and Competencies Neededby ChairsChairs wear many hats, given the par-ticular circumstances they are faced

with. The one-size-fits-all chair posi-tion does not exist with any degree ofregularity. A multitude of skills are dis-played on a habitual and consistentbasis. An examination of the literatureindicated that there were 16 competen-cies that chairs should possess.Ninety-five percent or higher of the respondents rated the following ninecompetencies/skills as necessary tofunction as a chair:1. Trustworthiness: 99.7%2. Ability to communicate effectively:99.5%3. Interpersonal skills: 99.2%4. Problem-solving ability: 99.2%5. Leadership skills: 98.9%6. Character/integrity: 98.9%7. Decision-making ability: 98.9%8. Organizational ability: 97.6%9. Planning skills: 96.5%

Only two of these indicated skills(trustworthiness and character/in-tegrity) are innate. In fact, the otherseven skills/competencies that chairsreported are the most important canbe taught to new, aspiring, and experi-enced chairs to aid them in leadingtheir respective departments. It isnoted and emphasized that more than96% of department chairs have never

Table 1. Pleasant Tasks Performed by Chairs

Former CurrentTasks (Pleasant) Overall Chair Chair

Interpersonal communication 91.7% 95.0% 91.1%Encouraging professional development of faculty 88.7% 98.3% 86.9%Developing and initiating long-range departmental programs, plans, and goals 82.3% 83.3% 82.1%Interacting with administration on behalf of the department 82.3% 88.3% 81.2%Representing the department at professional meetings 81.0% 90.0% 79.2%Recruiting new full-time faculty 79.4% 85.0% 78.3%Encouraging faculty research and publications 79.4% 91.7% 77.7%Departmental organization 77.2% 76.7% 78.0%Retaining untenured faculty 77.2% 81.7% 76.4%Planning/reviewing curriculum, academic programs, and courses 72.4% 70.0% 72.8%Assigning courses, research, and departmental duties to faculty 65.4% 63.3% 65.8%Attending meetings for chairs with administrators 62.2% 61.7% 62.3%Participating in committee work with colleagues 59.8% 68.3% 58.1%Justifying the department's viability to administration 54.4% 43.3% 56.5%Developing the department's budget 51.7% 48.3% 52.4%Monitoring the department's budget 49.9% 46.7% 50.5%

Note: Bolded items are at the 5% level of significance.

Table 2. Unpleasant Tasks Performed by Chairs

Former CurrentTasks (Unpleasant) Overall Chair Chair

Terminating adjunct faculty 76.7% 78.3% 76.4%Terminating non-teaching personnel 73.2% 66.7% 74.4%Terminating full-time faculty 68.4% 63.3% 69.3%Maintaining morale and reducing conflicts among faculty 58.4% 63.3% 57.5%Requesting additional resources from administration 53.9% 61.7% 52.4%Evaluating full-time faculty members 49.9% 58.3% 48.2%



DOI:10.1002/dch

taken a course or been trained to serveas chair.

In an effort to further distill theskills deemed necessary by the respon-dents, we asked them to rank in orderof importance the five most crucialcompetencies needed. We weighted thescores according to the responses. Forexample, a rank of 1 was awarded 5points, a rank of 2 was awarded 4points, and so forth. The top five high-est ranked skills/competencies, as re-ported by the respondents, were:1. Ability to communicate effectively:593 points2. Character/integrity: 489 points3. Leadership skills: 437 points4. Program /course innovation anddevelopment: 356 points5. Interpersonal skills: 308 points

A Seismic ChangeTo digress back to the 2007 and 2008studies, we found that the number-onereason chairs indicated they remain aschair was “that no one else in the de-partment will do it.” At a recent full-day conference presented by one of theauthors, workshop attendees were in-terested in this response. During andafter the workshop, informal focusgroups were held with chairs who at-tended the conference. First-yearchairs, as well as veteran chairs, soul-searched and shared their privatethoughts on this subject with their new

colleagues. A consensus began to infil-trate the discussion—they becamechairs because they wanted to make adifference. People expressed theirthoughts and beliefs that departmentchairs were in an enviable position tobe change agents, serve as legacybuilders, and construct lasting excel-lence within their departments andtheir disciplines. Upon return to ourhome campus, we elicited fellowchairs’ comments regarding this ques-tion. They were also in agreement thatmaking a difference was a key factor inbecoming a chair. Therefore, we addedthe following three items to the ques-tion of why people remain as chair:(1) career advancement, (2) make adifference, and (3) shape the depart-ment’s direction. Responses to thequestion “Reasons for becoming achair” are displayed in Table 3.

ConclusionThere are myriad challenges con-fronting higher education, not theleast of which is the fact that 40% ofthe 595,000 full-time faculty membersare 55 years of age or older. The aver-age chair serves for six years. Twentypercent of chairs leave the positioneach year. A further confounding vari-able is that more than 96% of chairshave not been trained in the position’svaried roles. The chair is a pivotal po-sition in higher education, one that

bridges the gap between administra-tion and faculty. More research isneeded regarding the distinct rolesthat department chairs play in theacademy. It is hoped that this studywill help us discern with a little moreclarity the important components ofwho a chair is, which aspects of theposition are meaningful, and the req-uisite skills and competencies neededto perform the job effectively. ▲

Robert E. Cipriano is chair of the Department ofRecreation and Leisure Studies, and Richard Ric-cardi is director of the Office of Management In-formation and Research, both at SouthernConnecticut State University. Email:[email protected], [email protected]

References

Cipriano, B., & Riccardi, R. (2008). Self-perceived expectations of chairs. TheDepartment Chair, 18(4), 3–5.

Cipriano, R. E., & Riccardi, R. (2010).The chair conundrum: Individuallyprofessed prospects of chairs. The De-partment Chair, 20(3), 15, 17–18.

Table 3. Reasons for Becoming a Chair

Former CurrentReasons Overall Chair Chair

Make a difference 85.8% 95.0% 83.8%Shape the department's direction 83.1% 90.0% 81.5%Career advancement 39.1% 43.3% 38.2%No one else in the department will do it 35.9% 31.7% 36.6%More money 31.1% 16.7% 33.8%Ability to hire faculty 24.7% 26.7% 24.2%Reduced teaching load 17.4% 16.7% 17.5%Control of the budget 12.6% 11.7% 12.7%Prestige 12.1% 13.3% 11.8%Summer pay 11.5% 10.8% 15.0%


CALL FOR PAPERSWe invite our readers to submit arti-cles for possible publication in The De-partment Chair. The subject should berelevant to department chairs, and thefocus should be on practical applica-tions and strategies. We also welcomeideas for subjects of interest to aca-demic leaders that we should developinto articles.

Articles submitted for considera-tion should be 1,000 to 1,500 wordsand can be sent as email attachmentsor by mail with a hard copy and diskversion. Please send articles to:

EditorThe Department ChairP. O. Box 249Bolton, MA 01740–[email protected]


DOI:10.1002/dch

FACULTY TERMINATION

Professor Loses Job in BumpyTransition from Administrationto Faculty

Case: Marks v. Smith et al., No. 83,603265/04 (N.Y. App. Div. 09/15/09)

Ruling: The Supreme Court of NewYork, Appellate Division, modified atrial court’s denial of summary judg-ment to both parties in this breach-of-contract lawsuit. It granted FordhamUniversity’s motion and dismissedJanet Marks’ claims.

Significance: When an employ-ment contract does not specify com-pensation, courts will establish theamount by looking at salaries paid toemployees in comparable positions.

Summary: Marks was appointed toa two-year, tenure-track associate pro-fessorship in the Faculty of Business atFordham University in 1996. However,her contract contained a proviso sus-pending its terms while she served asassociate dean for academic affairs forthe Faculty of Business. Her salarywould be paid as an administrator—not as faculty—until such time as sheassumed full-time faculty status.

Marks resigned the associate deanposition in March 2002 to assumeteaching duties. However, no teachingpositions were available for severalmonths. The university told her thather annual salary as a professor wouldbe $70,000 and payment would beginas soon as she began teaching.

She refused her teaching assign-ments for the fall of 2002. Marksclaimed that her faculty salary shouldhave been paid as soon as she resignedthe associate dean position. She as-serted that although she was not teach-ing, she was performing other facultyduties, including research. She alsoclaimed that the proposed faculty

salary violated the terms of her con-tract.

The university fired her. It claimedthat by refusing the teaching assign-ments, she had effectively abandonedher job. Marks sued for breach of con-tract. After the trial court denied bothparties’ motions for summary judg-ment, both filed appeals.

The appellate court found that thecontract failed to specify a salary for ei-ther an administrative or a faculty posi-tion. Therefore, the panel held that,absent other evidence of a greater obliga-tion, the contract required compensationat a rate that was reasonable in compari-son with compensation customarily paidto holders of comparable faculty posi-tions during the same period.

The court ruled that the university’sevidence showed that the salary offeredwas reasonable. Marks did not comeforward with any evidence to supporther claim that the university, in settingher salary, breached any contractualobligation left unstated in their writtenagreement, the court noted.

She also failed to identify a basis fora determination that the university wasrequired to continue paying her asalary after she voluntarily resigned heradministrative position and before sheassumed full teaching duties, accordingto the court.

The appellate court modified thetrial court’s ruling. It granted the uni-versity’s motion for summary judg-ment and dismissed the complaint. ▲

FACULTY TENURE

Court Will Not Rule on Quality of Professor’s Work

Case: Tori v. Marist College , No.08–5143-cv (2d Cir. 09/02/09)

Ruling: The Second U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals dismissed Michael

Tori’s claims of discrimination againstMarist College.

Significance: To allege that a nega-tive tenure decision was influenced byillegal bias, a plaintiff must rely on evi-dence other than a disagreement overthe quality of his scholarly work.

Summary: After Marist College de-nied his tenure application, Tori filedsuit alleging that he was subjected to dis-crimination on the bases of race (white),gender, marital status, and religion.

The college claimed that his appli-cation was rejected because his schol-arly work was unsatisfactory. But Toriargued that by publishing two articlesin peer-reviewed journals, he fulfilledthe tenure requirements as set forth inthe Faculty Handbook. He alleged thatthe scholarly work requirement was anobjective standard disregarded by thepeer review committee. He also as-serted that two independent experts inhis field had reviewed his articles andfound them of excellent quality.

Tori appealed the district court’ssummary judgment for the university.But the Second Circuit affirmed theruling. The panel noted that when anemployer asserts a legitimate nondis-criminatory reason for an adverse em-ployment action, the plaintiff has theburden of proving that it is a pretextfor discrimination.

The court explained that “tenuredecisions in an academic setting involvea combination of factors which tend toset them apart from employment deci-sions generally.” Courts are “under-standably reluctant to review the meritsof a tenure decision,” the panel added.

Therefore, when a professor allegesthat denial of tenure was influenced byan unlawful, discriminatory bias, evi-dence regarding disagreement over hisscholarly work is insufficient to showthat the college’s proffered reason wasa pretext for discrimination. ▲

Lawsuits and Rulings


DOI:10.1002/dch

FERPA Clear and Simple: The College Professional’s Guide to Compliance

by Clifford A. Ramirez

Jossey-Bass, 2009336 pp., $40.00 (plus $5.00 s/h)

In the age of reality television, Face-book, MySpace, Twitter, and dozens ofother social and professional network-ing sites, it seems that people aresearching for more exposure and moreconnections than ever, rather than try-ing to seek more privacy. As a result,more and more personal data ends upin the public sphere. However, thereare real concerns about the improperuses of these data. The U.S. FederalTrade Commission estimates that asmany as nine million Americans havetheir identities stolen each year. Iden-tity thieves then engage in a multitudeof crimes such as credit card or bankfraud, and use the identities to illegallyobtain government benefits.

Do we have a right to privacy thatcan protect us? The U.S. Constitutiondoes not specifically mention a right toprivacy, but the Supreme Court has in-terpreted various provisions to findsome protection. In Olmstead v. UnitedStates (1928), Justice Louis Brandies ar-gued in his dissent that the framers“conferred, as against the government,the right to be let alone” (277 U.S. 438,478). In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965),Justice Douglas, writing for the major-ity, ruled that a right to privacy did in-deed exist: “The foregoing cases suggestthat specific guarantees in the Bill ofRights have penumbras, formed by em-anations from those guarantees thathelp give them life and substance. . . .Various guarantees create zones of pri-vacy. . . . We deal with a right of privacyolder than the Bill of Rights—olderthan our political parties, older thanour school system” (381 U.S. 479, 484).

Un f o r t u n a te l y,these decisions con-cerned the individual’sprotection from thegovernment, essen-

tially placing limits on what the govern-ment could do. But what about theprotection of our privacy from publicrelease by the government or by others?There is no national law protecting theprivacy of personal information, butsince the 1970s Congress has acted toprotect certain kinds of information. In1974, Congress enacted the Privacy Act,which limited the use of informationcollected by government agencies, andthe Family Educational Rights and Pri-vacy Act (FERPA), which was intendedto protect the privacy of educationalrecords. It should be noted that FERPAapplies to every institution of higher ed-ucation that accepts federal funding.

Clifford Ramirez, a private consult-ant and registrar at Claremont GraduateUniversity, has created a comprehensiveguide to understanding FERPA and itsapplication. Although written with col-lege registrars in mind, it may serve auseful purpose for department chairs.Designed as a reference book (but it canalso be read from cover to cover), FERPAClear and Simple is broken into six chap-ters. Chapter One not only serves as anintroduction to FERPA, it also providesa brief history of privacy law in theUnited States and a very thorough back-ground on the creation of the FERPAlegislation. Many of the details of thoseevents may be irrelevant for today’s ap-plication of the law, but it does make forinteresting reading. To add color to whatessentially is a discussion of regulations,Ramirez adds “feature” boxes that in-clude such interesting tidbits as a biogra-phy of Senator James Buckley, thehistory of Social Security numbers, anda description of the evolution of the U.S.Department of Education. All in all, hisdescription of the development and

passage of the law does enhance thereader’s understanding.

With the foundation laid, Ramirezuses Chapters Two and Three to providea detailed explanation of the law: whatis protected, who it applies to, how itshould be enforced, and the remediesfor noncompliance. It should be notedthat the record keeper targeted by theFERPA legislation is typically the regis-trar, but if an academic departmentmaintains its own educational recordsof its students, then those are protectedby FERPA. Departments that requirecomprehensive exams, major field tests,or track grades of its majors must com-ply with the recordkeeping require-ments of FERPA. In addition, theprivacy provisions also apply to any em-ployee of the institution who has accessto the records. Accordingly, a facultymember may not reveal a student’sgrades to third persons without follow-ing the provisions of FERPA.

These two chapters are likely to bethe ones most referenced by those look-ing to answer a question about how tohandle a certain academic record. But,as expected with any regulatory scheme,there will be exceptions, and Ramirezuses Chapters Four and Five to fully ex-plain the myriad of exceptions, includ-ing access by parents of dependentchildren to disclosure of information tolaw enforcement officials concernedabout the safety of the student or oth-ers. Ramirez includes feature boxes toprovide background on the eventsspurring relevant legislation such as theColumbine High School massacre, theJacob Wetterling and Adam Walsh ab-duction cases, and many more. In addi-tion, Chapter Five deals with exceptionsnecessitated by the U.S. Patriot Act andother national security concerns. Thediscussion of the law and its exceptionsin these chapters is quite accessible to allsegments of higher education admin-istration, even for those without a

Review


DOI:10.1002/dch

law degree or years of bureaucratic experience.

Chapter Six provides useful strate-gies for institutions to follow in orderto comply with the requirements ofFERPA. Ramirez includes several com-pliance checklists that may prove use-ful to records administrators as theycreate policies and procedures in linewith the FERPA requirements. Perhapswhat I find most useful in this volumeare the appendixes: the FERPA legisla-tion (20 USC Section 1232G) and theFERPA regulations (34 CFR Section99). As an attorney, I like to check theoriginal text of the law or regulation toverify the interpretation presented inany discussion of the law, and this caneasily be done with the appendixes.Most department chairs may not be in-terested in the law itself, and for them,the discussion in the chapters shouldsuffice.

After reading through FERPA Clearand Simple, I contacted several regis-trars to learn how they dealt withFERPA issues. Virtually all of them re-lied on publications and Internetsources provided by the American As-sociation of Collegiate Registrars andAdmissions Officers. Although some

were not interested in anything otherthan AACRAO materials, one registraradmitted “you can never have toomany sources on topics such as this!”Another summarized my advice re-garding this book: “I think a large ref-erence book would especially behelpful to those administrators whoare not as educated on the issues as arepeople in the records offices.”

Ramirez has put together a verynice reference book that will be usefulfor department chairs who maintainstudent records in their offices,whether they be class grades, portfo-lios, major field tests, qualifying exams,or other records of performance.FERPA Clear and Simple is indeed clearand simple and will be helpful fortraining staff and/or new departmentchairs. I would suggest, however, that ifthere are real concerns or questionsabout compliance with FERPA, thenuniversity counsel should be con-sulted. Laws are subject to change andare subject to different interpretationsby the courts. ▲

Reviewed by Jon K. Dalager, J.D., professor andchair of the Department of Political Science atGeorgetown College. Email: [email protected]

The Department ChairManaging Editor: Carolyn Dumore

Editorial Director: Robert Rosenberg

Advisory BoardLou Albert, Pima CC Raoul A. Arreola, U of Tennessee–Memphis Jeffrey L. Buller, Florida Atlantic U Don Chu, U of West Florida Gary L. Filan, International Community College

Chair Academy Michael J. Galgano, James Madison U Susan Hatfield, Winona State U Tim Hatfield, Winona State U Irene Hecht, American Council on Education David Hellmich, Bluegrass Community & Technical

College Mary Lou Higgerson, Baldwin-Wallace College N. Douglas Lees, Indiana University–Purdue

University Indianapolis Christine M. Licata, Rochester Institute of

Technology/NTID Kina Mallard, Carson-Newman College Peter Seldin, Pace U Gary Shulman, Miami U Jon F. Wergin, Antioch U Daniel Wheeler, U of Nebraska Thomas E. Young, Georgia Gwinnett College

Editorial correspondence should be sent to TheDepartment Chair, P.O. Box 249, Bolton, MA01740–0249; email [email protected].

The Department Chair: A Resource for AcademicAdministrators (Print ISSN 1049-3255, Online ISSN1936-4393) is published quarterly by Wiley Sub-scription Services, Inc., a Wiley Company, at 111River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774. Individualsubscription rate (in USD): $99 per year US/Can/Mex, $123 rest of world; institutional subscriptionrate: $899 US, $939 Can/Mex, $973 rest of world.Single copy rate: $29 (US). To order call toll-free888-378-2537, fax toll-free 888-481-2665, email [email protected], or write Jossey-Bass, 989 MarketStreet, San Francisco, CA 94103–1741. Discountsavailable for quantity subscriptions—contact SandyQuade at [email protected]. Periodicals postagepaid at Providence, RI.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to TheDepartment Chair, Jossey-Bass, 989 Market St., SanFrancisco, CA 94103–1741. Outside the UnitedStates, call 415-433-1740 or fax 415-951-8553.

Copyright © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A WileyCompany. All rights reserved. No part of this publica-tion may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec-tronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scan-ning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act,without either the prior written permission of thePublisher or authorization through payment of theappropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright ClearanceCenter, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600. Requests to thePublisher for reprint permission should be addressedto the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons,Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; 201-748-6011,fax 201-748-6326, www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

ORDER FORMPhotocopy as needed

Yes, please enter my order for _____ individual subscrip-tions to The Department Chair at the annual (4 issues)rate of USD $99 per subscription (US/Can/Mex); outsideNorth America USD $123. Payable to John Wiley & Sons,Inc., 989 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94103–1741. Toreceive information on quantity discounts, contact SandyQuade at [email protected].

Payment enclosed $_____________

Bill me (Purchase order #____________________________)

Bulk subscriptions with multiple ship-to addresses must have one central billing address.

Purchase order enclosed (Fed. #135593032)

Name____________________________________________________Title __________________________

Department_____________________________________________________ Years in position_______

Institution______________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip _________________________________________________________________________

Phone________________________ Email____________________________________________________

Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint Tel 888-378-2537Fax 888-481-2665teertStekraM989

San Francisco, CA 94103–1741 (SP10)

Quantity Discounts

Copies Each Disc.

1–4 $99.00 0%

5–19 $79.20 20%

20–34 $74.25 25%

35–49 $69.30 30%

50–100 $64.35 35%

> 100 $59.40 40%

[email protected]

FERPA Clear andSimpleThe College Professional’s Guideto Compliance

Clifford A. Ramirez

$40.00 • paper • 336 pp • 2009

The Academic Chair'sHandbook, 2/eDaniel W. Wheeler, Alan T.Seagren, Linda Wysong Becker,Edward R. Kinley, Dara D.Mlinek, & Kenneth J. Robson

$40.00 • cloth • 296 pp • 2008

The EssentialAcademic DeanA Practical Guide to CollegeLeadership

Jeffrey L. Buller

$38.00 • paper • 444 pp • 2007

AcademicLeadership, 2/eA Practical Guide to Chairingthe Department

Deryl R. Leaming

$40.00 • cloth • 510 pp • 2007

Leadership in PlaceHow Academic ProfessionalsCan Find Their LeadershipVoice

Jon F. Wergin, Editor

$38.00 • cloth • 272 pp • 2007

Effective LeadershipCommunicationA Guide for Department Chairsand Deans for ManagingDifficult Situations and People

Mary Lou Higgerson & Teddi A. Joyce

$40.00 • cloth • 280 pp • 2007

Chairing AcademicDepartmentsTraditional and EmergingExpectations

N. Douglas Lees

$40.00 • cloth • 352 pp • 2006

The EssentialDepartment ChairA Practical Guide to CollegeAdministration

Jeffrey L. Buller

$33.00 • paper • 312 pp • 2006

The DepartmentChair PrimerLeading and ManagingAcademic Departments

Don Chu

$20.00 • paper • 154 pp • 2006

THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHOBOKEN, NJ 07030-5774

Periodicals

inside rethinking the chair’s roles and responsibilities · interim chairs by william f. rayburn...

Documents