How do you know your department chair is bad, or it's just you? For example, my old chair was gruff and initially I didn't really care for him. As the years went by I realized that he was extremely well organized and knew the bureaucracy. He was quick to respond to emails and knew how to keep a group of dysfunctional academics on an even keel. What makes a bad chair, in your humble opinions?
Signs you have a bad department chair
-
In 3 years my chair has never returned an email.
He also throws up his hands at student problems, declaring it other people's issues.
Last semester he decided to go to China for a week last minute when his wife went for business. That week was advising week.
And I'm just getting started...
-
Meetings are bad if they are poorly-organized, pointless, and/or held too frequently. But good meetings are often the best, most effective way to communicate about department issues...especially if you want to hear what other members of the department have to say.
So...a chair who never holds meetings isn't necessarily doing me any favors.
-
How do you know you have a bad chair? From my observation over twenty years with two great chairs, a couple of mediocre and several awful:
Lots of lawsuits.
Favoring the input of a few, especially when those are people with titles but limited views.
Changing the terms of agreements whenever s/he feels like it (good chairs do not lie/break deals).
Making decisions on merit increases in ways that do not align with merit (especially if it means favoring friends/fellow cabal members).
Not being a political scientist (receivership sucks).
Sees themselves as entirely an agent of the dean (receivership really sucks). -
I'm in a small department at a large teaching-oriented university.
Our former chair lived 100 miles from campus, would only come into work once a week and never called meetings.
It wasn't until she was forced out by the dean's office that we realized how far astray the department was.
She is a horrible person, but I think the fact that she never called meetings nor was ever around should have been a sign that she was a bad chair.
-
Refuses to answer questions as straightforward as, "My colleague got a raise and I did not; I would like to know what concrete things I could do next year if I wanted to get a raise," with the conversation ending in the concession that I probably should have gotten a raise.
Is so conflict-averse that s/he refuses to hold department meetings, with the result that we never actually resolve any department issues. The decisions then devolve to the chair when it reaches a crisis point.
Tries to hide these decisions to avoid backlash.
Etc.
-
delegates to the point of not doing anything himself or herself. Keeps putting pressure on assistant professors. Asks them to do the prospective student outreach, knowing they won't say no. Worried about upsetting the Dean, and thus, not willing to rock the boat by even asking for anything that could make the AP's life any easier.
-
1. Part of your annual review is to "eat in the faculty lounge more"
2. You get corrected on your grammar in simple e-mails.
3. Essentially told me that nobody can get a better teaching review because that would be not good. So everybody gets the same. Average.
4. Hasn't published anything in 20 years.
5. Moody as hell. Never know exactly who you will be talking with.
6. Micromanage in areas where they can, aka non-teaching areas.
7. I was told at one point I was "talking to other faculty too much".
8. Was told that I couldn't wear jeans expect on Fridays. Like Office Space, you see.
-
I'm curious: define "lots" of lawsuits? How many is lots? More than 1?
Oh, and Sadie: would the following constitute sexual harassment, in your view? A chair sending his female TAs an email inviting them aboard his boat telling them to not forget their bikinis?
How do you know you have a bad chair? From my observation over twenty years with two great chairs, a couple of mediocre and several awful:
Lots of lawsuits.
Favoring the input of a few, especially when those are people with titles but limited views.
Changing the terms of agreements whenever s/he feels like it (good chairs do not lie/break deals).
Making decisions on merit increases in ways that do not align with merit (especially if it means favoring friends/fellow cabal members).
Not being a political scientist (receivership sucks).
Sees themselves as entirely an agent of the dean (receivership really sucks).