TWU Department Chair

TWU Department Chair

Personal Approach:

Consistent with the job announcement, I see my role as a facilitator. I think I have to promote collaboration and mutual support among the faculty, staff, students, and administration. Attaining that goal requires attending to the confluence of diverse, and sometimes seemingly competing influences, specifically:

Being aware of the differences in interests, personal style, demands, and commitment of various individual and collective constituencies.

Helping them to recognize and meld these differences.

Being patient and supportive—employing communication skills.

Fostering and promoting functional and productive interactions.

I realize each person has perspectives that meet her or his needs. I believe open, honest sharing of these views is necessary to addressing demands that impact everyone individually and collectively. Not that simply voicing differences will solve problems (e.g., the equitable sharing of resources), but that once discrepant perspectives are out in the open and in the mix, those people involved can at least feel heard, attended to, and hopefully respected. I would aim to have decisions accepted as at least “the best we can do at the time,” and allow dissenters latitude, trusting that a diverse mix of views, resources, and interests will produce flexible, viable courses of action inclusive of everyone.

To this end, I would like to meet regularly (though even informally) with combinations of the constituencies with whom I’m involved. Clarifying expectations and commitments would lead to various groups meeting those expectations, regardless of how. I see myself as a coordinator, mediator, moderator, much more than a director. I also see myself as a buffer, protecting those involved from unfair or undue demands and influences. I propose to spend the majority of time in interpersonal interactions of various types.

The more this pattern can be engendered and maintained with minimal demands on peoples’ time and resources (almost unconsciously or “taken for granted”) the more successful I would judge the process. I’m not saying, however, that people should be manipulated or even not made aware of what is going on. I’m simply recognizing that most of us would prefer to be “minimally” bothered so we can direct our energies to what we want to be doing.

The key I see to most of these trade-offs—to questions with shifting answers—is implementing a dynamic (or even more dynamical) balance.

While I might have a vision or agenda for the department, I don’t have a mission. What I mean is that I don’t have a need to have the department strive for some preconceived goal that has to be met to my specification(s). Although having people share research interests and work in concert on projects is to be encouraged, I would respect each individual’s autonomy, recognizing each person has his or her own style and plans in mind. If junior faculty or students choose to collaborate, fine; if not, I would still do my best to support their endeavors. Even my research interests are more unique and my own. I doubt may people would want to collaborate with me or be as invested as I am in my area, though I hope they would be interested in my input an views. Frankly, at the moment I’m more into conceptualizing and theory than empirical studies.

I’m not foolish enough to believe my plans will always go smoothly or be as functional as I would like. However, I do see them as aspirational and flexible—and open to spontaneous adaptation as circumstances change. To be honest, I also see my own needs, views, and life stresses as part of the mix—I’m not prone to martyrdom.

I know I will need a reasonable “introduction” period, where I can mostly experience the patterns already established. Connecting with people—getting to know them and allowing them to feel me out and become comfortable with me, my quirks, my style—will be essential to provide a foundation on which to build and from which to work. I also realize that period cannot go on indefinitely. This process should prove interesting and challenging for everyone, and I plan to be inclusive and open about its progress, welcoming input and feedback, be guided as well as exerting my own influence.

Style: Informal, first name basis. Respect accorded through actions—earned and maintained—not title.

Weaknesses: Tendency to become angry at perceived injustices, showing feelings readily (frowning, scowling).

Strengths: Organized, responsible, sense of humor, appreciation of chaos.

Questions/Areas to Garner Information

Initial: How is the department organized now? Meetings? DOE’s? Evaluation Procedures (feedback for teaching, tenure/promotion, student grading/progress)? Stability (turnover, leaves, part-time)? Involvement of constituencies (faculty, students, staff)? Budget?

What is the difference between being in A&S viz. Education? Difference between large and small university?

Load: 12 month appointment, number of courses, committee responsibilities, doctoral committee involvement/DGS functions

Student Thoughts: Number of graduate/undergraduate. Composition (diversity background, age, gender, etc.) How selected? Support? Typical length of program? How included/involved in program?

Faculty Thoughts: How many, turn-over rate, longevity, work load and distributions,

Staff Thoughts: How many, turn-over rate, longevity, work load and distributions, who assigned to whom how

Administration Thoughts: Meetings (how often, length), Departmental Structure,

Compensation Considerations: Salary, Retirement, Vacation, Medical/Dental Coverage, Moving expenses, Travel expenses, Continuing Education (Courses), Retirement Coverages

Living Arrangements: Cost of Living, Apartments, Proximity to Campus, Possible Faculty Housing or Dorm “Parent,” Access to Exercise Equipment

Social Aspects: Faculty informal socializing, socializing with students,

Other: Computer/technical availability (hardware and software), tech support, server resources

No pictures? Diversity composition of department?

Relationships with other departments.

Relationship with Dean, President? What if disagreements-how would I approach?

Practitioner /Scientist vs. Scientist Practitioner

Status of junior/other faculty members in the promotion/tenure process (what are typical criteria)?

Talking to Judy Worell about this move and the interview process, she suggested the question about disagreements with superiors, which upon reflection, should/could be asked both directions.