atlasleadershipresearch - Tumblr blog

[atlasleadershipresearch]

How to Evaluate Collegiality

by Jeffrey L. Buller

This article first appeared in Academic Leader, vol. 28, num. 8, August 2012. Reprinted with permission. For more information about Academic Leader, click here.

Two concerns are often raised when department chairs attempt to address breaches of collegiality through the faculty evaluation process. The first is whether they’re permitted to do so at all, since very few faculty handbooks list collegialityas a criterion for reviews. The second is whether evaluation is an effective means of dealing with these challenges, since collegiality is often regarded as something highly subjective and not measurable or verifiable in any consistent way. The first of these concerns can be dealt with rather quickly, while the second will require a much more extended discussion.

In the United States, courts have ruled consistently that it is appropriate to consider collegiality in personnel decisions, even when an institution’s policies do not specifically list it as a criterion. See, for example, Cipriano (2011) 153–163. So deans and chairs are at liberty to take collegiality into account whenever they regard its presence as a positive factor in a faculty member’s performance or its absence as a detriment. But since it’s relatively uncommon for colleges and universities to describe collegiality in their policies and procedures, the second concern can actually become more difficult. After all, how do you evaluate something that is undefined, apparently nebulous in nature, and not even referred to on most forms used as part of a faculty evaluation?

Identify specific behaviors, not opinions or personality traits

Perhaps the best way of dealing with this challenge is to identify the specific behaviors that, in the professional setting where you work, may be regarded as contributing to or diminishing collegiality. In other words, it’s not enough to say that a person is irritable or argumentative. People are entitled to their own personalities, even when those personalities annoy us or are far different from our own. However, people are not entitled to engage in behavior that makes the work of your program more difficult. Everyone can be in a bad mood occasionally; they can even be in a bad mood every single day. But if their mood causes them to engage in activities that affect the quality of your program, you not only have the right, you have the duty to address it. What you’re trying to change is not the person’s mood, attitude, or personality itself, but rather specific behaviors that are resulting from that mood, attitude, or personality.

If you’re in doubt about how to tell the difference, ask yourself the following three questions:

1. What is the specific problem that I am observing?

2. What are the specific actions or behaviors of the faculty member that are causing those problems?

3. What are the specific steps I need the faculty member to take in order to eliminate or reduce those problems?

Let’s explore how these questions might function in an actual situation. Imagine that you’re responsible for evaluating faculty members in a programthat includes Dr. Curmudgeon, a professor who always seems to be irritable and treats colleagues and students with contempt. You’ve received a lot ofcomplaints about Dr. Curmudgeon, and you yourself have been on the receiving endof this faculty member’s foul temper. So you decide to do something about it the next time you’re evaluating Dr. Curmudgeon. Near the end of your written review, you include the following paragraph:

Finally, I feel that I must address the issue of your frequent irritability. It’s getting to the point where I dread your presence at meetings, and a number of your colleagues have mentioned that they feel they must “walk on eggshells” whenever you’re around. If you continue in this manner, it seems unlikely that many of those in your department will vote in your favor the next time you undergo post-tenure review, and I find myself reluctant to assign you junior faculty members to mentor because your temperament is so consistently unpleasant.

You dispatch this evaluation to Dr. Curmudgeon, a grievance is filed against you, and you’re shocked to find that the appeals committee rules that your evaluation was completely inappropriate. What you did wrong was to base your evaluation, not on any specific actions that caused adocumented harm to your program, but on Dr. Curmudgeon’s personality and how it made you and others in the department feel. Your feelings ofannoyance matter neither more nor less than do Dr. Curmudgeon’s feelings of irritability. What you’ve done is confuse a pet peeve with a valid indication of a faculty member’s performance, and that mistake could invalidate your entire evaluation.

What you should have done instead is to focus on those three questions raised earlier.

1. What is the specific problem that I am observing? Are students dropping Dr. Curmudgeon’s courses at a significantly higher rate than those of his peers and indicating to you that the professor’s behavior is the cause? Has the advising load of other members of the department increased disproportionately because Dr. Curmudgeon does not believe that any student is good enough to work with him? Have committees failed to meet deadlines because they can’t obtain a quorum when they know that Dr. Curmudgeon is likely to attend?

2. What are the specific actions or behaviors of the faculty member that are causing those problems? Do students report when they drop the class that Dr. Curmudgeon called their questions “stupid” and made demeaning remarks to them? Have advisees reported that Dr. Curmudgeon belittled them because of the way they dressed or the books they read in their own time? Do members of Dr. Curmudgeon’s department say that there has been a chilling effect on discussions because no one is willing to be the next person publicly ridiculed?

3. What are the specific steps I need the faculty member to take in order to eliminate or reduce those problems? Can you establish guidelines for what Dr. Curmudgeon needs to do as a result of the problems you’ve documented? You may need to say something like, “Look. It doesn’t matter to me at all how you feel about me, your colleagues, and your students. But it does matter to me how you treat us. In order for our program to  grow and receive increased funding, I need every member of the department to treat every other member with professionalism and respect. From now on, when you disagree with someone, I’ll expect you to direct at your students like the future colleagues that some of them will develop to be, not as objects of your scorn and humiliation. Those actions are hindering your pedagogical effectiveness.”

Use the evaluation process to begin a continued dialogue on the type of behaviors that are acceptable in your professional setting

In order to make the evaluation process more constructive and forward-looking, reviewers should spend more time talking about what the faculty member should do than about what he or she should not do. Even in the caseof Dr. Curmudgeon, it’s not particularly effective to end the conversation by talking only about what went wrong. But it’s far easier to accentuate the positive if you’ve already held a unit-wide conversation about what collegiality is and come to a consensus about the type of behavior you expect of one another. See Buller (2012) 218–219, 237–238. For instance, if your discussions have led to the creation of a conduct code or statement of departmental values, you’ll have a context in which to offer positive advice. “Remember what we said when we discussed collegiality and professionalism at our retreat last August,” you might say. “Working together constructively means acting on the assumption that we all care about our program equally. So, when you badger the newer faculty as ‘self-centered and lazy,’ you’re stifling the sort of debate we need in order to make our discipline successful.”

Of course, the danger with setting behavioral guidelines that are too specific is that passive-aggressive faculty members may attempt to use those statements against us. “Our departmental code says we have to restrict our disagreements to the issues instead of the person,” someone might claim. “Show me where it says that we can’t roll our eyes when we do so.” In these cases, you may find it valuable review with the faculty member what the intent of the code was and how benefits accrue from a collegial work environment. It’s impossible to develop a statement of principles so comprehensive that it addresses every possible contingency, so it may be necessary at times to discuss what the principles are designed to achieve, rather than the specific phrasing of the principles themselves.

While matters of collegiality can never be addressed solely through the process of faculty evaluation, periodic reviews do provide administrators with an opportunity to deal with clear breaches of professional conduct, recommend alternative behaviors for the future, and underscore the significance of treating one another with respect and mutual support. Since the fundamental mission of a program is to provide a high level of instruction, scholarship, and service, it becomes difficult or impossible to achieve that goal when faculty members indulge in non-collegial behavior. It’s for that reason that unprofessional actions may appropriately be addressed as part of a faculty evaluation.

References

Buller, J. L. The Essential Department Chair: A Comprehensive Desk Reference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012.

Cipriano, R. E. Facilitating a Collegial Department in Higher Education: Strategies for Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Jeffrey L. Buller is one of the senior partners in ATLAS, a firm providing academic leadership training and assessment worldwide. His book, Best Practices in Faculty Evaluation: A Practical Guide for Academic Leaders, is available from Jossey-Bass, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other booksellers. ▼

[atlasleadershipresearch]

The Pathology of Loneliness

Robert E. Cipriano

Loneliness is more than being alone. It is the perception of being alone and isolated that matters most. It is, at its most basic level, a state of mind, the inability to find meaning in one’s life when other people aren’t around … or when someone feels a lack of connection to the people who are around.

That later point is worth remembering. People can feel totally alone even while surrounded by hundreds of people. Others can feel content in solitude; they may even prefer it. But for those who only feel most alive when they have close connections to other people, the recent global pandemic has been devastating. Many people have experienced an emptiness they have seldom felt before. They feel unwanted. They crave human contact. But, ironically, their state of mind that defines their loneliness can make it more difficult for them to form connections with people.

Loneliness can lead to a decline in both physical and mental health. This problem can be exacerbated for academic professionals who work in an environment that is often filled with introverts who thrive on solitude. When extraverts hear their colleagues talk about how refreshed they’ve become through social isolation or how productive the pandemic has made them, they can become depressed. They may even contemplate harming themselves.

Like the faculty, students, too, can be afflicted with loneliness that has only intensified during the pandemic. These feelings are made even worse by several factors:

Their inability to meet new people.

The ongoing pressures of their papers, exams, and presentations.

Their need to manage their finances on their own, perhaps for the first time

The challenges of maintaining relationships with family and friends who are now at home

The sheer experience of being in an unfamiliar environment

The complexities of time management

The tendency to question why they are attending college in the first place

ATLAS has a variety free materials it can share with those who are struggling with loneliness. Simply write us at questions@atlasleadership.com to request them. We will also continue to provide additional advice in future postings here and in our newsletter. You can sign up for the ATLAS e-newsletter by writing us at the same address, questions@atlasleadership.com.

[atlasleadershipresearch]

Peacemaking 101

Robert E. Cipriano

You are the chair of a department of six full-time faculty members. You have been chair for three years, are tenured, and hold the rank of full professor. Four of your faculty members are tenured, three hold the rank of associate professor, and one, Dr. Bill Dudas, is a full professor. One faculty member, Dr. Amanda Thompson, is a tenure-track assistant professor in her fourth year at the university. You consider Thompson your most valuable and productive faculty member. She is a master teacher, a great scholar with many databased articles published in highly regarded journals, and on five university committees as well as three key committees in the department. She is project director for a US Department of Education five-year grant to fund students in the department’s master’s degree program.

Trouble in Paradise

Thompson asks to speak with you about a problem she is having with Dr. Dudas and suggests the two of you meet in a nearby coffee shop off campus. After exchanging pleasantries, Thompson indicates she is actively looking for another job. You are astounded and ask why. She tells you that Dr. Dudas is unbearable: he makes disparaging remarks to her, tells students she is incompetent, rolls his eyes when she speaks, and is toxic to her. You tell her you will take care of this and reassure her that she is a wonderful colleague who is very valuable to the department. When you return to campus, you establish a meeting with the dean for the next morning.

Meeting with the Dean

After a restless night of non-sleep, you attend your meeting with the academic dean. You explain the dilemma to Dean Aptness and indicate how you can’t afford to lose Dr. Thompson. Dean Aptness states that Dr. Dudas is a tenured full professor and he “can’t really be that bad.” The Dean says she is thankful you are such a great chair, you are doing a tremendous job, and she knows you will handle this. Maybe, just maybe, this will all go away soon. After this “atta-boy” speech, you are dumbfounded at the lack of help you are given. What would you do in this or a similar case?

Being Proactive

What if:

Your department had a statement on collegiality in your mission statement?

You had the support of the president, provost, dean, HR department, and full-time faculty regarding the importance of collegiality? 

You had knowledge of what the US courts have ruled regarding personnel decisions as it concerns collegiality? 

You had a meeting with your faculty to discuss the importance of working in a collegial department, what constitutes collegiality, and what comprises non-collegiality?

Your university had collegiality as a criterion for tenure, promotion, and reappointment? 

Your university prominently featured the importance of collegiality in position announcements for new faculty? 

A campus culture was created that encouraged faculty members to hold each other accountable for professional standards of behavior?

The faculty handbook contained clearly stated expectations for civil behavior for faculty, staff, students, and the administration?

Faculty attended campus-wide workshops about the importance of the university climate on morale and productivity?

There existed an objective instrument that measured a person’s collegial behavior or lack thereof?

Collegiality was incentivized so that people were motivated to behave in a collegial way?


Non-collegial behavior is on the rise throughout all institutions of higher education. We have seen how one toxic person can ruin a once-great department. 

Robert E. Cipriano, a recognized expert on the topic of collegiality, is professor emeritus at Southern Connecticut State University, an advisory board member of Academic Leader, and a senior partner in ATLAS: Academic Training, Leadership & Assessment Services 

[atlasleadershipresearch]

Collegiality as a Criterion for Personnel Decisions

Robert E. Cipriano, EdD and Richard L. Riccardi, ScD

Although some criticism still remains [see, for example, AAUP (2006) 39-40], case law in the United States has continued to uphold the use of collegiality as a factor in making decisions regarding faculty employment, tenure, promotion, and termination. (See Mayberry v. Dees and University of Baltimore v. Iz.) Indeed, the lack of civility or collegiality can be used as a legitimate basis toterminate a full- time faculty member (Bresnick v. Manhattanville College, Stein v. Kent State University).

Most position descriptions for college and university faculty will include benchmarks subtly indicating assumptions about collegiality. For instance, many universities include within the teaching or service components of tenure and promotion documents a requirement that the candidate demonstrates an “ability to work well with colleagues,” “show good academic citizenship,” or “contribute to a collegial atmosphere.” The department chair is the primary person who assumes responsibility for monitoring these types of activities among the faculty.

Moreover, it is the job of the chair to determine whether faculty members meet expected standards for professionalism and institutional citizenship when decisions about tenure, promotion in rank, or reappointment are made.

Cipriano and Riccardi (The Department Chair, accepted for pub- lication, 2012) completed a survey of department chairs regarding their thoughts on collegiality. A total of 451 chairs responded to the survey. The following question was asked of the chairs: “If there was an objective, validated tool that assessed collegial behavior, would you be in favor of having collegiality as a criterion for tenure and promotion?” Forty-six people (10 percent) responded “no,” 49 people (11 percent) responded “not sure,”and 354 people (79 percent) responded “yes.” Upon further analysis, the reason more people indicated “not sure” than indicated “no” was that collegialitywas thought to be a vague, ambiguous, and subjective term. There was trepidation that collegiality could be a code word for “getting someone” who disagreed with a senior faculty member (i.e., someone who smoked or was overweight or had a different political belief than you).

The Collegiality Assessment Matrix  (CAM)

What is needed is not only a consistent definition of collegiality but also a standard instrument that can be used to evaluate its presence or absence. The value of such an instrument is twofold. First, like a rubric used to grade a class assignment, the evaluation instrument can be used both to clarify exactly what the expectations are and to evaluate as objectively and coherently as possible whether those expectations have been met. Second, by creating a common instrument that can be used to assess the collegiality of faculty members at different institutions, in different disciplines, and at different ranks, it will be possible to develop a set of nationally normed data that can clarify an issue that has hitherto been debated only on the basis of anecdotal evidence.

Cipriano and Buller (2012) have developed an instrument, the CAM, which has been used in many universities across the country. In addition to the CAM, a faculty member can complete a similar instrument—the Self-Assessment Matrix (S-AM). It now becomes possible to compare a person’s rating of his or her own collegial behavior with how others (dean, chair, peers) perceive the same behaviors. So there are objective assessment instruments that can be used to measure a person’s collegial behaviors.

Chairs’  perceptions of noncollegial behaviors by faculty members Cipriano and Riccardi (The Department Chair, 2013) completed a study to determine how chairs would deal with a toxic faculty member. One question asked chairs whether they are currently dealing with or have ever had to deal with a noncollegial, toxic faculty member; 80 chairs indicated that no, they have not in the past or are not currently having to deal with a non- collegial faculty member; 413 chairs responded that yes, they have or are currently dealing with a noncollegial faculty member.

Collegiality as a fourth criterion: The time is now

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has influenced the conversation of including collegiality as a fourth criterion to be used in personnel decisions. It is clear that one person spewing venom can ruin a once-great department. Why do we in the academy tolerate andaccept this behavior? Perhaps it is time for the AAUP to put its considerable weight and influence behind a movement to rid the academy of its twin evils: noncollegial and uncivil peers who intimidate and bully others.

Clearly the table is set; incivility is on the rise (Cipriano, p. 8), there is an identifiable need to include collegiality as a fourth criterion for personnel decisions, and we have an instrument to assess a person’s collegial behavior. If the AAUP wishes to continue to stifle a meaningful dialogue regarding collegiality, it risks being relegated to a 20th century behemoth so inflexible and stuck in its own “traditional” ways that it no longer has the capacity to lead or to be taken seriously.Most universities require students (and often staff ) to follow a code of conduct, pledging to uphold principles such as mutual respect, dignity, and civility. Is it truly that unreasonable to expect our colleagues in the faculty to live by those same rules? Or have we forgotten that we too were once “students,” sitting in those very chairs that face us now? Why not “set the example” and make this a “teachable moment” that our students can use for the rest of their lives?

References

American Association of University Professors. (2006). “On Collegiality as a Criterion for Faculty Evaluation.” Policy Documents and Reports. (10thed.) Washington, D.C.: AAUP. This document is also available online at www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/collegiality.htm. RetrievedApril 18, 2011.

Bresnick v. Manhattanville College, 864F. Supp. 327, Ed. Law Rep. 121.

Cipriano, R.E. (2011). Facilitating a Collegial Department in Higher Education: Strategies for Success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cipriano, R.E. and Buller, J.L. (2012). The Collegiality Assessment Matrix: Its Time is Now. Academic Leader, 28, 1.

Mayberry v. Dees, 663 F.2nd 502 (4thCir. Ct. 1981).

Stein v. Kent State University Board ofTrustees, 994 F. Supp. 898 (N.D. Ohio1998) aff ’d 181 F. 3rd 103 (6th Cir.1999).University of Baltimore v. Iz, 716 A.2d1107 (Md. Ct. App. 1998).

Robert E. Cipriano is senior partner in ATLAS, an internationally acclaimed business consulting in academic leadership.  Email: rcipriano@atlasleadership.ccom.

[atlasleadershipresearch]

Emotional, Physical, Financial and Mental Health Effects of Non-Collegial Colleagues

Robert E. Cipriano, Ed.D.

Tracy Ford has just completed her Ph.D. and is searching for a full-time position in a university. She is a much sought-after young academic as she has published six articles and presented at a national conference. Also, she has experience in teaching in an adjunct position, and her evaluations were outstanding.  She is attending a national conference and is searching job listings for a position. One university catches her eye, and she is excited as it is in the part of the country where she wants to reside, and the positions sounds as if it was written specifically for her. Tracy discusses with colleagues the department where she will be if she is offered the job. The response by every one she speaks with is the same:  WARNING. TOXIC. STAY AWAY.  People explain that the department is lethal and dysfunctional. Members of the department are in open warfare with each other. In sum and summation, it is the most awful place to work. She does not apply, and no one else does either.

Incivility is on the rise in our country. Academia is no exception to this phenomenon. Uncivil behavior may be subtle, but its effects are not. The following is a telltale, albeit partial, list of the devastating effects of working in a parlous department wrought with uncivil and non -collegial behavior.  

Older, more seasoned faculty worn down and becoming disengaged from the department and the institution

Increased absenteeism and tardiness

Diminished work quality of once-productive faculty members

Poor advisement of students

High turnover by faculty—young, untenured faculty leave the university entirely

No department celebrations or social alliances

Increasing faculty isolation and alienation

Increased illness and health issues.

A greater number of grievances filed than in the past.

Lack of or minimal attendance to scheduled faculty meetings.

It is somewhat mystifying that two departments seemingly identical in their composition and demographics are completely disparate in their climate and culture. Each department may have eight faculty members, 150 students majors, and approximately the same composite make-up of the faculty (age, ethnicity, and educational levels); however, one department is enthusiastic, collaborative, supportive, engaged, and intellectual (faculty members clearly enjoy coming to work) and the other department is isolated, deadening, toxic, and depressing (faculty members stay away as much as possible – they unmistakably dislike coming to work). The salient difference may be that in one department a faculty member treats his or her fellow colleagues in demeaning, degrading, non-collegial, disrespectful, and uncivil ways. This lack of civility and collegiality can deleteriously affect the department, its students, professional staff, and other faculty members; leading to a dystopian culture.

The above constitute the emotional, physical, and mental health effects of having a non-collegial person in their department. Incivility in the workplace, whether, subtle or overt, has proven to be a destructive force. A positive change in the culture of the department will either be white blood cells that will heal the department or, if allowed to remain unchanged, continue to persist as malignant cells that will continue to sap its strength.

Colleges and universities throughout the United States are hard-pressed to function effectively because of a lack of adequate funding. During the mid 1970s, local and state government provided for 75% of budgets of state institutions of higher education. Today, local and state government supports only 23% of the budgets of state institutions.  Intuitively, I believe that there is a significant financial loss of money and resources that an uncivil non-collegial person costs a college or university. This is in addition to the poor reputation that the entire department or university has to bear. I attempted to analyze some of the financial damage associated with failing to reign in a person that is so destructive. The following is a partial list of the numerical costs that a mean-spirited, toxic person who refuses to collaborate and consistently causes problems produces.  People reading this article may place a dollar amount next to the items displayed, as they may vary from university to university and/or from one part of the country to another.

Employee Assistance Program – This is a cost that institutions assume to help an employee cope with personal issues.

Time spent by human resources staff.

Time spent by department chair, deans, and faculty members.

Time spent by provost and president.

Time spent by anger management and counseling services.

Legal costs for internal university lawyers and outside counsel.

Time spent aiding students, staff, and faculty members who have been victimized.

Time spent interviewing, recruiting, and educating/training replacements for the departed uncivil person.

Faculty burnout, leading to decreased commitment and increased distress.

Time spent calming or disciplining the uncivil person.

Time spent by search committees charged with hiring new faculty members and staff for people who retire early or seek employment elsewhere.

Compensation for both internal and external consultants, therapists, and mediators.

Settlement fees successfully litigated by an alleged uncivil person (claims of wrongful-termination).

Stress-induced physical and psychological illness.

Victims requesting and being granted a paid leave of absence.

Time spent and costs associated with grievances and litigation.

I am relatively certain that this partial list can be expanded based upon each institutions unique characteristics, culture, and commitment to address this situation. In the final analysis, all members of the university community should take a consistent and proactive stance in greatly eliminating toxic, uncivil, and nasty people hell bent on producing chaos and dystopia in what should be a pleasant environment in which to work. Perhaps by assessing the costs that toxic people drain from a university can motivate administrators and faculty to band together to work toward addressing this problem.

Robert E. Cipriano, Ed.D. is professor emeritus at Southern Connecticut State University, a senior partner at ATLAS (Academic Training Leadership & Assessment Services, an internationally recognized consulting firm), an advisory board member of Academic Leader. His most recent book is titled A Toolkit For College Professors (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015). Contact him at  rcipriano@atlasleadership.com

[atlasleadershipresearch]

Campus Incivility and Free  Speech: A Contemporary Dilemma

by Robert E. Cipriano and Jeffrey L. Buller

Reprinted with permission from Academic Leader https://www.academic-leader.com/topics/institutional-culture/campus-incivility-and-free-speech-a-contemporary-dilemma. For subscription information to Academic Leader, see https://www.magnapubs.com/product/subscription/academic-leader/

“Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every manpresent his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entirepopulation. Such an ideal of external liberty can never be fully attained but mustbe sought unremittingly if scientific thought, and philosophical and creativethinking in general are to be advanced as far as possible.”

—Albert Einstein (1950, p. 13)

Imagine this scenario. Dr. Upton O. Goode, chair of the Department of Organic Astral Therapyat Dicey Incline State University (DISU), has invited Ms. Stuckin D’Past, the founder of agroup that’s widely perceived as advocating white nationalism, to deliver a campus addresson current challenges facing society. Dr. Goode has required all students majoring in organic astral therapy to attend, opened his own courses to Ms. D’Past for further discussion, and invited all other students to attend the public lecture.

The title that Ms. D’Past has chosen for her speech, “The Crime of Diversity,” has attracted concern from students, faculty, and administrators alike. A large majority of those on campus believe that the speech will support the agenda for white nationalism and encourage violence. The League of Students for Diversity (LSD)has planned a massive protest at the event and reached out to DISU students, employees, and members ofthe community to join them. LSD has stated in emails that it intends to disrupt the event—by any and allmeans possible—to stop Ms. D’Past from speaking.

Mr. Barry D. Hatchett, the president of DISU, is afraid that if the speech is allowed to proceed, violence will erupt that his campus’s security service will be unable to contain. The rhetoric around Ms. D’Past’s appearance has so become strident that the local mayor and town council believe public safety may be at risk. Several outside groups, both supportive of and opposed to Ms. D’Past’s group, have threatened to appear at the public event and advocate for their causes. President Hatchett is on the verge of canceling the presentation entirely when he receives an email from Dr. Goode indicating that any attempt by the administration to block Ms. D’Past from speaking would be regarded as violating the First Amendment and its guarantees of free speech as well as Dr. Goode’s own academic freedom.

An official statement by Ms. D’Past said that she hoped all “right thinking” members of the community wouldcome to the event and demonstrate their support of her right to speak and opposition to the “fascist tactics” of groups like LSD. Hearing the responses to this statement from listeners to call-in radio, Mr. Hatchettbecomes even more concerned about what might happen at the public event.

President Hatchett knows that he must act quickly since the day of Ms. D’Past’s arrival is rapidly approaching. He calls his cabinet into a joint session with his governing board and tries to work out a plan for how to proceed. The group makes the following accommodations. DISU will

budget an additional $250,000 (taken from funds originally set aside for staff bonuses) for police to

attend and monitor the public event and do what they can to prevent violence;

offer Ms. D’Past a “safe space” to deliver her presentation;

publicize the fact that the First Amendment does not provide anyone with the right to disrupt campus activities;

establish bias response teams (BRTs) to monitor this event and similar activities in the future that have the potential for resulting in violence; and

take a public stance that freedom of speech allows people to state their opinions without interference, retaliation, or punishment from the government.

Questions

1.  What is your opinion of this proposed solution?

2.  What would you do if you were the following people?

a.  President Hatchett b.Dr. Goode

c.  The president of DISU’s faculty senate

d. The president of the LSD

e.  The chair of the governing board

f.  The director of campus safety at DISU

g.  The mayor of the city where DISU is located

h. The chief of police of the city where DISU is located

Background

We’ll suggest a few possible answers to these questions, but first let’s look at some background for ourhypothetical case study. What is now known as the Free Speech Movement (FSM) began in 1964 as a series of protests at the University of California, Berkeley. These protests reached their climax on December 2,1964, when, after a rally featuring the folk singer and activist Joan Baez, students occupied the administration building. This sit-in led to the arrest of 773 people. Many faculty members at the university supported the students and provided them with bail money. Clark Kerr, president of the University of California during these protests, refused to expel the student activists, arguing, “The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views. Only in this way can it best serve American democracy” (Berdahl, 2004). Kerr was fired three weeks afterRonald Reagan took office as the governor of California.

The issue of free speech on college and university campuses is as old as education itself and as current as today’s news. Institutions of higher education often find themselves torn between their desire to create environments where students and professors remain physically safe and their mission to protect academic freedom and the right of free speech. What can academic leaders do to increase the likelihood that constructive conflicts between ideas don’t escalate into destructive, violent acts?

Hate speech

One place to begin is with an understanding of what hate speech is and what it isn’t. Some people use the expression hate speech to label any ideas they find difficult, troubling, controversial, or offensive. But there isno such thing as a right, either constitutional or academic, not to be offended. Legally, hate

speech refers to expressions that insult or demean a person or a group of people on the basis of such attributes as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, and gender. But hate speech is not required to be speech per se. Nonverbal symbols may also be used to express hatred. For example, althoughthe United States Supreme Court has ruled that burning the American flag (Texas v. Johnson, 491

U.S. 397 1989) and wearing armbands as an act of protest (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 1969) are examples of protected speech, destruction of private property or theuse of these same nonverbal symbols to threaten someone is not. As a result, painting a swastika on the interior wall of your home library is permitted, but painting a swastika on the wall of your public library is not. Free speech also does not protect those who engage in defamation of character, child pornography, harassment, invasion of privacy, and other types of expression already restricted by law. In addition, colleges and universities retain the right to establish the time, place, and manner in which protests or other potentiallydisruptive expressions of free speech may occur.

In US law, hate speech is not regarded as a separate category of speech. Whether one likes it or not, mosthate speech is protected under the First Amendment as a variety of “unpopular speech.” A number of countries (including Germany) do have laws prohibiting incitement to racial or ethnic hatred, but the United States isn’t one of them. The rationale for protecting unpopular speech is that there is simply no practicalway to regulate hate speech without censoring ideas, and censoring ideas should be particularly

offensive to everyone, especially those who work in higher education. Gresham’s Law in economics states that “bad money drives out good.” But a type of Reverse Gresham’s Law applies to higher education: good ideas drive out bad ideas. As the Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis established in the case

of Whitney v. California, “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avertthe evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence”(Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 1927). In other words, the solution to “bad speech” is not less speech butmore.

It is important to remember, too, that in the United States, speech protections under the First Amendment apply only to governmental speech. So the law works differently for public than it does for private universities. A religious college or seminar is legally entitled to restrict what is said or taught on its campus. But if a privateschool advertises itself as an environment that is open to all ideas or where opinions may be freely exchanged,it has then provided a contractual obligation to permit free speech. So if someone

violates the right of free speech at a public university, it could become a federal matter. If, on the other hand, someone violates the right of free speech at a private university, it could become a civil matter. Theuniversity is sued, not prosecuted. (See, for example, “First Amendment on Private Campuses,” 2015, and Dynia & Hudson, 2017.)

Conclusions

Readers will undoubtedly have their own ideas about how they would handle the hypothetical situation atDISU. We all approach challenges differently, based on our own experience and the traditions at our universities. But here is one possible way of proceeding. First, it’s important to identify where the central issue in this case study lies. People merely believe that Ms. D’Past’s speech will support the agenda for whitenationalism and encourage violence, but the LSD has explicitly threatened in emails that it intends to disruptthe event by any and all means possible. Canceling the public event would thus involve prior restraint of freespeech, which is illegal, but LSD’s documented incitement of others to violence or lawless action is notprotected free speech and may suitably be investigated by the police.

Second, while President Hatchett is suitably concerned about the safety of his faculty and students, many of the solutions proposed by his cabinet and governing board take only a short-term approach. With the exception of creating Bias Response Teams (themselves questionable since they appear to be designed forprior restraint of free speech), none of the proposed actions involve substantive, long-

term approaches. DISU should also consider developing publications or web pages that explain what free speech is, what “time, place, and manner” restrictions are, and how the institution will both protect free speech and address expressions that are deemed threats or incitements to violence. In other words, DISU should make this challenge a teachable moment. A good example of an institution that has created this typeof website is North Carolina State University (Free Speech, 2020).

Third, President Hatchett should consider launching a program that educates students—as well as facultymembers and administrators—on how differences of opinion can be expressed constructively and how todiscuss sensitive or contentious issues. Excellent examples of this approach are Widener University’s Common Ground Initiative (Common Ground, n.d.), the University of Alaska at Anchorage’s programs Start Talking(Landis, 2008) and Toxic Friday (Roderick, 2016), and Florida Atlantic University’s Agora Project (The FAU Agora Project, n.d.).

Free speech on college and university campuses will continue to present significant challenges to academic leaders. As with so many of today’s issues, there is no “one size fits all” strategy that can bring about a perfectaccommodation between campus civility and free speech. Addressing the challenges we all face as

academic leaders will require a great deal of effort, compromise, and mutual understanding on the part of students, faculty members, and administrators alike if we want to promote truly free scholarly inquiry whilesimultaneously creating a culture of respect for those who oppose other people’s ideas.

References

Berdahl, R. M. (2004). Clark Kerr memorial. Retrieved

from https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/chancellors/berdahl/speeches/clark-kerr-memorial

Common Ground: Widener University. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://www.widener.edu/about/points-pride/common-ground

Dynia, P. A., & Hudson, D. L. (2017, September). Rights of students. The First Amendment

Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/931/rights-of-students

Einstein, A. (1950). Albert Einstein: Out of my later years. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.

The FAU Agora Project: Florida Atlantic University. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.fau.edu/agora

First Amendment on private campuses. (2015, December 1). Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. Retrieved from https://harvardcrcl.org/first-amendment-on-private-campuses

Free Speech: North Carolina State University. Retrieved from https://www.ncsu.edu/free-speech

Landis, K. (Ed.) (2008). Start talking: A handbook for engaging difficult dialogues in higher education. Anchorage, AK: The University of Alaska Anchorage and Alaska Pacific University.

Roderick, L. (Ed.) (2016). Toxic Friday: Resources for addressing faculty bullying in higher education. Anchorage, AK: The University of Alaska Anchorage.

Robert E. Cipriano, EdD, and Jeffrey L. Buller, PhD, are senior partners with ATLAS—Academic Training, Leadership, & Assessment Services. Reach them at rcipriano@atlasleadership.com and jbuller@atlasleadership.com, respectively.

[atlasleadershipresearch]

Strategies for Promoting Collegiality Institutional-Wide

There are many reasons why many members of the faculty and administration believe that incivility is on the rise throughout higher education. Among the most commonly cited reasons for this increase are:

Program prioritization efforts by governing boards

Economic uncertainty

Repeated mandates to do more with less

Insufficiently prepared and unmotivated students

Pressures to adopt online teaching strategies even when professors have little inclination or training to adopt these methods

The influence of corporate culture on higher education

Increased diversity among students and faculty members making shared values and experiences sometimes less common that before

Increasing workloads

More rigorous standards for tenure and promotion

The use of email as the primary mode of communication

A sense of competition instead of cooperation arising from increased use of peer review for evaluation purposes

Confusion as to what academic freedom really means

Perception of tenure as a guarantee of life time employment

Confusion about what shared governance is and how it is practiced

Attacks on tenure both inside and outside the university

Increased reliance on  adjunct faculty to teach courses

A high turnover rate of presidents, provosts, and deans

In our research, we have found that there are are four major causes of non-collegial and uncivil behavior:

Someone’s self-image is different from the perception of others

Poor communication skills

Lack of ownership or investment in the group process

A perception that non-collegial behavior is permitted

If a college or university is truly interested in promoting a more collegial environment, the best way of doing so is to initiate open and candid discussions about why collegiality is important to all of the institution’s stakeholders.  There should be expectations that collegiality, respect, and civility will permeate the culture and climate of the institution.  In other words, a clear, unambiguous message must be sent regarding the importance of interactions that are always civil, professional, and constructive. Violations of the expectations have to be taken seriously.  Non-collegial behavior cannot be “smiled away.”

Specific Strategies for Promoting Collegiality

In order to promote a more collegial academic environment, the following strategies have proven to be effective by institutions that have adopted them.

Clearly state expectations for civil behavior for faculty, staff, students, and the administration in all handbooks and codes of conduct.

Statements of support for a collegial work environment should be issued by the institution’s president, provost, deans, chairs, and faculty governance structures. These statements should make it clear that non-collegial behavior will not be tolerated.

Collegiality should be established as a fourth criterion (along with teaching, research, and service) for al appropriate performance evaluations.

An institution-wide code of expectations should state, in a positive and constructive manner, the standards that the faculty, administration, staff, and students set themselves for interactions with one another.

Deans and chairs should be educated in conflict management and resolution, effective meeting strategies, and mediation.

The institution’s emphasis on collegiality should be prominently featured in all position announcements.

Search committees should address collegiality in their questions to candidates and references.

Harassment and hostile workplace policies should be expanded to make clear that they apply to more than the institution’s stated group of protected classes.

Training in how to maintain collegial work environments should be provided by Human Resources Offices and programs that promote equity, diversity, and inclusion.

Adopting the above recommendations will begin a discussion of specific ways to help ensure a positive work environment. These strategies draw attention to a topic to long ignored. The importance of working in a collegial university where people are respected and treated with dignity can be an important factor in re-engaging members of faculty and staff. After all, in the final analysis, don’t we all want to be treated with dignity and respect?

[atlasleadershipresearch]

Strategies for Fostering a Collegial Academic Department 

If you attend a conference on higher education – even if you merely browse through the conference program – you’re likely to be amazed by the sheer number of sessions and presentations dealing with collegiality (or the lack thereof). The large number of people attending these sessions may further astonish you. We are all striving for good, open, and transparent communication as a means of achieving our goals in education and research and helping our programs succeed.  Academic disciplines thrive when diverse perspectives can be shared without differences of opinion becoming the basis for rancorous personal attacks and when colleagues work together harmoniously without succumbing to group think – whether you are an untenured assistant professor or a tenured full professor.

Incivility and lack of collegiality are on the rise in institutions of higher education. This phenomenon can range from disputes and tension at one institution to violence at another. It is instructive to note that more than 96% of department chairs have never been trained or educated in being a chair (Cipriano and Riccardi, The Department Chair Revisited, The Department Chair, Winter 2018, Vol. 28, number 3, 18-19). From ATLAS’ many years of presenting information to academic leaders at colleges and universities in the US, Asia, and the Middle East, we have found that more than 80 percent of institutions have horror stories to tell regarding non-collegial behavior of a faculty member. The number one reason that chairs leave their position is because they do not know how to deal with a non-collegial and uncivil faculty member. The bad news is that it is a frustrating challenge in reigning in a person spewing venom. The good news is that there are proved strategies to put a stop to this non-collegial and uncivil behavior.  A campus culture that values collegiality and civility is among the most important contributions a university can make.

As a noun, collegiality means cooperative interaction among colleagues. As an adjective, collegial indicates the way a group of colleagues take collective responsibility for their work together with minimal supervision.

Collegiality is:

A reciprocal relationship among colleagues

A multi-dimensional construct that permeates successful execution of all parts of the tripartite: scholarship, learning, and service

Collaboration and a shared decision-making process that incorporates mutual respect.

As a result, collegiality is not:

Vindictive

Personal

Static  

A power struggle

A synonym for congeniality, i.e., being popular or social or simply appearing to be agreeable

An excuse we can use to take retribution against someone we don’t like personally

The most valuable assets in a department/university are their people, the intellectual capital they possess and the culture they create. When people are in a dysfunctional department, they either disengage or begin to look for a better position at another university, one that is pleasant and not mired in incivility.  Nevertheless, it is important that all safeguards concerning academic freedom and shared governance be in place prior to initiating any policies/strategies for fostering a collegial department. All segments of the university community must have open dialogues before applying any of the following recommendations and strategies for fostering collegiality.  All faculty members should be strongly encouraged to take personal responsibility for the quality of their academic community and the professional behavior of their colleagues.

These, then, are the steps department chairs can take to promote collegiality in their departments:

Include the expectation of civility, collegiality, and respect in their mission statements

Use collegiality as a criterion for reappointment, tenure, and promotion in rank

Prominently feature importance of collegiality in position announcements for new positions

Encourage search committees to inquire about collegiality in their interview questions

Ask each candidate’s references about his or her collegiality

Build a supporting coalition of informal and formal peacemakers in their departments

Clearly state expectations for collegial behavior for faculty, staff, and students in codes of conduct

Establish ground rules for airing disagreements

The Collegiality Retreat

Departments may wish to consider having a retreat at which there can be a frank discussion about the importance of collegiality. The agenda for such a retreat might include:

What the term collegiality means and doesn’t mean

What constitutes collegial behavior

The importance of collegiality in fulfilling the unit’s mission

What constitutes civil behavior

What constitutes uncivil behavior

The establishment of a Department Code of Conduct

The establishment of a Department Code of Ethics

The establishment of the department as a Complaint Free Zone

The difference between personal and professional interactions

Suggestions from those in attendance on how to facilitate a more collegial environment

[atlasleadershipresearch]

undefined

Whenever the search goes out for academic leadership development …

[atlasleadershipresearch]

Managing Anger: Myths and Realities

Last month, we posted a 13-question true/false quiz about the myths and realities about managing anger.  Here now are the answers to that quiz.

1.     When people are unmotivated, getting angry at them is the only way to get things done.

This is a MYTH. People are motivated when they are treated honestly and fairly. In fact, getting angry at people serves to have them become more unmotivated.

2.     It is only normal to respond in anger when provoked.

This is a MYTH. There are many strategies that have proved successful when a person is provoked. For example, know your “hot buttons”, wait until people are not so angry – time away reduces the anger.

3.     Strongly confronting an angry person will cause that person to back down.

This is a MYTH. It is a poor strategy to confront a person when he is angry. It is far better to wait awhile until the person cools off.

4.     Intimidation hardly ever wins respect.

This is REALITY. It is far better to build trust into a relationship. Intimidation merely brings about more anger, whether overt or covert.

5.     Verbal or physical venting is an excellent way to produce long-lasting calm.

This is a MYTH. Verbal or physical venting does not produce long-lasting calm. Venting produces additional anger and stress and leads to long-lasting feuds.

6.     Anger is always a bad emotion and thus should be avoided.

This is a MYTH. Anger can have positive effects – can create a learning situation, can increase knowledge and skills, cause the consideration of new ideas, et cetera. A person may become angry but if the anger is professional rather than personal it can be positive.

7.     There are many ways to deal with an angry person.

This is REALITY. One size does not fit all. There are many variables at play here. For example, the past history between people, the climate of the department, relationship and trust of the people involved, et cetera.

8.     Some people just can’t help getting angry because that’s just the way they are.

This is a MYTH. Although people are certainly different this does not mean that they can’t try to control their anger. There are many coping skills that a person can acquire (e.g., know what your “hot buttons” are) so that they do not become angry.

9.     If you ignore anger, it will go away.

This is a MYTH. Ignoring anger will make things much worse. You must address a person’s anger immediately so that you are not rewarding this behavior.

10. Not getting angry at people for doing something wrong means they got away with it.

This is a MYTH. Most people do not purposely do something wrong. A person should professionally correct the behavior in a supportive way, thus aiding in building trust in this relationship.

11. When a person is angry during a meeting or conversation, ask to reconvene at a mutually agreeable time.

This is REALITY. During a conversation you should request to meet at another time. This way the conversation can be professional rather than emotional. A waiting period will allow tempers to cool and the conversation will become more productive. During a meeting with others present may present a different approach. If the poor behavior continues or becomes highly personal the meeting should probably be reconvened. In any case, the behavior must be addressed—sooner rather than later.

12. When in a confrontation, keep trying to communicate until your message is clearly understood.

This is REALITY. Your objective is to have your message heard and understood. This may entail asking a number of times if the message is clear. It is important that this does not become a screaming match that will escalate into a long-lasting feud.

13. It helps to know what your “hot buttons” are.

This is REALITY. There are specific events that make you angry. You should become aware of these and work to not have them exploited by a person you are speaking with. Writing down and analyzing those “hot button” items will help you understand them and aid you in not allowing them to change the discussion.

[atlasleadershipresearch]

Managing Anger: Myth and Realities

Based on research conducted by ATLAS’ own Bob Cipriano, we’ve created a brief quiz on the myths and realities of managing anger.

Take the quiz, and in the next issue of the ATLAS e-newsletter we’ll tell you what Bob found.

When people are unmotivated, getting angry at them is the only way to get things done.     Myth or Reality

It is only natural to respond in anger when provoked.   Myth or Reality

Strongly confronting an angry person will cause that person to back down.  Myth or Reality

Intimidation hardly ever wins respect. Myth or Reality

Verbal or physical venting is an excellent way to produce long-lasting calm.  Myth or Reality

Anger is always a bad emotion and thus should be avoided.  Myth or Reality

There are many ways to deal with an angry person.  Myth or Reality

Some people just can’t help getting angry because that’s the way they are.  Myth or Reality

If you ignore anger, it will go away.  Myth or Reality

Not getting angry at people for doing something wrong means they got away with it. Myth or Reality

When a person is angry during a meeting or conversation, ask to reconvene at a mutually agreeable time. Myth or Reality

When in a confrontation, keep trying to communicate until your message is clearly understood.  Myth or Reality

It helps to know what your "hot buttons" are.  Myth or Reality

[atlasleadershipresearch]

The Academic Department Chair: Toughest Job at the University

There’s endless debate about when universities began.  Which institution should get credit for being “the first”?  Plato’s Academy?  The Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom) in Baghdad?  The University of Bologna?  It more or less depends on what you mean by the term university.

There’s much less part about when academic departments began.  Harvard University was the first institution to divide faculty into what we would regard as recognizable academic departments during the second half of the 18th century.  Departmentalization was seen as a solution to the problem of how scholars should be organized due to the growing complexity of knowledge and the sheer number of students attending institutions of higher learning.

The primary basis of departmentalization is the discipline. And, in fact, many faculty members today feel a stronger sense of identification with their disciplines than they do to their institutions as a whole.  Moreover, departments vary considerably from institution to institution.  A small college might have a department that contains only two faculty members while larger institutions sometime have departments that include a hundred faculty members or more.  It thus comes very hard to recommend what “department chairs should do,” since the nature of the job isn’t at all the same for all chairs.  Even worse, many of the more than 80,000 academic department chairs working in the United States today do not have a formal job description.

Idiosyncrasies of Chair Authority

Although other administrators may have more varied backgrounds, chairs are still usually drawn from the faculty ranks. While they may have demonstrated themselves to be capable teachers, scholars, and researchers, their administrative skills have often not been tested at the time they receive their positions. But today’s department chair needs a very different skill set from that of a faculty member. According to research conducted by ATLAS, the top four reasons why people remain as department chairs are as follows:

1.    To make a difference

2.    To shape the direction of the department

3.    To advance their career

4.    Because no one else will do it

Today as many as 16% of the people serving as chairs are not tenured. That makes them quite vulnerable when they need to make decisions that affect the interests of their senior faculty.  And chairs are serving for shorter periods than ever before.  Currently chairs serve an average of four years, while only a few years ago the average time spent as chair was six years.  The most commonly cited reason why chairs say they leave their position is that they don’t want to deal with non-collegial faculty members.

Chairs enjoy, at best, limited rewards in serving as chair. Most chairs have a reduced teaching load, a small stipend, a twelve-month contract (unlike the nine- or ten-month contract provided to most faculty members), and a certain degree of prestige. Chairs have indicated to us that the primary rewards they receive are intrinsic: the psychological rewards of making a positive difference in the lives of their colleagues and students. 

Responsibilities of the Chair

Among the duties commonly assigned to department chairs are:

Leading the department

Assigning courses, research, and department duties to faculty

Motivating faculty to enhance productivity

Motivating faculty to teach effectively

Handling faculty evaluation and feedback

Motivating faculty to increase service

Creating supportive communication climate

Managing conflict within the department

Managing student issues

Department organizational tasks

Attending meetings for chairs with administrators

Developing and initiating long-range department programs, plans and goals

Developing and monitoring department budget

Interacting with the administration on behalf of the department

Participating in committee work within the college

Recruiting new faculty members

Raising external funds

Recruiting new part-time adjuncts

Terminating full-time and part-time faculty

But many factors get in the way of chairs as they try to fulfill these responsibilities.  Among the many obstacles chairs face are:

Institutional politics

Misperception about the role of chair both inside and outside the academy

Time pressure

People pressure (i.e., too many people with too many problems)

Lack of awareness of the resources available to them

Lack of skills needed to do the job

Lack of tenacity in the face of obstacles

Lack of support from elsewhere within the institution

Constant pressure to “do more with less”

What ATLAS would like to hear from you is: What’s missing from these lists?  If you have additional responsibilities that you believe are common to department or chairs or additional obstacles that you believe prevent chairs from being as effective in their jobs as they would like, send them to rcipriano@atlasleadership.com.

[atlasleadershipresearch]

The Financial Effects of Non-Collegial Colleagues

It is that civil conversation--tough, open, principled--between and among all members and parts of the institution that must be preserved. If it is, a community is patiently built. If it is not, the place degenerates into a center of crisis management and competing special interests. What must be open and free is the conversation between young and young, young and old, scholar and scholar, present and past – the sound of voices straining out the truth.

A. Bartlett Giamatti, former president of Yale University, (A Free and Ordered Space, 1989, 45)

Conflict is inevitable. Being disrespectful and uncivil is a conscious choice.  How we choose to respond to a person’s uncivil behavior can turn a harsh comment into a major firestorm. Over an eleven-year study conducted from 2007 to 2017, the researchers at ATLAS found that dealing with uncivil faculty members was the number one challenge that department chairs face. When ATLAS trainers are invited to campuses across the United States, we hear repeated that chairs, deans, and faculty members are frustrated by the fact that even one non-collegial person can render an entire department dysfunctional.  

That fact alone is not surprising. Incivility seems to be on the rise throughout the United States, and academia is no exception to this phenomenon. Uncivil behavior may be subtle, but its effects are not. The following is a telling, albeit partial, list of the devastating effects of working in a program that is affected by uncivil and non-collegial behavior.  

Older, more seasoned faculty worn down and becoming disengaged from the program and the institution

Increased absenteeism and tardiness

Diminished work quality of once-productive faculty members

Poor advising of students

High turnover by faculty—young, untenured faculty may leave the institution entirely

Fewer departmental celebrations and social gatherings

Increasing faculty isolation and alienation

Increased illness and health issues

An increase in the number of grievances filed

Unresolved grievances leading to lawsuits

A decline in attendance at faculty meetings.

It can be surprising that two departments seemingly identical in their composition and demographics will be completely different in their climate and culture. Each department may have eight faculty members, 150 students enrolled as majors, and approximately the same demographics for the faculty (in terms of such factors as age, ethnicity, and educational levels); however, one department may be enthusiastic, collaborative, supportive, engaged, and intellectual, a place where faculty members clearly enjoy coming to work, while the other department is isolated, heavily politicized, toxic, and depressing, a place where faculty members stay away unless they absolutely have to be there.

The difference in these cases may be that in one department a single faculty member treats his or her fellow colleagues in demeaning, degrading, non-collegial, disrespectful, and uncivil ways. This lack of civility and collegiality can harm the department, its students, professional staff, and other faculty members, leading to an environment where the teaching, research, and service levels of the program suffer noticeably.

When negative, destructive, highly personalized conflict occurs, the effects may include:

Decreased productivity

Erosion of trust

The formation of cliques, coalitions, and cabals

Secrecy and the reduced flow of information

Morale problems

Paralysis in decision-making

Vast amounts of time wasted

Fracturing and fragmentation of the group

Increased resistance to ideas about positive change

People who are mistreated suffer increased levels of stress, begin to seek employment elsewhere, and may act non-collegially themselves.  Even in a best-case scenario, people who are mistreated often disengage from the department and university. On a regional, state, and national level the reputation of the institution suffers, and qualified people choose not to work in such a hostile environment.

In short, incivility in the workplace, whether subtle or overt, has proven to be a destructive force. A change in the culture of an academic program will serve either as something akin to white blood cells that heal the department or, if the change is destructive in nature, act as malignant cells that sap its strength of their host. Lack of civility has a human cost, but it also has a clear financial cost and, in these days of tightened institutional budgets, academic leaders need to be aware of the monetary impact of non-collegial faculty members.

Colleges and universities throughout the United States have been facing budgetary challenges now for several decades. During the mid 1970s, local and state government provided for 75% of the budgets available to state institutions of higher education. Today, local and state government supports only 23% of the budgets of state institutions.  As a result, even a minor decrease in productivity caused by an uncivil faculty member can have a major impact.

Here are just some of the ways in which a toxic faculty member (or even a mildly uncivil faculty member who won’t shoulder his or her share of a program’s responsibilities) may cost an institution money:

Increased use of the school’s Employee Assistance Program by faculty members who are dealing with the stress caused by the uncivil faculty member, requirements that the uncivil faculty member participate in anger management or team-bulding programs, or both

Expansion of staffing in human resources departments to deal with issues of incivility

Additional numbers of administrators as chairs, deans, and others have to shift time away from other important issues to address matters of managing additional conflicts

Higher legal costs for attorneys

Compensation that an institution must pay to students, staff members, and faculty members who have been victimized or found to have suffered from a hostile work environment

Higher costs for advertising, interviewing, recruiting, and onboarding replacements for the faculty members who leave

Replacements for victims who request and are granted a paid leave of absence

In the final analysis, all academic leaders--in fact, all members of the college or university community--should work proactively to reduce these costs associated with toxic and uncivil faculty members.

If you are aware of other financial impact caused by incivility or non-collegial behavior at a college or university, please email your observations to rcipriano@atlasleadership.com for possible inclusion in this ongoing study.

[atlasleadershipresearch]

The Precarious Position of (Department) Chair

The roles and responsibilities of a department chair can vary widely from one college or university to another.

Some chairs evaluate their faculty for merit increases; others do not.

Some chairs are elected to their positions; others are appointed by the dean.

Some chairs teach one course a year; others teach four courses each semester.

And we can each add dozens of other differences to this list.

ATLAS’ two senior partners--Jeff Buller and Bob Cipriano--surveyed 658 members of the faculty, staff, and administrators at a representative sample of colleges and universities throughout North America. One question they asked participants dealt with whether the respondent had ever had a non-collegial person in his or her program.

93% said that they had.

79% said that they currently had such a person in their program. 

These results correlate closely with a 10-year study that Bob Cipriano conducted with his colleague Rick Riccardi in which 78% of department chairs indicated that they currently have or had an uncivil or non-collegial person in their department. 

Interestingly, the number one reason that chairs leave their position is because of non-collegial faculty members. Also, the third highest rated reason for becoming chair is that nobody else will do it. 

If that alone were not enough to indicate how challenging and precarious the position of department chair is today, consider this: In 2016, there were a greater proportion of assistant professors serving as department chair (7.4%) than in 2007 (3.4%).  Chairs were also serving for a shorter term: 4 years in 2016 vs. 6 years served in 2007. 

In a dangerous trend, there are more non-tenured faculty members serving as chair than ever before. 13% of chairs were not tenured in 2007.  19% were untenured in 2016.  The chair is often in a precarious position: Can you imagine having to make some of the decisions that chairs have to make while still being an untenured assistant professor?

[atlasleadershipresearch]

A major article by Bob and Jeff, “Is Collegiality a Weapon or a Shield?” recently appeared in Change magazine.  ATLAS has a limited number of links that we can distribute to provide access to this article online.  If you’re interested in promoting collegiality at your college or university and would like electronic access to this article, simply click here to request a copy.  Remember: We can only distribute links while supplies last.

[atlasleadershipresearch]

ATLAS’ Research Is On the Move

The research we conduct at ATLAS is making a noticeable impact on academic leadership at colleges and universities all over the world.  Here are just a few examples.

Bob and Jeff have published in every edition of The Department Chair and Academic Leader for the past six months.

They have also co authored two published books recently: A Toolkit For Department Chairs (Rowman & Littlefield, 2015) and A Toolkit For College Professors (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016).  

Jeff has been particularly busy writing books, all of which have been very well received by the higher education community.  His recent titles include: Best Practices For Faculty Search Committees (2017), The Essential Department Chair: A Comprehensive Desk Reference, second edition (2016), Going For The Gold: How to Become a World-Class Academic Fundraiser (with Dianne M. Reeves, 2017), Building Academic Leadership Capacity: A Guide to Best Practices (with Walter H. Gmelch, 2015), and World-Class Fundraising Isn’t a Solo Sport: The Team Approach to Academic Fundraising (with Dianne M. Reeves, 2017).

Jeff also has two books in press that should be out before the end of 2017.  The Five Cultures of Academic Development: Crossing Boundaries in Higher Education Fundraising (with Dianne M. Reeves) will be published by CASE, and Hire The Right Faculty Member—Every Time: Best Practices in Recruiting, Selecting, and Onboarding College Professors will be published by Rowman & Littlefield.

ATLAS has recently provided workshops for academic leaders at Youngstown State University, Indiana State University, Penn State University, Georgian Court University, Florida A&M University, Agnes Scott College, and Jacksonville State University.

Internationally, Bob presented at University of Montréal in Canada, and Jeff has continued to serve as a consultant to the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia.

Bob and Jeff were selected to present sessions at the 34th Annual Department Chairs Meeting in New Orleans in February, 2017. This national conference, sponsored by Kansas State University attracted more than 480 department chairs and deans from across the country.  

Jeff has also been quite actively involved in workshops provided by Academic Impressions, conducting sessions in Orlando, St. Louis, Washington, DC, and elsewhere.

Upcoming ATLAS presentations will occur at Academic Impressions’ workshop on Essential Management Skills for Academic Deans in Orlando on March 13-15, the annual conference of the Council of Academic Programs in Communication Sciences and Disorders in New Orleans on April 19-22, Academic Impressions’ workshop on Leading and Influencing as a Department Chair in San Diego on June 12-14, and the Leadership in Higher Education Conference in Atlanta on October 6-8.

Come see why so many colleges, universities, and organizations trust ATLAS for academic leadership training and cutting-edge research on leadership in higher education.

[atlasleadershipresearch]

Who Benefits Most from Free College?

In our latest survey, we asked our readers a number of questions about a current hot topic: Should college be free? Readers were asked to indicate the degree to which they supported several statements, and 653 of you responded.

Here’s what we learned:

1. I support the idea that a two-year college education (AA equivalent) should be free for all eligible students.

           Strongly Agree                                            34.5%

           Agree                                                            8.3%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       12.6%

           Disagree                                                     44.4%

           Strongly Disagree                                         0.2%

2. A free two-year college education (AA equivalent) would help my own institution.

           Strongly Agree                                            12.4%

           Agree                                                          32.1%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       34.6%

           Disagree                                                     20.3%

           Strongly Disagree                                         0.6%

3. I support the idea that a four-year college education (BA/BS equivalent) should be free for all eligible students.

           Strongly Agree                                            38.1%

           Agree                                                            0.3%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                         0.2%

           Disagree                                                     56.0%

           Strongly Disagree                                         5.4%

4. A free four-year college education (BA/BS equivalent) would help my own institution.

           Strongly Agree                                            42.8%

           Agree                                                          14.2%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       13.1%

           Disagree                                                     15.6%

           Strongly Disagree                                       14.3%

5. I support the idea that programs taken at community colleges (although not at four-year colleges and universities) should be free for all eligible students.

           Strongly Agree                                              0.2%

           Agree                                                          25.1%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       25.6%

           Disagree                                                     48.8%

           Strongly Disagree                                         0.3%

6. Free community college programs would help my own institution.

           Strongly Agree                                            22.3%

           Agree                                                          33.2%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       10.4%

           Disagree                                                     34.0%

           Strongly Disagree                                         0.1%

7. I support the idea that a two-year college education (AA equivalent) should be free for all eligible students in families with a household income less than $125,000.

           Strongly Agree                                            34.1%

           Agree                                                          22.1%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       11.8%

           Disagree                                                     30.2%

           Strongly Disagree                                         1.8%

8. A free two-year college education (AA equivalent) for students from families with a household income less than $125,000 would help my institution.

           Strongly Agree                                            21.5%

           Agree                                                          35.6%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       11.1%

           Disagree                                                     31.5%

           Strongly Disagree                                         0.3%

9. I support the idea of the federal government covering the first $10,000 of a student’s tuition and fees each year.

           Strongly Agree                                            46.7%

           Agree                                                          10.7%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       11.1%

           Disagree                                                     31.7%

           Strongly Disagree                                         0.1%

10. Having the federal government covering the first $10,000 of a student’s tuition and fees each year would be good for my institution.

           Strongly Agree                                            45.3%

           Agree                                                          22.2%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       23.1%

           Disagree                                                       9.3%

           Strongly Disagree                                         0.1%

11. I support the idea of the federal government covering the first $25,000 of a student’s tuition and fees each year.

           Strongly Agree                                            22.2%

           Agree                                                          10.3%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       11.8%

           Disagree                                                     55.5%

           Strongly Disagree                                         0.2%

12. Having the federal government covering the first $25,000 of a student’s tuition and fees each year would be good for my institution.

           Strongly Agree                                            26.7%

           Agree                                                          10.4%

           Neither Agree Nor Disagree                       21.1%

           Disagree                                                     41.1%

           Strongly Disagree                                         0.7%

Of those who responded to our survey, 87.3% were from public institutions, 12.7% were from private institutions.  Roughly two-thirds said that their schools enrolled between 10,000 and 20,000 students.  Only eight respondents were from a school with an enrollment greater than 25,000.  The remainder were almost equally split between schools with fewer than 5,000 students and those with between 5,000 and 10,000 students.