Career paths of department chairs: A national perspective

Department chairs in 101 Carnegie Council Research I and II and Doctorate-Granting I and II institutions were surveyed to describe their career movements prior to becoming chair, and the length of tenure as chair and the movement from the chair position that their two predecessors in the position of chair had made. Additional variables addressed were discipline, department size, chair's age and gender, the nature of departmental hiring practices, and whether chairs had previous administrative experience. The Biglan model of discipline classification was used to differentiate among disciplines. Sixty-five percent of chairs return to faculty status after their tenure as chair. However, gender, departmental hiring practices, and discipline all have significant effects on the likelihood that a chair will return to faculty status or go on to further administrative service.     

美国大学系主任管理和领导角色探析

在美国,系是大学最基本的组成单位。因此,大学系主任几乎负责与教、学、研及向社会提供服务有关的各项活动,通常扮演管理和领导的双重角色。其主要的工作包括开发师资、组织管理本系的各项日常活动和事务、领导本系的整体发展以及从事教学科研工作。显而易见,美国高等教育能够达到今天的水准与系主任的贡献是分不开的。中国高校正在面临、或在不同程度上进行内部结构和职能的调整和重组。尤其是许多大学纷纷成立学院。因而,对系主任管理领导角色进行重新定位具有深远意义。相信了解和借鉴国外的成功经验定有裨益。     

INTERPERSONAL BEHAVIOR AND THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEPARTMENT CHAIRPERSON

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between department/division chairpersons' interpersonal behavior and their perceived leadership effectiveness. The Departmental Evaluation of Chairperson Activities for Development (DECAD) system was used to determine the department chairpersons' administrative effectiveness. Element B, developed by Will Schutz, was used to assess the chairpersons' interpersonal behavioral characteristics. The participants were department/division chairpersons and full-time faculty members from 15 of the 17 public and private community colleges in a southern state. Survey packets were mailed to faculty members and department/ division chairpersons in the humanities and social sciences divisions. Sixty-seven percent of the faculty responded and 93% of the chairpersons responded. Statistical analyses revealed significant differences in the dependent variables of received inclusion, perceived inclusion, and wanted inclusion interpersonal behaviors between the ineffective and effective chairs. These findings suggest that effective department chairpersons possess a need to maintain and establish interaction with others. Also, effective chairpersons were perceived to be, and want to be, included by others.     

Leader Communication: Faculty Perceptions of the Department Chair

This project asked 202 randomly selected faculty members to evaluate the supportive and defensive communication and leadership behaviors of their department chair. The supportive behavior of problem orientation alone explained 43% of the variance in faculty ratings of chair job effectiveness. On the other hand, empathy explained 68% of the variance in faculty ratings of relational satisfaction with their department chair. In addition, a t test revealed that more effective chairs utilized all 6 of Gibb's supportive communication behaviors more, and 5 of 6 defensive behaviors less, than their more negatively evaluated peers. Second, a series of stepwise regression procedures explained 16% of the variance in bureaucracy scores, 69% of the variance in Machiavellianism, and 62% of the variance in transformational leadership. Finally, the communication behaviors of strategy, neutrality, and problem orientation explained 56% of the variance in faculty job satisfaction and strategy, neutrality, evaluation, gender, and age explained 41% of the variance in organizational commitment scores.     

Quality development in university administration: A case study

The primary purpose of this study was to determine the decision-making styles of department chairs employed by three public institutions in Jordan. A total of 95 department chairs participated in the study by completing the General Decision-Making Styles survey. The results indicated that department chairs under study have the rational decision-making style as their primary style (following a systematic approach to evaluate options and arrive at one optimal solution) and the dependent style as their backup style (consult with others in the organization when making important decisions). Moreover, there were no significant differences between decision-making styles and the proposed demographic variables (faculty and experience). Finally, several recommendations were suggested for the field of study.     

Assessing service in faculty reviews: mentoring faculty and developing transparency

Universities generally have clear expectations for teaching and scholarship, and often a faculty member’s publications, research and scholarship are the primary factors in tenure and promotion decisions. Many universities do include service as one component in annual reviews as well as in assessing progress toward tenure and promotion. Unfortunately, criteria for evaluating service are often not specified. Having vaguely outlined expectations for service sends a message that service does not matter, ultimately doing a ‘disservice’ to faculty who need guidance on appropriate levels of service. As much as possible, department chairs, governance bodies that represent the faculty, and administrators who are responsible for evaluating faculty need to ensure that faculty members understand how they will be assessed in the area of service and to make evaluation in this area as transparent as possible.     

Power to Do…What? Department Heads’ Decision Autonomy and Strategic Priorities

Using questionnaire data from the 2010 Survey of Academic Chairs, the study focuses on decision autonomy, a component of the power wielded by science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) department chairs in U.S. research extensive universities. A “power index” is developed to measure chairs’ decision autonomy, specifically their control of resources employed in negotiations with faculty job candidates. The study asks: What determines the degree of decision autonomy power possessed by department heads; and, what are the strategic implications of department heads’ degree of this particular aspect of power? Results of an ordered logistic regression model show that having more power is associated with being hired from outside the current university, being male, and with department size. The power index is employed to predict departmental strategic priorities. Results show that the power index is positively associated with a strategic priority for research. The results show a negative relationship between degree of chair decision autonomy and a priority to increase faculty lines. A student-focused strategy is not predicted by the power index but is related to the size, with larger departments placing less emphasis on numbers or quality of students.     

African-American Women in the Professoriate: Addressing Social Exclusion and Scholarly Marginalization through Mentoring

African-American women and other underrepresented faculty members often report experiences of social exclusion and scholarly marginalization in mainstream institutions of higher education. This lack of inclusion challenges their retention and hinders them from becoming productive members of the professoriate, positioning them at a disadvantage for achieving tenure and promotion. In this article, mentoring is conceptualized as socialization and examined as a strategy for addressing social exclusion and scholarly marginalization as associated with the advancement of African-American women faculty in academe. Highlighting traditional and nontraditional mentoring initiatives and formal and informal networks, the discussion features the idea of a broad, flexible network of support. In addition, recommendations from the existing literature are offered for mentors, mentees, and academic department chairs to facilitate effective mentoring strategies.     

The cost of academic leadership: Department Chair Stress

Department chairs find themselves trapped between the stresses of performing not only as an administrator but faculty member as well. Over eight hundred chairs from 101 doctorate-granting and research universities were surveyed using the Department Chair Stress Index to assess (1) their most stressful situations, (2) emergent themes from these Stressors, and (3) the differences between chair and faculty Stressors. Chairs experienced most stress from their heavy workload and the general stresses of time pressures, confrontation with colleagues, organizational constraints and their faculty duties. Chairs were found to be in a paradoxical situation; feeling double pressure to be an effective leader and productive faculty member. Suggested actions for the institution and individual are provided.Walter H. Gmelch is professor and chair of the Educational Administration Department at Washington State University where he also serves as Director of the National Center for the Study of Department Chair. He earned his MBA from the University of California (Berkeley) and a Ph.D. in the Educational Executive program from the University of California (Santa Barbara). Dr. Gmelch conducts research on the topics of leadership, team development, conflict, stress and time management. His extensive writings include a co-authored book entitled,Strategic Leadership Skills for Department Chairs. John S. Burns is associate director of the Center for the Study of the Department Chair at Washington State University. He obtained a Master's in Counseling Psychology and a Ph.D. in Educational Administration from Washington State University. The Center's research agenda focuses on collecting data about the position of department chair with the goal of developing research-based recommendations for the restructuring of the administration of higher education.     

THE DEPARTMENT CHAIR AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: SHARED AUTHORITY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEPARTMENT

The department chair position is vital to the effective administration of both the academic unit and the entire college. Inherent in the roles and tasks of the individual position is a responsibility for consensus development, which in turn requires the involvement of faculty in decision-making activities. This consensual development dictates that faculty who are specialists in their particular academic disciplines be involved in decisions ranging from admissions and grading to institutional policy formation and cross-disciplinary curricula development. The current study was conducted to examine the perceptions of department chairs in the involvement of faculty in departmental decision-making.     

Responsible Conduct of Research Assessment of Doctor of Education Candidates,Graduate Faculty,and Curriculum Considerations

The study included an assessment of doctoral students, graduate faculty, and curriculum considerations to determine the degree of infusion of research integrity and responsible conduct of research (RCR) principles within a Doctor of Education program. Study results showed substantial increases in doctoral candidates’ knowledge levels of RCR, and faculty members serving as dissertation committee chairs reported greater understanding of RCR tenets than did non-dissertation chairs. The study also revealed a strong presence of research within the Ed. D. core curriculum.     

美国大学系主任的激励机制研究——基于AAU大学的调查分析

系主任的多重角色与多种任务往往使教师对该职位望而却步。加强对系主任工作的激励有助于增加该职位的吸引力和促进系主任的职业发展。对美国大学协会（AAU）成员大学的系主任调查表明,其外部激励主要为减轻教学任务和享有管理津贴,而内部激励则包括服务教师、学校与学科发展所带来的成就感和受到教师尊重等。不同学校层次和学科类别其系主任所享有的激励有显著差异,系主任的激励与其角色、任务和权力等职位特征呈显著相关。     

Perceptions of Community College Adjunct Faculty and Division Chairpersons: Support,Mentoring, and Professional Development to Sustain Academic Quality

The fabric of higher education has changed dramatically in recent years with a sudden increase in the presence of part-time, nontenured faculty. Adjunct faculty have a significant presence in higher education institutions and need opportunities available to them so they feel like an important part of academic culture and are prepared to teach. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to understand the similarities and differences in perceptions between three division chairpersons and 15 adjunct faculty members from three separate departments regarding teaching support, mentoring, and professional development opportunities at one community college. It was found that chairs and mentors appeared to be the most valuable individuals in supporting, acclimating, and retaining adjunct faculty according to the participants in this study. Without the roles chairs and mentors assumed, adjunct faculty could flounder and teaching quality could be hindered.     

The multiple sources of workplace stress among land-grant university faculty

Workplace stress has received a fair amount of treatment in the research literature over the past decade. What has not been examined, at least not systematically, is this same phenomena inacademe. Our study looked at stress among university faculty at a land-grant university located in the western region of the U. S. Analyses from the self-assessment mail survey (N = 786) reveals that faculty in the Hard Pure Nonlife (e. g., Astronomy, Math, Physics), Hard Applied Nonlife (e. g., Civil Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, Computer Science) and Soft Applied Life (e. g., Education Administration, Special Education) experience more stress than faculty in disciplines such as Hard Pure Life (e. g., Botany, Zoology) and Soft Pure Nonlife (e. g., English, Philosophy, Communications). Careful attention was paid to the different levels of stress reported by male and female faculty, with women professors reporting a higher level of stress than their male counterparts. We provide an assessment and explanation for this finding. Research ends with several proposals for individual faculty, department chairs and academic administrators for addressing the problem of workplace pressure and work overload.     

Strategic Management of Educational Technology—The Importance of Leadership and Management

Through case study research critical leadership and management tasks are identified regarding the integration of educational technology in teaching at research universities. The institutions studied, regardless their different characteristics and approaches, face common difficulties in engaging ‘second‐wave’ faculty. Furthermore, the coordination of different support units such as edtech centres, IT support, teaching and learning labs or the libraries to offer well‐rehearsed educational technology services is challenging. Strong leadership is critical to motivate faculty and to assist support units to overcome sub‐cultural differences. Similarly, solid management practice is indispensable. Incentive, reward and support structures need to be adjusted to new realities and a well coordinated workflow needs to be designed.     

Strategic Management of Educational Technology—The Importance of Leadership and Management

Through case study research critical leadership and management tasks are identified regarding the integration of educational technology in teaching at research universities. The institutions studied, regardless their different characteristics and approaches, face common difficulties in engaging’ second-wave’ faculty. Furthermore, the coordination of different support units such as edtech centres, IT support, teaching and learning labs or the libraries to offer well-rehearsed educational technology services is challenging. Strong leadership is critical to motivate faculty and to assist support units to overcome sub-cultural differences. Similarly, solid management practice is indispensable. Incentive, reward and support structures need to be adjusted to new realities and a well coordinated workflow needs to be designed.

     

The teaching portfolio: A tool for department chairpersons to create a climate of teaching excellence

Any attempt to alter the culture of higher education needs to start at the departmental level. Teaching portfolios provide a promising means to empower the department that wants to value teaching and learning. Portfolios provide faculty and chairs with the means to recognize good teaching while still promoting the values of the discipline. On the one hand, the appeal of teaching portfolios rests with the ability of faculty and their departments to recognize both disciplinary and local idiosyncrasies. On the other hand, portfolios provide prominence to what is common across disciplines — teaching and learning.John P. Murray is Associate Dean of Curriculum and Instruction at Genesee Community College in Batavia, New York. Dr. Murray holds a BA from SUNY Potsdam, a MA from Arizona State University, and a Ph.D. from Ohio State University. His current research interests include how administrators can improve teaching and the roles of department chairpersons.     

Distributive Justice in Higher Education: Perceptions of Administrators

For the study we report here we used the theoretical framework of organizational justice to examine academic administrator’s perceptions of resource distribution decisions. We asked deans, school directors, and department chairs in one midwestern state about their perceptions of the fairness and likelihood of use of various distribution principles in scenarios involving distributions of compensation to faculty and resources to schools/departments. Differences based on Carnegie classification and current position were examined. Overall, we found that participants perceived compensating faculty members and allocating resources to departments based on the quality of teaching and impact on students was most fair, but they believed factors such as research productivity and funding secured were more likely to be used. While there were no differences based on current position, there were differences based on Carnegie classification with the research universities indicating greater preference for and likelihood of using research principles and non-research institutions indicating greater likelihood of using equality.     

Faculty’s academic intellectual leadership: the intermediary relations with universities’ organizational components

In line with ‘the entrepreneurial university’ discourse, managerialism and performative culture brought new expectations to faculty such as developing online programmes/courses, carrying out training for professionals, obtaining research funds, leading projects in cooperation with industry/business, collaborating with colleagues from various disciplines, participating in international networks and representing their disciplines and institutions. These new duties and the traditional roles of academics, as knowledge producer and public intellectual, constitute their intellectual leadership. Given these new circumstances, it is important to investigate the influence of universities’ organizational components to understand how university managers can support academics’ intellectual leadership. This research aims to explore intermediary relations between communication, climate and managerial practice flexibility in universities and academics’ intellectual leadership. Quantitative data were collected from 937 Turkish faculty via an online questionnaire and analysed using Path analyses. Analysis revealed that faculty, by their intellectual leadership behaviours, contribute to the development of their disciplines, institutions and society, and that communication in universities has a strong impact on faculty’s intellectual leadership by mediation of the organizational climate and managerial flexibility regarding scholarly practices. Consequently, university managers should establish functional communication systems in their institutions to generate a positive atmosphere and to maximize the efficiency of institutional practices.