What About the Department Chair Reappointment Process?

by Carol A. Mullen

From The Department Chair, Spring 2011 (21.4)

The subject of chair reappointments is relevant to the leadership of academic departments across disciplines and institutions, yet it tends not to be talked about. Having now fared the reappointment stage as the department chair of an academic unit, it struck me that this topic needs coverage in academic venues, and that other chairs might benefit from the ideas shared. Insights about transitional leadership in this context will hopefully serve as a resource.

While there is a growing impetus in the leadership literature on sustaining leadership, transitional leadership is not getting the same press. What is the process of transitioning department chairs to the next stage and what are the procedural and contextual factors involved? Many chairs and even deans may have a cursory understanding only of what is involved in this review process. The reappointment of department chairs or heads can be handled perfunctorily or formally. When treated formally, a judgment is rendered based on data and a faculty vote as to whether the chair should be continued for another term in that administrative leadership role. In places that are more democratically oriented with respect to faculty input or more procedurally oriented about following guidelines, faculty support matters a great deal. Although department chairs may be serving at the pleasure of central administration (e.g., deans, provosts, presidents), they must have the confidence of those whom they serve and represent—their faculty. Some chairs may only have gained any real knowledge of the context in which they serve and their own situation relative to it once they have cleared this hurdle of reappointment, but they should have time in advance to prepare and reflect.

Department chairs hired externally through national searches serve for specified terms and are typically evaluated, perhaps annually, by the faculty they serve and by their deans, and possibly by other groups. Subject to a positive review at the reappointment stage that occurs well before the end of the contract (e.g., in the third year of a four-year term), a second contracted term should follow. Some of us may know the lay of the land in general terms, but what about the specificity of it relates to our own situation where variability may be more the norm than standards characterized by protocols that are well established and understood? And, to what extent do chairs feel capable of educating others about this process of review and renewal, especially as work contexts change and expectations increase while resources become scarcer?

Readers may benefit from considering these reappointment steps:

• Seek out the official administrative guidelines made available at your university or another that outline the reappointment process (and appointment process) with respect to department chairs. Questions to explore include basic information about the typical length of a chair’s term, the reality of consecutive terms, and performance criteria.
• Importantly, with these guidelines in hand and based on an informative conversation with your dean that is specific to your case, in addition to more seasoned department chairs, former chairs, and anyone else, investigate the procedures involved in effectively following through with and concluding this process.
• Find out about the data-driven evaluation process itself, which may include a feedback instrument that your faculty and other groups (e.g., students, alumni) need to complete; also ask about any mechanisms involved for having the data anonymously shared with you.
• Learn who the key stakeholders (e.g., faculty, dean, provost) involved in this process are and their respective roles during it.
• Map out the reappointment process for yourself, from beginning to end.
• When the timing is right, express your intentions and any terms for serving a second term, should this be your goal.

Typically, the dean to whom a department chair reports is the person initiating the reappointment process prior to the conclusion of the chair’s term, first or subsequent. In more formal cases, the unit leader (i.e., dean) is responsible for overseeing this process and for communicating his or her recommendation to the provost who makes the final decision. Here is an example of how a scenario may look. Imagine that a dean alerts his or her chair that it is time to plan for the reappointment evaluation of that person’s performance. A conversation ensues about the expectations and timeline involved, as well as the stakeholders who are to play a role. The dean may select a veteran faculty member (possibly from the chair’s unit) to serve as a point person who interfaces with the faculty and their input. The chair may be asked to address the faculty as a body, engage in dialogue, and address questions. Perhaps the chair’s absence will be necessary for ensuring an open dialogue by the full faculty. The point person may be required to not only organize the meeting (e.g., a scheduled department meeting can be used for this purpose), but also to facilitate the entire session. The point person may be asked as well to collect the faculty members’ comments based on an instrument provided by the dean, or the faculty may be prompted to submit their comments directly to the dean. A deadline for submitting the comments would be necessary. The instrument itself would be completed anonymously, whether electronically or by hard copy. Full-blown scales may be used for this purpose or simplified items that address the faculty’s perceptions of their department chair, possibly in such broad areas as strengths, areas to address, and recommendation with respect to serving another term.

The dean’s summary of the data, approached as a learning experience, will be more meaningful if the information is shared in a supportive dialogue focused on strengths and areas for improvement. Patterns of feedback versus idiosyncratic comments in the faculty data need to be discerned with the help of this objective, supportive evaluator who understands the chair’s role. Not only the qualitative data but also the faculty votes need to be shared so that the comments can be understood relative to the votes, as the scores provide perspective on the comments, just as the comments are descriptive of the votes. The dean’s feedback about the comments is another source of information deserving of close attention, and this may take the form of comments about the data and/or a summary. A letter from the provost should follow.

The department chair who does a presentation on her or his envisioned leadership may find it useful to think of this experience as an opportunity for setting the tone for future work. It would be a time ripe for sharing something more impressive than annual goals, say, for it will frame one’s vision and goals for the next term of the chairship. For my own presentation, in order to facilitate my ruminations on my vision and goals for the department, I used a metaphor of bricks and mortar. Based on an essay I had written and turned into notes, I verbally shared this overview with my faculty.

I explained that the bricks (vision/goals/commitments) serve as the foundation for all of the work we do, and would continue to do, as a faculty body. I described how these would be fostered through our community of trusted, critically caring peers, our supportive professional development context, and through our partnering with constituent groups in ways that enable our social justice commitments to thrive. I have articulated my departmental vision or “bricks” previously in an essay about academic communities that function as covenants (see Mullen, 2010). During the presentation, I provided examples of bricks—those hallmarks we had generated during my tenure as chair for which the faculty’s own leadership and assistance proved invaluable. Two such hallmarks were the continuing high-quality student learning in the midst of our growing student enrollment, curricular overhaul, and diversification of programs. The “bricks” that we will be preparing, I explained, will build on the work accomplished, such as the curricular overhaul known as “revisioning” of our doctorate in educational leadership on the heels of our state-level approved master’s program.

I then described “the mortar” as that which resides around the bricks, enabling the bricks to be acted on and nestled into a kind of mosaic, a picture of the department that can be viewed and interpreted by us and by outsiders. The guidelines we spent months creating three years ago that stand as the department’s promotion and tenure statement is an example of the mortar—that is, those steps we took to act on a big idea that is a presentation of who we are with respect to our collective commitments or covenant. In this case, the mortar—the work activity—helps to set in place the “brick” I am referring to as our internally generated policy guidelines.

Another way of understanding the mortar, I shared, is that space not usually thought of as important, which suddenly takes center stage as someone raises a concern of some urgency. These necessitate invisible actions that must be taken swiftly but thoughtfully, and to a point of resolution for all concerned. The mortar is also those kind acts that say something important about a person’s character that are not worthy as vita entries. To illustrate, I described how I work closely with the very faculty I am required to evaluate on their development and materials for review, not presenting myself to them as a distant authority figure disconnected from their professional development or only remotely connected to their career dreams. Instead, I share specific feedback on an ongoing basis with them from the outset to the end.

Upon reflection, I felt inspired to use for my talk an image of industry—as captured by the metaphor of bricks and mortar—because it fits both my calling as a scholarly administrative leader and my daily actions. Hundreds of different metaphors could have framed my talk, such as skydiving, butterflies, and mud wrestling, but they didn’t. Bricks and mortar is symbolic of our industry, construction, and growth in my department, as well as patterned activity that emerges from high intention and applied effort.

Throughout this process I was mentored by my dean to understand what was entailed in my role with respect to the reappointment process. For example, we together reviewed the university’s guidelines relative to my own role and situation; he outlined my responsibility relative to this reappointment process, and he identified a faculty point person to oversee specific steps. I had the freedom to decide what my presentation would focus on and communicate with the point person, who came to play a crucial negotiating and mediating role. The data and summaries produced were anonymously shared by the dean with me in a productive, collegial exchange that provided perspective on my past and future work. I was invited to share reactions and impressions. Through this process, I gained a deeper appreciation for what my faculty value and appreciate, and they in turn got to know me that much better too. I have since been thinking about how I might tap into my deepest reserves of strength and renewal as a developing leader who is being called on in entirely new ways as our academic culture transitions at higher levels.