On Chairing FAH!

Dear FAH folks,

First a thought: I don't know if this blog is going to do anything, but if we keep it going, I think it's best to post everything as a new post rather than as comments on other people's posts. More like a conversation.

Anyway:

This morning I wrote a private note to myself with thoughts and most questions about this business of Division Chair. I'm still trying to figure out what it means. There's a working job description, but Paula and Carol and the div chairs are supposed to get together this summer to talk about it--so things are very much in flux.

That being as it may, I'm going to post these "private thoughts" so anyone reading this can have an idea of what I'm thinking at the moment. My level of thinking is so simplistic at this point that it's a bit embarrassing, but I'm trying to look at the basics. I'm also trying to stay realistic. And, Sam, I know I'm operating firmly in the "Advancement" mode, but, well, I am.

So here's what I wrote:

THOUGHTS/WARNINGS/QUESTIONS

There is a tendency for administrators to create work to justify position--don't do that! I think a lot of "assessment" boils down to just that. Speculations on my job (before division chairs meeting as a group with Paula):

• I think my job boils down to allocation of resources: Helping those in departments get what they need to do the best job they can. Understanding needs and helping with justifications. Conveying information to Paula (and others?), including information on relative urgency.
• My job is also to make the case that a reasonable amount of the overall resources should go to arts and humanities departments, based on what we say we're trying to do and how what we're trying to do fits into the overall mission of the college.
• In order to make a coherent case for a particular department, and for the division as a whole, do I need to be able to articulate an overarching goal ("mission") for the division? And is that sufficient reason to try to engage the faculty in a discussion toward that end (who we are, what we do, how to describe it)? Is such a discussion even necessary?
• Along the same lines, how important are departmental reviews, what is it that they are supposed to accomplish and how, and what should be my attitude toward them?
• Am I missing the more important (and so far the more interesting) aspect of the job: The possibility of creating new opportunities, new excitement, by promoting activities which get us talking and thinking together rather than in our own departments? How important, really, is that task? Is it important mainly as an end in itself or as a means to the primary end, which is building strong rationale for allocating more resources to FAH? It's easy to see that the two aspects of the job support each other, but where does the majority of my limited time go?
• What about a third aspect: Oversight. Is it part of my job to make sure that others in the division are properly doing their jobs? Am I a boss? I want to think that this aspect will take care of itself, that if I understand enough of what's going on, if I am open and listening well enough, any major problems will reveal themselves without the need for "performance reviews" and that kind of thing, and that I can then bring those problems to Paula's attention. I hope I can minimize this aspect of my job so that people can get on with their teaching and planning and scholarly activities without me looking over their shoulders. Am I being naive?
• Finally, where do these issues fit in? 1) working to see that academics in general (including issues of scholarship and faculty development) and the FAH in particular receive more prominence, both within and outside the college; 2) aggressively working to get FAH a bigger piece of the pie and more visibility in order to redress a imbalance between academic areas (that bit above about "a reasonable amount..." is a bit wimpy); working to insure that small, struggling programs don't get left behind but instead get beefed up (if that's what they want).