|
|
Columns::April 28, 2003
National search yields five finalists for diversity position
Ag college will consolidate some research and extension facilities
A matter of degrees: More than 5,000 complete requirements for graduation
Enjoying the last days of the semester
New awards program honors excellence in public management
Children's weight results to be released at BHSI symposium
All in agreement
Promotions
Tenure
Members of promotion and tenure review and appeals committees announced
Readers Write: UGA tops in international education
Earth Day 2003
Campus News
Forum essay
Faculty-administration relations
Editor’s note: The annual Faculty Symposium at Unicoi focused this year on four areas of concern: international education, faculty-administration relations, enhancing quality teaching, and extended academic programs. The resulting position papers have been sent to the provost, and have been published in the April 7, April 14, April 21 and April 28 issues of Columns.
At the recent Academic Affairs Faculty Symposium, we addressed the issue of “Building the Learning Environment: Opportunities for Faculty-Administrative Partnerships.” In our conversations, we focused not only on problems, but also on possibilities. As such, our goal was both to identify areas of concern and offer suggestions as to how faculty-administrative partnerships might become more effective on our campus.
Four primary concerns emerged regarding the current state of faculty-administrative partnerships: (1) the absence of an empowered faculty voice with the administration; (2) confusion over the roles of faculty and administration; (3) a lack of informed and consultative partnerships; and (4) the need for proactivity in the formation and structure of faculty-administrative partnerships. The common element underlying these concerns was this: trust is the bedrock of any partnership. This trust is best developed, we noted, through open communication; transparency of process; mutual understanding and support; respect for each partner’s strengths, abilities and areas of responsibility; and each partner’s assumption of accountability for the advancement and success of the partnership.
First, our group identified a need for a faculty voice with the administration, a voice empowered through transparent, accountable and equitable levels of communication. Many feel that present levels of communication too often fail to promote trust. Many sense a hidden agenda in some administrative decisions. And it should be noted that even if no such agenda exists, the faculty perception that it does is in itself problematic. In addition, all partners should reflect on their perceptions, and correct any which are potentially misleading: the faculty has the impression that the administration does not listen to them; the administration has the impression that the faculty will never be able to agree. Perceptions such as these can undermine any possibility of successful partnership.
Second, the explicit roles of faculty and administration in shared partnerships must be clarified and articulated. Who will have the power to make decisions? In this process, system integrity and procedural justice are essential. Again, communication is key. Obviously, both faculty and administration are committed at a philosophical level to certain common interests. Nonetheless, the faculty and the administration have different demands placed upon them as well as different constituencies making those demands. For example, faculty are more directly accountable to and affected by demands of the students while the administration is more directly accountable to and affected by the demands of the General Assembly. This is a complicated matter. Many faculty members believe that administrators should understand the positions of faculty members, since most administrators were once, and frequently still are, members of the faculty with home departments. Faculty are disappointed when administration shows little such understanding.
Yet it is also the case that many faculty members admit to having little understanding of administrative pressures and motivations. Thus, if both partners are to be full participants in arriving at satisfactory outcomes, each must understand the problems which face the university as a whole, and each partner also must understand the particular problems and unique pressures on and motivations of the other.
Third, it is essential that the administration consult with the faculty in the process of decision making and inform the faculty of the rationale underlying administrative decisions and requests. Clearly, partnerships in decision making are complicated, once again, by differences in the character of the partners. The faculty is large, diverse in its interests, and protected by academic freedom and the diverse and divergent viewpoints that this freedom creates. It is, therefore, difficult for “the faculty” to act quickly or as a cohesive unit.
The administration, on the other hand, is small; has fewer, and perhaps less diverse, goals; and operates via a “chain-of-command” structure. Thus, it can act more quickly and cohesively. These fundamental differences must be acknowledged, for they can easily create an imbalance in the roles played by each partner in the decision-making process and can exacerbate both real and imagined power inequities that hinder the creation and operation of satisfactory partnerships.
In all instances, it is important that both partners remember that no one will always prevail; each side will face disappointment in particular outcomes. Still, we believe such disappointments are more easily and readily accepted if there is procedural justice and transparency in the decision-making process on both sides.
Finally, the formation and structure of partnerships should be proactive, based on the issues at hand and the outcomes sought. The particular process used to respond to an issue will likely depend upon the substance of that issue; different issues will result in different types of partnerships between faculty and the administration.
Our group discussed many existing campus partnerships; several of those, we noted, might provide models of future partnerships: University Council, ad hoc committees and commissions, special task forces. As noted earlier, whatever model is chosen, the structure and goals of the partnership as well as the explicit roles of each partner should be clear at the outset. Is the partnership a sounding board? an advisory panel? a representative or decision-making body? What roles will other constituencies such as staff, students, and community play?
The focus of our discussions, and of this document, was driven by the task assigned to us at the symposium, and should not be taken as overlooking other vital constituencies at the university, particularly students and staff.
Many of the observations presented here apply to building partnerships with those constituencies as well. Again, the trust developed through open communication, transparency of process, mutual understanding and support, respect, and accountability is the bedrock of any partnership. Thus we hope these observations will facilitate the process of creating many effective partnerships to advance shared goals within the university community.
The workgroup members were Allen C. Amason, management; Peter A. Appel, law; Bill Barstow, biological sciences; Louise Benjamin, telecommunications; Jeri Benson, College of Education; Nancy L. Canolty, foods and nutrition; Brian Harward, student; Bill Jackson, Instructional Support and Development; Peggy J. Kreshel, advertising and public relations; Chris Langone, agricultural leadership, education and communication; Linda Medleau, small animal medicine; Denise S. Newborn, math education; Richard Morrison, chemistry; Gwynn Powell, recreation and leisure studies; Dorothy Y. White, math education; and David Wright, child and family development.
|
|
|
|
|
