Evaluation of service as department chair

The Committee of Academic Personnel is concerned that some of the accomplishments of departmental chairs may go unnoticed during the merit and promotion process. Currently, detailed information on the performance of chairs is sparsely and unevenly represented in their files. Evaluation of a chair's service is sometimes included in the department letter, but most of the available information on this subject is contained in the letter the dean writes for the chair.

In order to ensure that a chair's achievements are properly acknowledged during the review process, CAP has tried to identify the types of accomplishments that might be highlighted in a dean's letter. Of course, the duties and responsibilities of chairs vary widely across the campus, so the following suggestions are meant to stimulate thought and discussion, rather than to serve as an exhaustive list.

Exceptional service and innovations as chair might be indicated by:

1. Chairs who have made substantial improvements in administrative procedures, courses and curriculum, support for teaching and research, or other aspects of departmental life, rather than simply 'minding the store'.
2. Chairs who have identified ways that their department can improve its teaching, research and/or service mission, and who have led their faculty in implementing the changes required to improve the quality of their department.
3. Chairs who have gained the respect and the admiration of their faculty, e.g. because they take the time and effort required to make fair and even-handed decisions, rather than handling problems using the most expedient method.
4. Chairs who anticipate and solve administrative problems before they affect the staff, faculty or students in their unit.
5. Chairs who view their role as an integral part of a larger administrative group, and who work toward the health of that larger group, rather than always operating in a competitive, zero-sum mode.
6. Chairs who have guided their departments through a difficult transition (reorganization, fission, downsizing, etc.), and who have been able to minimize the damage and maximize the opportunities that occur during such periods.
7. Chairs who make substantial contributions to the governance of their college (e.g. as valued and productive members of advisory committees to the dean).
8. Chairs who adroitly manage the financial, physical and spatial resources provided to their department, and who allocate resources fairly among the individuals in their unit.
9. Chairs who have successfully attracted and recruited high caliber faculty to their units and to the campus.
10. Chairs who have improved the diversity of the faculty and staff in their department. (Diversity in graduate admissions is the responsibility of the Graduate Group chair.)
11. Chairs who foster the development and success of their faculty, e.g. by mentoring junior and new senior faculty, by writing thoughtful, insightful and detailed letters for merits and promotions, and by fairly and accurately representing their faculty in the event of disagreements about merits and promotions.
12. Chairs who support individual faculty members in their research and teaching, e.g. by helping them establish intellectual networks on campus or seek out funding from traditional or innovative places.
13. Chairs who are able to build on a department's strengths, by marshaling the hidden resources of the faculty. This might include reconceptualizing disciplines, so as to create new units or subspecialties comprised of faculty already on campus.
14. Chairs who skillfully negotiate among differing opinions within the department, seeking rapprochement if possible, or peaceful coexistence and tolerance if not.
15. Chairs who receive the strong support of departmental staff, e.g. because they are able to improve relationships between staff and faculty, or because they are sensitive to staff needs and concerns when instituting administrative procedures.

Academic units vary greatly in size, and the deans of large units may lack the detailed information required to document the accomplishments made by the chairs within their unit. In such cases, it might be possible for a dean to collect information about a chair's performance from various sources. However, if a Dean does request information from faculty members, staff members or students, the procedure used should insure a response from all of the individuals in a particular category. In contrast, on open call for comments from anyone within the unit is more likely to yield a biased sample of comments, from individuals who either strongly approve or strongly disapprove of the chair's performance. Another important issue is confidentiality, since the chair is in a position of power with respect to the faculty, staff and students in his or her unit.

CAP hopes that these suggestions will help Deans understand the types of information about a chair's administrative skills, academic vision and collegiality that should be considered when chairs are evaluated for merits or promotions. We encourage additional suggestions from the Deans and faculty about the types of achievements of chairs that should be considered when these individuals are considered for advancement and promotion. Finally, CAP emphasizes that this list is not meant to be a "check list" for evaluating chair's performances, but rather a means to support and acknowledge faculty members whose service as chair should be recognized and rewarded.

Committee on Academic Personnel, 12/13/95. Revised 3/6/96 (added item 10 and renumbered some items).