July 2002
Volume 18
Number 4
Winning the Faculty
Academic governance reserves pride of place for the faculty. Even when faculty do not have a direct role in decision-making, their views and interests are never far from the thoughts of those charged with administration. None of the stakeholders of colleges and universities has anything like the scope and depth of influence wielded by the faculty. No noteworthy initiative can be undertaken without their concurrence or continued in the face of their disapproval. Information technology is no exception from these tests, even though many faculty do not pay much attention to the normal run of IT issues.
No academic constituency is as difficult – by reputation and in actuality – than the faculty. They are an association of professionals, an alliance of individuals, more like a very large law firm or medical practice than a corporate or industrial workforce. Faculty are not effectively accountable to any administrative authority, not even to trustees, regents, or legislators. Their scope of responsibility is nominally rather small – centered on their own teaching, research, and committee service – but at their discretion they can expand that range to include almost any topic, even if just temporarily. They do not feel obligated to pay attention to the full range of issues facing the institution. When they rise to a controversial topic, there are no sure restraints on their tone. On more than a few campuses, administrators are intimidated by their own fear of how faculty might react if roused in anger.
Faculty have two modes of awareness for matters not on their own, active agenda: remote observation and reactive mobilization. In some respects, this form of participation in governance is like that of most citizens in the wider society; they choose their own level of participation in the activities of governance, detached observers much of the time but more active when concerned. Despite the existence of regular, standing committees in which they participate, faculty are generally not consistent in the degree of attention they bring to routine matters of administration and governance.
A different manner
Campus administrators tend to consider faculty slow to act and
resistant to change. Faculty deliberations are often lengthy, more open
and democratic than processes on the administrative side. In IT matters,
the faculty role is typically that of advice and oversight, leaving actual
decision-making to administrators. In short, the manner of faculty
participation in governance does not lend itself to quick progress. Even
in the absence of controversy, moving to quick decisions is not always
possible.
IT poses a special challenge for faculty when they are deliberating on policy decisions. They feel uncomfortable in discussing topics outside their expertise; technology still can cause discomfort, even for faculty whose familiarity with it is actually rather good.
The challenge for CIOs and senior administrators when working with faculty in IT decision-making is to bridge the differences in governance style. The perspectives of managers and faculty are bound to be different but have to reconciled in order to get decisions. Being persuasive in the unique context of academic governance processes is one of the hardest tasks for everyone in the IT profession.
Credentials
As for so many aspects of effectiveness in IT governance on campus,
the effectiveness of the CIO is paramount. For working with faculty and in
the processes where faculty influence is strong, one of the basic
requirements is strong credentials. Faculty tend to prefer administrators
and leaders who were faculty at some point in their career. While this is
still the rule for deans and provosts, it is becoming less common for
CIOs.
It’s hard to argue that a Ph.D. or teaching experience are objectively necessary to be an effective IT leader. More to the point, those credentials have more to do with faculty perceptions and comfort than with real requirements of the role. Still, the credentials issue is a pervasive problem when trying to get faculty acceptance in decision-making.
Institutions have to address faculty expectations for credentials when hiring the CIO. Continuing to honor Ph.D. and faculty work history as prime qualifications for CIOs, in deference to faculty perceptions, does not serve colleges and universities well and probably fails to credit faculty with the ability to recognize other credentials for leadership. IT professionals today include many whose backgrounds are more varied than the stereotype of "former faculty" that was prevalent in the first generations of IT leadership. Senior administrators and search committees need to move beyond what is now an outdated bias when looking for a CIO.
The right skills
Once hired, a CIO depends heavily on speaking ability to succeed in
forums shared with faculty. An important part of this skill is sensitivity
to the vocabulary and codes of the standard language for public discussion
in academic governance. Faculty are highly attuned to how well others
(including their own colleagues) speak. Technical jargon is off-putting.
Wit is highly valued. Overly simple analogies appear condescending. Good
organization and concluding summaries are effective.
Most CIOs overlook the potential of writing as a means to reach and persuade faculty. Planning documents and annual reports are not sufficient, and even these are typically not published in places faculty are likely to find and read them. Articles and essays are typically not part of the expressive arsenal of CIOs but easily could be (if the fear of writing for the public can be overcome) – no other forms of writing carry the same inherent kind of credibility with faculty.
E-mail, too, is a neglected medium for more extensive and direct communication with faculty, particularly those who themselves use e-mail as a way of exchanging thought with colleagues, and not just a tool for communication chores. Faculty are primarily writers. They learn by reading what their colleagues write. They think by writing. For them writing is a special form of conversation, and e-mail is now the most prevalent form of writing.
Committee management
Although faculty complain almost ritualistically about committees and
meetings, only the classroom is more important to them. Being able to make
committee meetings productive is an invaluable skill for CIOs, as much for
winning the respect and trust of faculty as for getting business done. The
challenge is can be more acute and important when someone else is chairing
an important meeting but relies on the CIO to actually carry the agenda.
Most committees dealing with IT issues need to spend a considerable amount of time educating the members on the topics it needs to address. Faculty representatives on policy and oversight committees will often hold back from active participation in the meetings if they do not feel they have an adequate understanding of the matters at hand. But rarely will they ask directly to be brought up to speed so as to feel more competent.
The problem is even more difficult if the committee has a high proportion of administrators, and at least some of them seem relatively better informed. In those circumstances, it is important to take the time to make sure that everyone present has the chance to learn whatever is necessary to participate effectively.
For the actual conduct of meetings, specifying and following objectives is critical. Because faculty deliberations, in their native mode, tend to be open-ended and exploratory it is all too easy for committee meetings to stick in that mode of conversation. Being able to move a committee through the phases of discussion and decision is a skill faculty seem to expect in administrators but rarely take upon themselves.
Follow-up is almost as important to committee success as the actual meetings, and a commonly neglected part of managing them. Few committee members, faculty or others, will do "homework" between meetings. Because faculty tend to think committee work – particularly between meetings – is more appropriate to administrators, they will rely on others to do what is necessary to cement the committee’s work.
Informal consultation
The IT enterprise and all who work inside it are still too insular on
campus. More opportunities for informal conversations could do much to
ease the free flow of ideas and information and build a stronger bond
between IT personnel and faculty. Remembering that faculty work is largely
divided among classroom, private spaces for research, and committee
meetings, any additional avenues of contact would be valuable
contributions to a better sense of community and solidarity. IT personnel
need to be more engaged in life on campus, including participation in
voluntary activities and attendance at cultural events. Too often IT staff
simply do not mix easily with others on campus, and feel out of touch as a
result.
Mistakes and pitfalls
The most common mistake in working with faculty is simple inattention.
Failure to know and understand their concerns begins with the variety of
opinions and degrees of interest found among faculty. There is often no
single, official faculty stance on issues; the sum of individual views is
more likely what one finds.
Getting a better sense of the faculty is time-consuming work, but there is no substitute for making the effort to hear the range and nuances of ideas and attitudes. An IT organization needs to be attentive at all levels in order to internalize understanding of the faculty as a constituency.
Impatience is another pitfall to avoid. Because their scope of duties is narrower than that of most administrative staff, faculty tend to feel less hurried and driven. As a result, they are sometimes less attuned to deadlines or to the need to juggle multiple projects and priorities – realities of working life for staff, and hallmarks of the IT workplace. Frustration with this divergence in perspectives on work is widespread among IT staff but only contributes to ignoring faculty views.
Prolonged experience of basic differences in outlook leads to defensive attitudes. Faculty feel reinforced in their lingering suspicion that IT is alien to their sense of academic purpose. IT staff get more entrenched in feeling marginal and disregarded. The differences are real and cannot be made to go away, but perceptions and attitudes should not be allowed to prevent development of enduring professional trust. Faculty have to accept that with the advent of technology on campus, a strong IT organization (with a big budget) is a permanent necessity. IT staff need to understand that faculty are not simply another class of employee: they have a privileged place at the core of the enterprise, and have had that role as long as the modern university has existed.
Necessary changes
The conclusion to draw regarding the importance and the nature of
faculty influence in all aspects of academic administration cannot be that
the IT side needs to make all the accommodations. Some aspects of
faculty-staff relations look disturbingly like class-based prejudice and
should not be tolerated. In particular, faculty insecurity about not being
fluent in the details of information technology leads too often to
strained relations with the IT staff. The most effective intervention for
closing gaps between faculty and the IT staff can only come from the
senior administration. Deans and provosts, who generally come to their
jobs directly from the faculty ranks, are the best situated to build the
bridges. Too often they see themselves as advocates for faculty against
the IT organization even when it reports to them. At the very least, they
can insist on civility in faculty-staff relations and take action against
those who do not comply.
The best opportunity for leadership for deans, department chairs, and senior faculty is to set good examples. Being knowledgeable and articulate about at least the basics of IT would be an effective aid from this level of academic leaders.
Effective steps
While assistance in changing attitudes would be useful and welcome,
some more substantial measures are also necessary. One of the biggest
impediments to faculty-IT cooperation is weakness in the quality of
faculty representation on governance committees for IT. Appointed
committees are too often populated by the "usual suspects" –
the long-standing technology champions who are named repeatedly. The best
choices are not always the habitual picks. When faculty elect
representatives to committees they need to make sure they are selecting
the most effective colleagues, and not deferring unduly to those who seem
to "own" the IT issues. These pitfalls are all the more
troublesome on smaller campuses, where the influence of a few with strong
opinions can be hard to counterbalance.
Changes are necessary in order to give IT leadership the opportunity to win the enduring confidence of the faculty. Along the way, redressing unfair or unreasonable treatment IT staff have endured at the hands of faculty is welcome, but the real objective needs to be winning confidence and making lasting cooperation possible. IT can never truly connect with the core values of academic institutions until it can win the faculty’s respect and trust. TW
The Edutech Report is a monthly publication of Magna Publications
The EDUTECH REPORT is published each month by Magna Publications www.magnapubs.com, 2718 Dryden Drive, Madison, WI 53704; 800-433-0499. President: William Haight whaight@magnapubs.com; Publisher: David Burns dburns@magnapubs.com; Managing internal editor: Rob Kelly robkelly@magnapubs.com. Content provided by contributing editors Linda Fleit lfleit@edutech-int.com and Thomas Warger twarger@edutech-int.com. Subscription Customer Service custserv@magnapubs.com. Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. Authorization to photocopy items for specific clients is granted by Magna Publications for users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that 50 cents per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 09123. Phone: 978-750-8400; www.copyright.com. For those organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged. One-year subscriptions: $199. Discounts available for multiple subscriptions.