Search results

The purpose of this study was to determine not-yet-tenured university library faculty members’ views of 27 methods their department chair may use to support and enhance the faculty member's professional development. The methods were derived from earlier qualitative research on department chairs in higher education. While academic teaching department chair roles have been the subject of the research literature for many years, little research has addressed library faculty perceptions of the department chair's role. The survey instrument used consisted of two parts: (1) a demographics section, consisting of five questions; and (2) a researcher-developed survey of faculty perceptions of the department chairs’ role in faculty development. Survey participants were asked to rate the importance of methods chairs may use in enhancing the professional activities of faculty. According to the not-yet-tenured library faculty members responding to this study, a chair engaging in the most important practices to enhance their faculty's professional development would be one who utilizes good communication, while acting as an administrative advocate.

Department chairs represent one of the most intriguing, complex, and important leadership roles in higher education. Despite the important role chairs play, there is limited research about ongoing dynamics and how they manage the complexities that come along with the position. The tension between the academic and administrative cores creates inherent stress in the position. What stresses department chairs? Has it changed over time? The theoretical construct used to investigate these questions is based on the four-stage chair stress cycle (identification, perception, response, and consequences), and in particular the first two stages of identification and perception. The data for this study are derived from two data sets collected in 1991 and 2016 surveying 800 and 982 department chairs respectively. Each survey assessed personal profiles, professional and organizational variables, and two validated stress and role instruments. Findings collected 25 years apart suggested some shifts in chair gender, motivation to serve, professional identity, preparation, tenure status, and ethnicity. When comparing top stressors from 1991 to 2016, more stress emanated from chairs trying to balance scholarship and leadership as well as work-life balance. Top department chair stressors underscored the difficulty to find some balance between professional and personal roles. Many of these imbalances appeared to be more structural and inherent in the position while others fall within the chairs' control to be personally managed. Female chairs experienced higher stress than men from having insufficient time to stay current in their academic fields and balancing administrative and scholarly demands. The researchers expected to find significant differences according to marital status, ethnicity, and age, but no significant trends emerged. Ultimately, higher education institutions will continue to have a leadership crisis if the conditions for chairing departments remain unmanageable.

Leadership and management are concepts regularly used in organizational change and reform literature. This is particularly evident in educational settings and oftentimes understood as interchangeable. The school administrator is considered a leadership position, as is department chair in an institution of higher education. Yet, most are engaged daily in management tasks with little to no time spent on leadership (Bush, 2008). In higher education, the complex role of department chair necessitates a multi-task oriented individual (Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, & Tucker, 1999) who can both serve and coordinate multiple constituencies and ultimately balance the role of chair with the continuing roles of teacher and scholar. Although they are pulled in many directions there may be no more important leadership position in the institution for those interested in affecting the future of young people as well as their colleagues. In this chapter we discuss the commonalities and differences between leadership and management across the PreK-16 continuum; present the general roles and responsibilities of school-based administrators and university-level department chairs, and; compare leadership readiness and transition processes of school-based and university-level department chairs. Implications for theory and practice are presented.

The purpose of this study is twofold. The first purpose is to inform faculty who are thinking of becoming a department head about the challenges they face if they choose to pursue a department head opportunity. The second purpose is to provide insight into the leadership of the accounting departments by looking at various workload aspects of department heads. The authors surveyed accounting department heads from programs with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accounting accreditation, AACSB business only accreditation, and non-AACSB accreditation. Surveys were sent to 918 individuals listed as the leader of an accounting program in the 2016–2017 Hasselback Accounting Directory with 144 individuals responding (15.7% response rate). In addition to the workload of the department head in the areas of teaching, research, and service, the study analyzed the major challenges and difficulties the department head faces. The study also sought responses from survey participants on additional issues such as the benefits of AACSB accreditation and compensation.

We examine chairs’ beliefs about the role of gender and gender inequality in their departments. Because work-family concerns have been central to explanations of gender inequality in the academy, we pay special attention to these issues.

We analyze interview data collected from 52 department chairs at one research-intensive, public university.

Although the chairs we interviewed were sympathetic and aware in many respects, their views on gender, work, and family were filtered through the lens of personal responsibility and choice, an outmoded view of work as separate and distinct from family life, and a notion of gender as a personal characteristic rather than an entrenched feature of academic work and careers.

Our focus on departmental leaders fills an important gap in the literature, which has focused more on the perspectives of faculty and less on those with the power to frame gender issues.

The author of this chapter is a former college professor. Sandwiched around his time in the academy, he has spent time as a K-12 educator. The author explains how he suffered horrific racism and mistreatment during his time in higher education. He filed a massive complaint (over 30 pages excluding supporting documentation) that he believes cost several people their jobs including the then Departmental Chair. At the time of his hiring, the university was going through reaccreditation and had been cited for a lack of racial, ethnic, and geographic diversity as well as a low percentage of full-time faculty with earned doctorate degrees. The author believes with his hiring the university could check off all those boxes in regards to racial diversity. The author believes the university's intent was never for him to succeed; but rather the intent was to have the optics of diversity during the reaccreditation process and then unceremoniously separate him from the university.

The author believes he won in many ways but may never gain employment in academia again. With this chapter, the author hopes to help other Black male academics to avoid the pitfalls and mistakes he made.