We have a new department chairman. We were recently informed by his administrative assistant that we were not permitted to e-mail him or cc him on any relevant conversations within the university. Apparently his secretary reads all the e-mails and decides what he needs to see. If we require a decision on something, we are to e-mail her and she will brief him and get back to us. What is this? Severe personality disorder? Something that's common somewhere else? I don't think I have encountered anything quite like this in a university before. It feels disrespectful to the faculty, many of whom have been working at the uni for several years. It seems like a violation of faculty governance or something -- but is it really? It feels as though we have all been demoted and it sure as hell doesn't feel 'collegial'. Any thoughts?
Quote from: Morris Zapp on February 10, 2021, 01:50:17 PM
We have a new department chairman. We were recently informed by his administrative assistant that we were not permitted to e-mail him or cc him on any relevant conversations within the university. Apparently his secretary reads all the e-mails and decides what he needs to see. If we require a decision on something, we are to e-mail her and she will brief him and get back to us. What is this? Severe personality disorder? Something that's common somewhere else? I don't think I have encountered anything quite like this in a university before. It feels disrespectful to the faculty, many of whom have been working at the uni for several years. It seems like a violation of faculty governance or something -- but is it really? It feels as though we have all been demoted and it sure as hell doesn't feel 'collegial'. Any thoughts?
Her name isn't Edith Wilson, is it?
It would be funny except that it isn't. Do we merely need to accept this? Is this the sort of thing you would bring up with HR? The secretary is now tasking us with things and demanding that we send them to her by specific dates.
You need to remain on the admin assistant's good side. Gifting them something sweet and/or alcoholic is in order.
If it is a big dept I can see the appeal of the policy for the chair. But it is ridiculous.
I'd imagine the dept would soon get together and rule this policy out of order. The chair is not a king.
I might well tell the secretary to tell the chair not to email me personally.
In some places, a senior professor sits the new chair down and tells them how things are going to be. Things run a lot smoother once the limited power of the chair is clear to everyone.
Coincidentally, my wife, a doctor in a hospital, was confronted with what I think is an efficient version of this. Apparently everybody and his brother and sister complained by e-mail to the new boss that they wanted more money, less work, more underlings -- the lot. So, at a monthly meeting the new boss said to everybody: I'm doing such and such about salaries, full stop. Do not e-mail me about this anymore. I will not read such e-mails.[/b]
Not knowing the facts here, I have two opposite reactions, both of which could be correct:
1. The new boss is a fool for having someone filter the information s/he gets.
2. The e-mailers are fools for making absurd demands.
Who's paying the assistant? Those aren't normal admin assistant duties. It sounds like a ton of extra work. Does it violate union provisions?
It's not unusual for upper-level EAs to have such an arrangement with their bosses.
Some have ALL the boss' emails forwarded directly to them, they administer the inbox, etc, only forwarding back what passes triage, and no-one but they and their boss knows. Some never see the boss' emails before the boss does, but they are opened, read, and forwarded to be worked on as requested--or any array in between. I've worked for people with all those possibilities.
It may not appear to an outside viewer to be the most efficient or friendly, but in fact that's the only way to function if you have an exec with an email box that blows up in the hundreds every day, and they have to travel, or be in meetings all day, or whatever....
I'm just now dealing with a nutty payment problem from the job I'm trying to leave (was supposed to be done at the end of December, ahem) because my former boss either didn't get or deleted some timesheets that they were supposed to pay on until the bank account is transferred over to the new person, because theirs is the only valid signature on the checks until then.
The timesheets have someone else's name on them, the former boss didn't pay on them but also didn't tell me, and since I didn't get the materials in question, I didn't know to follow up further until the new people started (today) complaining about not being paid.
Limiting payment stuff to one person--the assistant--who just goes and gets the boss' approval for the payment or hands/emails them only the timesheets to pay on would make that work efficiently. Sending it to two people at different times, or just one, and having mixed follow-up, has made it a mess.
Perhaps the new person has dealt with issues like this and has figured out this is the way things work out best for them.
It makes a lot of sense to me, although usually it's done on the QT because, optics.
M.
Forbidding people to email the chair at all seems weird, but it's perfectly normal for a lot of admin tasks to run through the admin person rather than the chair, including the admin asking faculty for stuff by deadlines-- our department manager asks us for stuff all the time, that's part of his job.
I'm surprised to have a department chair do that, but most of our senior leaders here have two addresses: their personal address and something like chancellor@myuni.edu. There's an understanding that the personal address is used sparingly, and only for truly personal communication.
Mamselle's post is how things normally run at high enough level to have a personal.assistant for the reason she mentions.
It's normal enough even at the departmental.level to have multiple emails as pgher mentions: one for the assistants to triage for standard requests and one personal direct to the chair for non-departmental needs.
The questions are whether the assistant really knows how to triage and whether the chair needs the level of triage that the assistant is providing.
Hmmm... if all emails for His Majesty the Chair need to be shepherded by his secretary, does this also mean His minions, the faculty, are not welcome to knock on his door? Do they need to acquire an appointment from the sec?
QuoteWe have a new department chairman. We were recently informed by his administrative assistant that we were not permitted to e-mail him or cc him on any relevant conversations within the university. Apparently his secretary reads all the e-mails and decides what he needs to see. If we require a decision on something, we are to e-mail her and she will brief him and get back to us.
QuoteThe secretary is now tasking us with things and demanding that we send them to her by specific dates.
Why am I tempted to CC the Dean on all emails from the admin assistant forbidding communication with the chair? This is either evidence of someone overstepping or someone abandoning their areas of responsibility.
Any request from the secretary 'tasking' me would surely go to the dean for confirmation. I may even comply with the deadlines, but send the work to the Dean and a separate note that the work can be obtained from the Dean. I would also request that the Dean update the organizational chart showing the Administrative Assistant's proper place in the chain of command.
In all seriousness, IF you have a University Ombuds, I would absolutely communicate my displeasure with the situation. This can be done anonymously, and would surely be brought to the attention of the Dean, and perhaps the provost.
If you did that to one of the people I worked for, they'd probably never recommend you for anything again...except maybe the parking lot committee.
They might even tell you to get over yourself.
It's a mode of surviving and getting things done, and it's not all that unheard of.
I'd think carefully.
M.
QuoteIf you did that to one of the people I worked for, they'd probably never recommend you for anything again...except maybe the parking lot committee.
Im a tenured full professor, planning (maybe hoping) to retire by the end of 2024. I have plenty of service under my belt, and frankly, I dont think that I need to be recommended for anything else.
IF this Admin. Ass.'s actions are reflections of and supported by the admincritters in charge, then I think that I would redouble my efforts to ensure that I am able to retire at that date. My willingness to retire would be assured!
So my advice to involve the Ombuds IS the real advice. The prior part of the reply was simply reflecting my condolences to the OP.
I prefer something like this 1000% over the much more common situation of people who simply do not respond to emails at all. Someone who waits longer than 24 hours to respond to a legitimate inquiry from me loses my confidence to go to them at all. Some percentage of this is relate to increased contact based on the ease of email vs other methods. I struggle with people texting me all the time despite my wishes that they do not do this for something they would not call for. These requests may as well be for a golden unicorn to fly me to Paris for pastries. I still get an unending supply of unnecessary photos of people's daily lives or articles/youtube clips.
As others have said, not an unknown set up to have an EA read the emails - but the OP's comment of "not allowed" to email or cc sounds like dept chair wants some kind of plausible deniability for what's going on in the dept.
For a big dept at a major university, I'm sure the chair gets an absolute tsunami of messages, most of the type "Dear professor, I wish do phd in [unrelated subject] at your esteemed university. I demand you admit me and give scholarship", peppered with faculty complaining about their research budget, and students who are pissy their prof didn't reply to their email in 2 hours on a Sunday night [interthreaduality].
Quote from: bacardiandlime on February 11, 2021, 03:45:40 AM
For a big dept at a major university, I'm sure the chair gets an absolute tsunami of messages, most of the type "Dear professor, I wish do phd in [unrelated subject] at your esteemed university. I demand you admit me and give scholarship", peppered with faculty complaining about their research budget, and students who are pissy their prof didn't reply to their email in 2 hours on a Sunday night [interthreaduality].
Have you been snooping in my inbox? I'm not even a chair! The only thing missing is the review request from a new MDPI journal.
Quote from: Morris Zapp on February 10, 2021, 01:50:17 PM
We have a new department chairman. We were recently informed by his administrative assistant that we were not permitted to e-mail him or cc him on any relevant conversations within the university. Apparently his secretary reads all the e-mails and decides what he needs to see. If we require a decision on something, we are to e-mail her and she will brief him and get back to us. What is this? Severe personality disorder? Something that's common somewhere else? I don't think I have encountered anything quite like this in a university before. It feels disrespectful to the faculty, many of whom have been working at the uni for several years. It seems like a violation of faculty governance or something -- but is it really? It feels as though we have all been demoted and it sure as hell doesn't feel 'collegial'. Any thoughts?
This would not fly in my dept., happy to say. Our chair is a colleague, not insulated UpperAdmin. The chair receives extra pay and other benefits precisely to do bureaucratic work and be responsive to dept. colleagues with questions and concerns. We rely heavily on email communication, especially during pandemic. Some emails should not be read by support staff.
That said, some chairs are more collegial than others, some seek to expand their power.
Is it possible your chair has a disability that makes processing emails difficult? If not, sounds like they think they are Provost.
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 10, 2021, 09:16:33 PM
Hmmm... if all emails for His Majesty the Chair need to be shepherded by his secretary, does this also mean His minions, the faculty, are not welcome to knock on his door? Do they need to acquire an appointment from the sec?
Yes. They do.
Agree with Clean and Cheerful. We funnel nuts and bolts stuff through our secretaries, but the wording bespeaks a kind of C-suite mentality, is uncollegial, and could jeopardize privacy. We are a union shop though.
Quote from: Morris Zapp on February 11, 2021, 06:18:10 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 10, 2021, 09:16:33 PM
Hmmm... if all emails for His Majesty the Chair need to be shepherded by his secretary, does this also mean His minions, the faculty, are not welcome to knock on his door? Do they need to acquire an appointment from the sec?
Yes. They do.
In many places, Department
Chairs' first duty is to the faculty, Department
Heads' first duty is to the dean. What's the practice at your university?
Quote from: Hibush on February 11, 2021, 06:58:40 AM
Quote from: Morris Zapp on February 11, 2021, 06:18:10 AM
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 10, 2021, 09:16:33 PM
Hmmm... if all emails for His Majesty the Chair need to be shepherded by his secretary, does this also mean His minions, the faculty, are not welcome to knock on his door? Do they need to acquire an appointment from the sec?
Yes. They do.
In many places, Department Chairs' first duty is to the faculty, Department Heads' first duty is to the dean. What's the practice at your university?
Many but not all. At my university, we have chairs, but their function and hiring is more like a head. I think it has gradually shifted over the years and the title just hasn't been updated. May be the case for Morris Zapp as well.
I wonder how many people posting here have been in the position of actually needing an executive assistant to deal with the sheer volume of emails, calls, and visits.
If you haven't done it, then you can't imagine. I remember the first time I came back from a half hour meeting to 50 emails, several voice mails, and a line of people in the hall waiting to see me for 'just a couple minutes'. My 200 emails a day and twenty hours of meetings per week now is a light pleasantry compared to those days.
Quote from: polly_mer on February 11, 2021, 07:45:00 AM
I wonder how many people posting here have been in the position of actually needing an executive assistant to deal with the sheer volume of emails, calls, and visits.
I've been the EA.
I get the sheer volume part, but emails from dept colleagues should be read, and appropriately responded to. All emails are not the same. And, someone finally did get around to mentioning that having the secretary have to read them first eliminates any possibility of 'for your eyes only'-style private ones.
Why doesn't the administrator just have an official email address (seniordean@university.edu or whatever) and have his secretary read that inbox for him? It would be a lot simpler than trying to coax everyone into never emailing the administrator directly.
Quote from: Hegemony on February 13, 2021, 01:09:20 AM
Why doesn't the administrator just have an official email address (seniordean@university.edu or whatever) and have his secretary read that inbox for him? It would be a lot simpler than trying to coax everyone into never emailing the administrator directly.
Because you seem to be suggesting that there would still be the option to e-mail him on another, private e-mail account; thus, he will still be getting large amounts of e-mails and it defeats the purpose.
Quote from: Descartes on February 13, 2021, 11:42:37 AM
Quote from: Hegemony on February 13, 2021, 01:09:20 AM
Why doesn't the administrator just have an official email address (seniordean@university.edu or whatever) and have his secretary read that inbox for him? It would be a lot simpler than trying to coax everyone into never emailing the administrator directly.
Because you seem to be suggesting that there would still be the option to e-mail him on another, private e-mail account; thus, he will still be getting large amounts of e-mails and it defeats the purpose.
This is what is common practice in lots of situations. For instance, when a faculty member becomes the undergrad advisor in my department they get an email like "advising@marhsu.ca". Since that is the published email for advising, that will get the bulk of the advising email. The vast majority of what comes in on their personal email will be the same as before; i.e. stuff that has nothing to do with advising. Most people won't have a clue who is the chair of some specific department at some specific institution, and if the published email for the chair is "chair_somedept@some.institution" then that's what most people will use. This will be
especially true for the spammiest emails, since those will be from people who aren't doing any significant research to figure out who they are actually trying to communicate with. Since the email isn't person-specific it can be on all websites, letterhead, etc. in perpetuity, and all that will change is who ultimately reads it.