Dealing With Politics in Higher Ed!

[HigherEd7]

How do you deal with politics in higher ed? Whom do you trust and whom do you talk to? I am sure every profession has that one person that bounces around from break room to break room or office to office trying to find out what is going on. There also those faculty that keep their door closed during the day and office hours, and you hardly see them they are very low key.

[delsur]

Thank you for starting this thread. This has been on my mind lately. Although I thought I was pretty good at navigating complex departmental politics, just a few days ago I found myself crying out of rage about the passive-agressive bullying of a colleague. This senior colleague has alternated wildly (yet persistently for many years) between being nice and belittling, and the other day I think I just broke down out of exhaustion. Now I am not so confident about my abilities to deal with politics but these are some things I go by:

-if I feel like I have to listen to gossip because otherwise I'd turn the gossiper against me, I listen without participating or getting invested in the gossip
-I trust people who have meaningful and productive projects rather than those who are in the business of criticizing and complaining
-I turn to people who are not competing with me
-I am polite with everyone but don't waste time trying to win everyone over
-I try to remember that my work will guide my career rather than politics

And something that I aspire to do but have not yet done:
-even if an accomplishment triggers resentment in others, don't apologize for it. Apologizing creates a cycle in which the accomplishment is perceived to have been achieved at the expense of others (when they really had nothing to do with it).

Look forward to learning from others. 

[Ruralguy]

Most people are fairly earnest, but also self-interested (though not totally so).  So, I think being effectively political (which doesn't mean have becoming a dean in mind---just that you know how to navigate your workplace), means getting to know people a bit, seeing what their opinions are.
Also, if someone asks you for an opinion, it makes sense to be honest, but careful not to offend.
When you are asked to lead something, it makes sense to ask for opinions, but you wont be able to be constantly polling, and if you did, sometimes you would have to act against majority interests. Even so, knowing what people are thinking might be the most critical element.  Then comes implementing ideas. To do that, you have to know your school/dept., know the rules, know who can get crud done on staff and faculty and have a sense for institutional interests.

So, get to know folks and learn about how your place functions! If you dismiss this because "it takes too much work!", then, sure dismiss it, but hey, you asked!

[HigherEd7]

Great response. I have noticed there are those faculty who speak and stay to themselves, close their office door and if they see you on the way out they will speak and leave for the day. Then there are those who roam the halls and go from office to office trying to find out what is going on, and if not careful you can be sucked right into the gossip because they are good at what they do.

[ciao_yall]

Also to keep in mind...

• Some people hate everyone. Or they don't like one of your friends, so you by extension. So you will never be universally beloved.
• Other people have long memories. So they might be mad at you for something you said/did ages ago that you might not even remember. Or you were on an opposing side of an issue.
• The Parking Committee is where all the power lies.

[Ruralguy]

Just try not to make too many assumptions. Some people roam the halls because they are gregarious, or bored. I wouldn't necessarily assume they are looking for trouble, but maybe some are. If you know that someone is, beyond cautiously getting their opinion on certain issues, avoid them.

As for people who are more to themselves, there isn't much you can do. You can try asking for their opinions at group meetings, but my feeling is that such people would just say something very neutral or just say "everything is ok"

[mahagonny]

'Be friendly to all, friend to a few, enemy to none.'

The thing I hate the most is the trashing of a fellow employee who's either overweight or has had some health setback, disguised as concern. Like 'I knew he'd been under the weather but I was shocked at how bad he looked.' I wanna say 'yeah. Shut up and be cool before you've used up your chances.' And I'm not even that nice a guy. I just have a little common sense.

[dismalist]

Safely assume you can't change anyone's behavior. Then take it as given, and do the best you can for yourself under the circumstances. [Play Nash. :-)]

If that behavior is kind to you, reciprocate. If unkind, reciprocate that. If the other changes his or her behavior, you reciprocate. [Play tit-for-tat.:-)]

My own experience shows that the first paragraph is highly useful, but to not expect too much from asshats changing their behavior just because you are unkind to them. Asshats are also typically stupid.

[sprout]

Not an expert, but I like to think I've developed some savvy.  A few things that help me:

- Take all gossip with a grain of salt.  And take note of people for whom that should be a particularly big grain.
- That being said, it can sometimes be useful to listen to the gossip; but that does not mean you should help it spread.
- The one who loses their cool is the one who loses. 

[polly_mer]

So, get to know folks and learn about how your place functions! If you dismiss this because "it takes too much work!", then, sure dismiss it, but hey, you asked!

One key thing to establish in one's own mind as a newcomer to any organization is what the formal power structure is and who has substantial power without having the expected title.

Who is consulted as part of the preplanning that happens before the official committee meetings?

Who is part of "every" discussion before a proposal is made in the departmental meeting, the curriculum committee, or the faculty senate floor? 

Who is regularly tapped to lead the groups that are tasked with getting something done on a timeline that isn't just business as usual?

Who gets to regularly talk with the decision makers outside the formal process as just part of normal functioning?

When the formal, public-to-the-relevant-internal-community meetings happen, to whom do people look for the slight nod before continuing?  Who is explicitly asked their opinion when something unexpected is brought up from the floor?

None of this has anything to do with traits like who is the most visible, most talkative, or loudest.  This has to do with who is part of the real power structure to get things done or to effectively block new initiatives. 

I've certainly seen very ineffective chairs serving their required terms to just keep the wheels turning while the real chair is being groomed for success as a new assistant professor being mentored by the dean and other chairs.

I've been in situations where the formal power shifted enough and turnover was high enough that the old power brokers became quite angry about not being consulted before proposals regularly started showing up on the faculty senate floor.  How could they be cut out of the loop in favor of the newcomers?  One very effective mechanism as a body of newcomers was to become the go-to folks for the new president/provost/external-hire-dean who didn't already have their favorite faculty consultants. 

I remember very clearly one president who came in and chose his favorite faculty member based on appearance (that tweed jacket on a middle-aged white man) and specialty (PhD in a "real" field, not like all those fields cluttering up the landscape like nursing or engineering) who then had to walk it back because that particular individual was uninterested in any of the big problems facing the college.  Instead, that president had to turn to the people with cluttering PhDs who were interested in the functioning of the college and addressing the big problems.

[mamselle]

Whatever tiny bits of power you have, use your intelligence to learn how to use them for the general good of the people you work for, in kindly terms.

Not to advance your own causes, but theirs.

I twice got to work for people who did this, they were the ones people wanted to work for and learn from.

M.

[fishbrains]

So, get to know folks and learn about how your place functions! If you dismiss this because "it takes too much work!", then, sure dismiss it, but hey, you asked!

One key thing to establish in one's own mind as a newcomer to any organization is what the formal power structure is and who has substantial power without having the expected title.

+1.

We had a professional development deal where the person called this "leading from the middle." Their point was that the executive class tends to come and go, but the real leadership in terms of actually getting things done over the long haul often happens in the middle of the organization--that identifying these "middle" leaders who embody your ethics and professional goals can go a long way towards threshing out the chaff for you.

Also, don't piss off the administrative assistants/secretaries; there's is an entire communications loop there that you don't know about. And always be nice to people with keys to your office (custodial staff, campus police, etc.).

[polly_mer]

Whatever tiny bits of power you have, use your intelligence to learn how to use them for the general good of the people you work for, in kindly terms.

Not to advance your own causes, but theirs.

I twice got to work for people who did this, they were the ones people wanted to work for and learn from.

M.

One caveat to this is helping people get what they want instead of working on their behalf for what you want for them.  A key problem in many places is misalignment between what people actually want and what do-gooders are working really hard to get for them.

Another caveat is misalignment between what can be done within the constraints available, what identifiable individuals want, and what is good for the institution as a whole.  In some cases, it's better for the institution as a whole to stop doing something altogether to reallocate those resources elsewhere, even though that is a loss of jobs for excellent, highly qualified people who are doing very well as individual performers.  New Amsterdam  Episode "The Blues" has some very interesting examples of what happens to people and their jobs when the world moves on and no one takes the big picture of what is needed now. 

For example, more full-time jobs in fields where majors are dropping with questionable value added by having non-majors take one gen ed course in the field is probably not the right action for the institution as a whole, even if all the people currently in contingent positions would really prefer full-time jobs.

[ciao_yall]

So, get to know folks and learn about how your place functions! If you dismiss this because "it takes too much work!", then, sure dismiss it, but hey, you asked!

One key thing to establish in one's own mind as a newcomer to any organization is what the formal power structure is and who has substantial power without having the expected title.

+1.

We had a professional development deal where the person called this "leading from the middle." Their point was that the executive class tends to come and go, but the real leadership in terms of actually getting things done over the long haul often happens in the middle of the organization--that identifying these "middle" leaders who embody your ethics and professional goals can go a long way towards threshing out the chaff for you.

Also, don't piss off the administrative assistants/secretaries; there's is an entire communications loop there that you don't know about. And always be nice to people with keys to your office (custodial staff, campus police, etc.).

We also had an LFM initiative at our college. But the guy who was solely in charge of choosing people to participate was such a jerk that nobody wanted to sign up, and anyone who did sign up was tainted.

[mahagonny]

For example, more full-time jobs in fields where majors are dropping with questionable value added by having non-majors take one gen ed course in the field is probably not the right action for the institution as a whole, even if all the people currently in contingent positions would really prefer full-time jobs.

I need an extra brain to wrap around this sentence. Or maybe the sense not to try.