CHE: Administrators unfairly disparaged

[Hibush]

In an amusing CHE editorial, Brian Rosenberg comes to the defense of the poor oppressed deanlet who suffers the contempt of those uppity PhD types.

The author's chip-on-the-shoulder perspective is familiar in today's political discourse, but it is not so common coming from someone who was a college president and is currently at Harvard. An administrator at the Harvard unit that trains college administrators.

One of the key arguments is that administrators should be judged by what they accomplish and what they have expertise in, even if both of those differ from what faculty do. Fair enough. The related conclusion is that administrators should not be belittled as a group because some do stupid stuff. But it seems to me that if enough administrators accomplish bad things, then it is perhaps fair to judge the whole operation. Especially if the college's top administrator lets that bad administrative behavior continue.

As it happens, I am hugely fortunate in having really good academic administration. So I don't belittle mine. But that does not seem to be the industry norm. I'm afraid current Harvard School of Ed grads are not going to improve matters if they reflect their leader's view of the challenge.

[Ruralguy]

In my experience, many faculty do see administrators as working with "the dark side" and are very dismissive of them before any meaningful discussion happens.

However, I have noticed that almost every Dean or President has had moments of stretching credulity. I.e., they all at least sometimes lie through their teeth. Why?
Often, they are just bound by confidentiality, but other times, I think they just don't want to tell the truth, such as :" I am unwilling to go ahead with X because I personally think its stupid," and not for any real reason besides that. Or, "I must do Y or the board will likely fire me."

So, faculty need to be more willing to have civil discussions with administrators, especially if they are experts in the area the administer. Administrators need to not dismiss faculty as all being impractical and arrogant. They need to be a bit more open and honest as well. if there are real reasons for saying "yes" or "no," then provide faculty with the *real* reasons.

[Wahoo Redux]

Polly used to make the point that admincritters did all the things that the rest of us don't want to do and often have to make the tough decisions that no one else can make, which I thought were good points.

What's too bad is that people sometimes hop from associate chair, to chair, to associate dean, to dean, and even to provost without any real business training along the way, and not everyone is a good administrator by temperament or ability----and in my limited experience that's where a lot of the problems lie.  We had this one dean-to-provost disaster which...well, it would be a long tangent.

Something like this:

Expertise in other areas without which the university could not function is at best less important and at worst nonexistent.

Part of the problem is that the smartest people in academe don't want to be admins.

And there is this:

unless one is or has been a faculty member, one has no right to tell faculty members what they should or should not do.

Yeah, within reason and scope, maybe they shouldn't.  We had this one situation involving, of all things, the book store...nah, too long a tangent.

[dismalist]

Well, there have to be administrators. My problem with them was that there are too many of them!

Otherwise, the attempt to manipulate information noted up-thread. But that's common to all bureaucracies.

[Ruralguy]

Yes, it really depends on *what* you are telling the faculty to do. Besides, plenty of administrators who have been faculty have been twits, and some with almost no or no faculty experience have been fine.  Its almost better that they have no preconceived notions.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

The article seems to be [intentionally?] omitting [mis]handling of finances - one of the chief complaints about administrators.
I am yet to encounter an outrage about a particular mandatory training course (mentioned as one of two major complaints in the article), but more perks for admin in times of budget cuts seem to be a pattern.

[downer]

I recently interacted with a student who plans to be a healthcare administrator. I found it hard to be enthusiastic.

Administration is necessary. Some people do their job well, others no so well. Some are assholes. I've mostly quite liked the administrators I knew outside of their jobs. Higher admin is not a job I would relish -- dealing with difficult faculty and trying to sort out problems with diminishing budgets, and caught between demanding higher-ups and complaining faculty. All the politics and committee meetings.

Still, the faculty who have to work with administrators do have to constantly keep up their guard. It's not a predator-prey relationship, but it is often in the nature of the administrator's job to squeeze more out of faculty. Similarly with healthcare administrators. Suspicion is totally warranted.

[Hibush]

The article seems to be [intentionally?] omitting [mis]handling of finances - one of the chief complaints about administrators.
I am yet to encounter an outrage about a particular mandatory training course (mentioned as one of two major complaints in the article), but more perks for admin in times of budget cuts seem to be a pattern.

Misunderstanding why faculty are grumbling about specific administrators is probably an important administrative failing.

Your example is a good one. Mandatory training is never popular simply because it is somebody telling you what to due, with no recourse. That grumbling can be accommodated. But if the concern is that the mandatory training is ineffective or just follows the worst pedagogical technique, then it is worth acknowledging and fixing.

[mamselle]

I keep reading the thread title as "Administrators unfairly disengaged."

M.

[quasihumanist]

Your example is a good one. Mandatory training is never popular simply because it is somebody telling you what to due, with no recourse. That grumbling can be accommodated. But if the concern is that the mandatory training is ineffective or just follows the worst pedagogical technique, then it is worth acknowledging and fixing.

Generally people who complain about poor mandatory training don't understand the point of mandatory training.

First of all, rarely is it the point of mandatory training to actually train you or teach you anything.  It is mostly a Cover Your Ass exercise to reduce potential liability or insurance costs or in compliance with some mandate.

Second, making more effective trainings would actually cost money, and since it actually makes no difference how effective the training is (because, once some reasonable-looking training has been done, the university is off the hook as far as liability is concerned, regardless of whether anyone follows the training, or at least so the lawyers think), there is no point in spending more money.

[Wahoo Redux]

Mandatory training is never popular simply because it is somebody telling you what to due, with no recourse. ....the concern is that the mandatory training is ineffective or just follows the worst pedagogical technique, then it is worth acknowledging and fixing.

My objection to mandatory training is that, in my experience, it is always badly done and ineffective, even insulting.

[Hibush]

Your example is a good one. Mandatory training is never popular simply because it is somebody telling you what to due, with no recourse. That grumbling can be accommodated. But if the concern is that the mandatory training is ineffective or just follows the worst pedagogical technique, then it is worth acknowledging and fixing.

Generally people who complain about poor mandatory training don't understand the point of mandatory training.

First of all, rarely is it the point of mandatory training to actually train you or teach you anything.  It is mostly a Cover Your Ass exercise to reduce potential liability or insurance costs or in compliance with some mandate.

Second, making more effective trainings would actually cost money, and since it actually makes no difference how effective the training is (because, once some reasonable-looking training has been done, the university is off the hook as far as liability is concerned, regardless of whether anyone follows the training, or at least so the lawyers think), there is no point in spending more money.

That is unfortunately the point in some places. Sometimes they have the stated learning criterion of "Takes four hours."

[mamselle]

Those of us who have deal with abusive relationships are so sorry we have to importune you to learn about what you will probably never experience yourself, but might have to help someone else deal with.

Your four hours could save someone's life, you know, but that's not as important, apparently.

I know the insurance thing is a part of it, but every now and then it at least makes someone either a) aware that not all such complaints are 'made up' and b) There are things you can do to help the complainant that aren't really that hard, or don't take up so much of your time, that you couldn't at least consider them.

I'm very glad the policeman who got me to fill out my first of three restraining orders had a different attitude towards the training he'd received.

M.

[mleok]

That is unfortunately the point in some places. Sometimes they have the stated learning criterion of "Takes four hours."

Yes, this is why it helps to have two computers, so that one can be used to run out the clock on thes "training programs."

[mahagonny]

My main complaint about provosts and chancellors at this time is I wish they would refrain from sending emails to the entire faculty that either (1) presume we are all aligned with them politically (left-of center democrat), as to our take on current events, or (2) convey, for whatever reason, that they think we ought to be. It is disrespectful and divisive. To wit:

It is not a settled question that America is in need of a 'racial reckoning' or has been having one. People disagree. Educated people, less educated people, scholars in fields of political science, sociology, history and race, STEM disagree.

Union administrators, and most especially Randi Weingarten, can be guilty of the same mistake/offense.

if you're just stirring up enthusiasm to send donations to tsunami victims, that's different. We all feel the same way about things like that. That's fine.

Do your job, but refrain from taking undue advantage of your position.