Professional Mediator for Toxic Department

[RatGuy]

In grad school, the Dean appointed a faculty member from outside the department to serve as department chair (indeed, the Provost had ordered the Dean to Fix The Problem). This was due in part to infighting between the two disciplines within the department, which led to some toxic handling of grad students. Another reason is that some faculty members, including the former chair, had crossed certain professional lines with the grad students. I don't simply mean sex (though presumably there was some of that) but also drinking and drugs at faculty member' houses. I'm sure that having an "outsider" as chair generated some resentment, but as I was dissertating at the time (and therefore without funding and not actively working within the department) I only saw that intervention as a good thing.

[AJ_Katz]

In grad school, the Dean appointed a faculty member from outside the department to serve as department chair (indeed, the Provost had ordered the Dean to Fix The Problem).

What RatGuy described is exactly the change that I would look to have made.

The bottom like is that bad behavior is bad for business.  It can affect students, alumni, grants, etc.  Is your department suffering in any respect to achieve their mission by having such toxicity?  Look to annual department reports, program reviews, and other metrics to see if it the case.  These are the points where you might be able to motivate a Dean to assign a appoint a new department head / chair. 

[sonoamused]

Mediators only work when everyone agrees that there is a problem (and hopefully, what that problem IS) and is willing to take responsibility in solving that problem; but as a group they can come to a resolution.

This does not sound like your group is there yet.

I have seen some of your problems both in my department and in my university.  For the most part, they were all solved by solutions (mostly) suggested as above:
1. We did have a professional trainer come in for half a day to "train" us on how to properly conduct meetings because it became clear that without groundrules nothing was going to happen.   (this included meetings where no actions were taken, lack of accountability for issues, and my favorite -- people who, if they disagreed with the rare decision made, would ignore the agreement and try to steamroll everyone into changing their minds at a later meeting)

2 External chair was brought in on a limited term contract and gave the department some curricula and personnel guidance they needed.

3 Our university has a univ-wide faculty committee that looks at cases that are basically, faculty behaving badly.  Some of these landed on our desk.  We serve as a neutral third party and make recommendations  as needed

[Ruralguy]

I am not a mediator, but the answer to what they do is more or less:

1. First, set ground rules for communication (no cross talk, no putting down others, raising voices, etc.)
2. Identify issues in a calm setting
3. Focus on the most solvable problems, and help group implement those solutions. An easy example is helping people get organized. A much harder one is getting people not to badmouth each other.  Or to only use a set process to make a claim of malfeasance (NOT emails to or call meetings of the top administrators of the division/college, etc.)
4. Since there is a set term for mediation, identify who might act in a similar way, also for a set term, to continue
to help them help themselves. But also give structure for the group to to this themselves.

I am sure I am missing something. But that's kind of it.

[Wahoo Redux]

I am not a mediator, but the answer to what they do is more or less:

1. First, set ground rules for communication (no cross talk, no putting down others, raising voices, etc.)
2. Identify issues in a calm setting
3. Focus on the most solvable problems, and help group implement those solutions. An easy example is helping people get organized. A much harder one is getting people not to badmouth each other.  Or to only use a set process to make a claim of malfeasance (NOT emails to or call meetings of the top administrators of the division/college, etc.)
4. Since there is a set term for mediation, identify who might act in a similar way, also for a set term, to continue
to help them help themselves. But also give structure for the group to to this themselves.

I am sure I am missing something. But that's kind of it.

The professors I have known have been a pretty independently minded lot, maybe even a little arrogant----including an amazingly toxic department in which faculty facilitated (or tried to) tenure and promotion denials for personal reasons as well as the standard backstabbing, badmouthing, pontificating, and sniping. 

I have a hard time imagining these people bowing to a mediator. 

Does the mediator have some sort of authority or sanctioning ability?

[Ruralguy]

The mediator does not, but the Dean or President  or Director HR, etc. does.

In other words, the mediator is often called in as part of an attempted solution to the kinds of problems you mention. if they don't at least attempt something they can be found in violation of the agreement, and that can be enough at some schools to begin a process of dismissing somebody, or more likely, start implementing sanctions (stripping of any internal grants or awards, etc.) .

In reality though, the mediator can only be effective if people on all sides want a solution, but just aren't sure how to get to one. If the faculty members prefer to hate each other and do bad things then you are right, the mediator is in no position to do much, and they will probably report back that, sorry, they were ineffective at making any progress.

But administrators like to call in mediators before sanctions or firing because it looks like they tried something milder. They figure it might work, since sometimes it does, but it probably won't.

[Zeus Bird]

In grad school, the Dean appointed a faculty member from outside the department to serve as department chair (indeed, the Provost had ordered the Dean to Fix The Problem).

What RatGuy described is exactly the change that I would look to have made.

The bottom like is that bad behavior is bad for business.  It can affect students, alumni, grants, etc.  Is your department suffering in any respect to achieve their mission by having such toxicity?  Look to annual department reports, program reviews, and other metrics to see if it the case.  These are the points where you might be able to motivate a Dean to assign a appoint a new department head / chair.

The department is a service department, which in practice has meant that despite abysmal department metrics admin doesn't see itself as having much skin in the game.  They give the department few resources and seem to expect little in return.  I think that were this a marquee department admin would have moved to put out the dumpster fires much more quickly.

[Ruralguy]

In my experience, the reason why many administrators delay on such things is because there is no specific rule for receivership or such in the faculty handbook. So, they feel their hands are tied. So, the admin waits until a grievance is filed, or multiple grievances, and then something gets done because there *is* a rule on how to handle those. Of course, if you have such a process spelled out, then delay is less excusable.

[mleok]

My university offered faculty the opportunity to take a 40-hour conflict resolution class, with a view toward getting them to serve as peer mediators. I took the class and found it to be rather useful, and I could see how things might improve if a department chair was equipped with such skills, or a faculty member from another department was brought in with similar training.

[Ruralguy]

Thanks, Mleok, that's good to know. I am going to suggest this to my school's HR Director (who I know, and will listen and is a good person...but may or may not think this is a good idea!)

[mleok]

Thanks, Mleok, that's good to know. I am going to suggest this to my school's HR Director (who I know, and will listen and is a good person...but may or may not think this is a good idea!)

Some of the concepts are quite simple, like making sure that both sides feel heard. Having interacted with many department chairs and heads in the past, I find that simple courtesy to be rather lacking, so I can see how that would help diffuse long standing grievances.