Professional Mediator for Toxic Department

[Zeus Bird]

I've been at my current uni for two decades now, and in that time my department's culture has declined from its earlier dysfunctional state to a level aptly characterized as far beneath toxic.  With no possibility of leaving my position in the short term due to financial obligations, I'm wondering if we could bring in an outside mediator for a needed dose of group therapy to deal with the chronic mistrust and suspicion that are present.  Our department meetings are like something out of the first act of an Edward Albee play, pleasant banter about trivia while nothing substantial ever gets done and the same issues are talked about year and year with no action.  In between meetings people spend time making veiled denunciations of each other on social media.  Absenteeism among faculty is a serious problem, but because people have divided into factions no one is willing to publicly call for accountability in meeting professional obligations, lest an ally get hoisted on the same petard.  Has anyone here ever had an outsider come into your department to set up conversations to heal deeply-ingrained troubles?

I'm also willing to hear from those of you who think that this idea is begging for trouble, and that emotional disengagement from my workplace is a better and less risky solution.

[lightning]

We had one. It was one of the most pointless and useless things we have ever done, and is referred to only when someone wants to mock professional mediators. Our department is not toxic nor dysfunctional, but it has had its problems. If one thing unified us, it's our unified disdain for spending too much money on outside consultants to waste our time.

[Wahoo Redux]

I'm wondering how this would play out.

Zeus Bird (I love the moniker), do you actually envision therapy sessions or group sensitivity workshops?

[lightning]

I'm wondering how this would play out.

Zeus Bird (I love the moniker), do you actually envision therapy sessions or group sensitivity workshops?

Our mediator sounded like Mr. Garrison from Southpark.

[Zeus Bird]

I'm wondering how this would play out.

Zeus Bird (I love the moniker), do you actually envision therapy sessions or group sensitivity workshops?

At this point, I'd pretty much accept a mediator asking us to watch paint dry rather than continue with status quo.

[Hegemony]

We got a mediator in because we had two separate issues that were causing a lot of strife. He was a nice guy and he did his best. But the problems were actually solved in two different ways.

First, the head of department who had been making a lot of poor decisions that caused anger and resentment came to the end of her term and was replaced by someone more sensible.

Second, we had that problem about some people being nominally civil in person but then posting vicious thinly veilled criticisms on social media. We were about to start having huge meetings to solve all that (there was a lot of conflict already between the "Stop being scathing" side and the "No one tells me what to do! I am being righteous in criticizing idiots!" side) when the pandemic hit. Then everyone got distracted and eventually the two worst offenders moved on to greener pastures, so the problem sort of solved itself by accident.

The mediator did his best, as I said, but I think the problems were not ones he could have solved.

[Ruralguy]

I know of a department at our school that had a mediator.

I think they broke the mediator. He basically gave up because there was no point continuing with his suggestions if they'd rather just enjoy hating each other (which is true). They continue to have serious problems. I won't be more specific, just in case someone knows what I am speaking of, I don't want to be seen as taking sides, other than saying there's no sides to take. They just hate one  another and are happy to act on it. They might claim differently though (assigning specific blame). 

But, its worth trying for two reasons:

(1) in case there is a bit of hope, they can help
(2) if there is no hope and the feces hits the rotating ventilation blades, then individuals or the dept. in general can say "well, we tried!"

[poiuy]

Our Department (Social Science, regional R2) was like this about 10-12 years ago. Dept meetings would ramble on, barely any agenda, going over time, and no one could recall decisions and would rehash and reprocess everything ad nauseam.

We did get in a professional facilitator, who instituted the following changes, to great success:
1.  All meetings must have an agenda
2.  All agenda items must have a time limit.
3.  Items must state if they are for discussion or decision/voting.
4.  A senior prof was timekeeper with power to call attention to the clock and say we are moving on, if time was exceeded.
5.  A better system of recording and storing minutes was developed
6.  Before meetings, people were sent reminders/links/hard copies as appropriate of matters relevant to the agenda items, e.g. prior decisions, documents, etc.

We have been following this system ever since and it has worked well.  It helped that although our Dept was and is faction ridden with a few toxic personalities and Chairs who had issues, people were not overwhelmingly crazy and everyone cooperated with the system.

Depending on your Dept situation, calling in a professional consultant/facilitator/mediator might work, if the person can identify some of the major issues and present a clear and actionable solution.

[artalot]

My department was seriously toxic when I first arrived. Several of the junior faculty suggested a mediator to the Dean, but to no avail. Ours was solved by the ousting of multiple people and a wave of retirements/moving on to other unis. We get along now, but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the current chair never calls faculty meetings.
I don't know if a mediator would have helped, but I would have liked to try. We lost half the department, and while a few them were truly abusive and needed to go, we also lost some good people.

[apl68]

My department was seriously toxic when I first arrived. Several of the junior faculty suggested a mediator to the Dean, but to no avail. Ours was solved by the ousting of multiple people and a wave of retirements/moving on to other unis. We get along now, but I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the current chair never calls faculty meetings.
I don't know if a mediator would have helped, but I would have liked to try. We lost half the department, and while a few them were truly abusive and needed to go, we also lost some good people.

I wonder whether any of the departments that have been shut down around the country in recent years were toxic groups whose administrators decided to have done with them?  In lean times when departments have to struggle to justify their existence, a toxic departmental environment could be a real handicap to survival.

[dinomom]

I discussed this on and off for years with my dean; ultimately a senior faculty from another department was called on to mediate between myself and a senior faculty member. It did not solve any problems, but it did put on record some of the strangeness of the situation and clear the air. I think it is probably worth trying.

[Ruralguy]

It can indeed lead to the blow up of a department, if there is nobody left standing to do the day to day work (I've seen thing get so bad---not in my own dept. but others) that people would spend almost all of their time plotting to take down others, calling meetings for the purpose of showing everyone else how bad "person x" is, etc.). 

[glowdart]

A number of us had asked for mediators, but we're denied. What really helped us was a new chair who was adamant about fairness and transparency and who treated the jackasses and the pleasant colleagues with respect publicly and yet didn't tolerate venom & disempowered the toxic faction. She also actively worked to prevent the bullying that had been happening, and did not mince words with the Dean and Provost about it. When no longer able to get a rise out of people in the department and no longer granted any power to enable the bullying, the most toxic of our colleagues helpfully had some very public episodes with people and a committee  outside the department, so the upper administration could no longer pretend that the problem was shrill women blowing things out of proportion. A couple of key retirements also helped because almost everyone who was left wanted the abuse to stop. So the toxic colleagues were outnumbered, no longer protected, and could not claim unfair treatment.

Mediation worked in another department on campus, but it was a small group with very specific and easy to identify issues that also had clear solutions, and everyone bought into it.

[Wahoo Redux]

Just curious, but what does a mediator actually do?

[fizzycist]

Our Department (Social Science, regional R2) was like this about 10-12 years ago. Dept meetings would ramble on, barely any agenda, going over time, and no one could recall decisions and would rehash and reprocess everything ad nauseam.

I'm glad you fixed your problem and all, but this does not sound very toxic to me. Sounds like a group of ppl who don't mind chatting and being around each other, but aren't very productive or organized. Could be a lot worse?

OP, I would think bringing in someone within your institution who most ppl in your dept trust would be a good first step.