Andrew Hibel, HigherEdJobs: Dean Chu, you are and have been in numerous leadership roles in higher education. Specifically interesting to this interview, you were a department chair 1 at California State University-Chico. What prompted your decision to take on this role?
Don Chu, Ph.D., California State University, San Marcos: In my time as faculty I learned from some great role models, and also learned what not to do from some less than great role models. I had been taught and still believe that higher education is a tremendous privilege, as well as a responsibility. So when I saw the opportunity to help lead a rather large department at California State University (CSU) Chico I said, “Why not? Let me put my hat into the ring.”
Hibel: With your collaborators, 2 you conducted the 20-campus CSU Department Chair Survey (2002) and wrote the associate report. Obviously the subject of department chairing was important to you, but why did you choose to be involved in this project?
Chu: After nine years as chair, I finished that job and asked myself “What just happened to me?” So with typical professorial inquisitiveness I conducted a survey of my Chico chair colleagues to find out if their sense of the job was the same as mine. What was advertised as a one-hour interview almost always turned into a two to three hour “therapy” session with chairs venting their frustrations, worries and concerns. When my provost heard about the survey he let the California State University Office of the Chancellor know about it and they were interested in co-sponsoring, along with the Statewide Academic Senate, a similar look at chairs in the CSU. So along with my colleague Sally Veregge from San Jose State we conducted the survey and wrote the report that was subsequently presented to the Statewide Senate and the CSU Presidents.
Hibel: Several years later you wrote, The Department Chair Primer, What Chairs Need to Know and Do to Make a Difference , 3 where you state in the preface, 4 “Gone are the days when chairs could wait out their terms, just do what had always been done, and assume that staff and historical protocol will keep the ship sailing on calm seas.” Do you think most people going into this role are prepared for the challenges and opportunities that this role may encompass?
Chu: A good deal of research conducted on department chairs has found that very few ever receive formal training before becoming chair. To be clear about it, most chairs receive ZERO training before they become chief managers and leaders for their multi-million dollar organizations. Chairs also say that it takes them a year or two before they feel their feet are on the ground. Most new chairs basically “do not know what they do not know.” It is after a year or so before they do.
Hibel: Speaking of challenges and opportunities, knowing that every institution is certainly different, what do you think are some of the similar challenges or opportunities a new chair may face?
Chu: First and foremost, chairs must realize that they are no longer individuals driven by their own research, teaching and service. As chairs, they now assume a “role” that has its own skill sets, goals and dispositions. The chair is “the face” of the unit and must present him/herself accordingly. The chair is the chief “boundary spanner” for the department and is therefore responsible for making connections between the talents of the faculty and the needs of the majors, the campus and the constituents served by the unit. Chairs also must manage the budget, personnel, legal and political issues. All chairs share these responsibilities for their units. They must look ahead and over the horizon for their entire department.
Hibel: Often times, a new chair may be accepting this position after being a faculty member in the department. What is it like going from being “one of the team” to “leading the team” especially if there are challenging personnel?
Chu: When the CSU Department Chair Survey was presented to campus presidents many of them said that they had started their administrative careers as chairs and most of them expressed the same sentiment –“chairing was the toughest job they ever had in a sense because they were now administratively responsible to manage and evaluate the performance of their peers; the performance of colleagues with whom they had coffee, shared stories and lives in and outside of the classroom and lab.”
Hibel: Chairs can face challenges from “leading from the middle” on campus where they have their own department to manage, but also must live within institutional guidelines from above. In your book, you highlight the topic of strategic positioning. Is this something you suggest to effectively lead “from the middle” and are there other ideas you suggest?
Chu: From what I have observed of administrative leaders in departments, colleges and universities, one of the defining differences between those who “see over the horizon” and those who do not is that visionary leaders understand that they operate not just in the “closed system” within the halls of their department offices, but that the department operates in a much larger campus and community environment. The “open systems” point of view emphasizes that chairs are the “boundary spanners” who make connections with the community on and off campus. Chairs like this link the talents and interests of their faculty with the resources and needs in the community. All chairs are “in the middle.” Once they understand that they are the key link between their departments and the rest of the campus, regional and national community then that helps them understand the scope of their roles.
Hibel: Many people may associate the duties of a chair with balancing budgets or managing staff and faculty. In your book you also highlight the importance of student development. Why exactly is this topic also important?
Chu: The reason why we love what we do is because we are energized by our students and excited about the prospect that we may be affecting their future. It is the responsibility of the administration to “see over the horizon” and not get stuck doing what has been done in the past for no other reason than it was done in the past. Chairs have the opportunity to lead and enable change. What kind of major will best prepare our students for the world ahead? What will give them a competitive advantage? What kind of person do we want to emerge from the learning environment and socialization opportunities we can provide our students?
Hibel: In the role of a chair, conducting faculty and staff evaluations may be a part of the job description. However, if the tables were turned, how is the effectiveness of a chair measured? In other words, on what things could a chair be expected to be “judged” on as a successful department head?
Chu: To borrow a phrase from “The Great Communicator,” “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Chairs are best judged over time when the personnel, budget, curricular and other initiatives of the chair can be evaluated objectively. Chairs must, of course, keep the ship afloat. Change must be worked through and with the faculty so that change can be long lasting and embraced. Sometimes a chair’s effectiveness is very difficult to evaluate because the chair’s contributions may be attitudinal or dispositional rather than easily observable. Chairs who can strengthen their faculty by expanding and diversifying resources, who can position faculty with funding agencies, who can empower the faculty to feel that their fate and the fate of their students are in their own hands, then that chair may have made incredible contributions to the department that may not be easily measured. I have usually found in higher education that leadership from behind or on the side is best.
Hibel: Are different tools needed when starting a new chair position versus maintaining this leadership position?
Chu: When starting, the watchword is “listen.” They will also learn never to promise more than they can deliver and that they represent the department not just themselves. After a period of time they will learn who the best chairs on campus are. Those “best chairs” are the best resource for chairs learning the job. Maintaining the job is different in the sense that chairs must decide what the priorities are. They must also decide who to empower and prepare to assume leadership, and maybe the role of chair in the coming years.
Hibel: From a dean’s perspective, what are you looking for when considering candidates for a chair position?
Chu: I look for someone who knows that the students and faculty should drive what we do. I look for someone who is a “selfless servant” and who understands viscerally what a privilege we have working at the university. Importantly, too, I look for someone who can see over the horizon and who is not bound to the past but who understands where we have come from.