Jack W. Powers1 and Kendoll W. King Research Corporat~on
New York, New York
Conference for New Science Department Chairmen
In analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of academic science in the United States, particularly in the liberal arts colleges, the Grants staff of Research Corporation became convinced that a major cause of weakness was the lack of preparation of a faculty member for a completely new role when he is asked to assume the leadership of a science department. Business and industry recognized the problem years ago; there are few companies today that do not have training programs, either formal or informal, to help their most promising staff members make the giant leap into the ranks of management. The colleges, apparently, have not recognized this as a problem as far as the department chairman is concerned. The usual sequence of events in a college is for the administration to look within its own faculty or in the faculties of sister institutions for an academician who has been particularly effective in his faculty role, and who seems to have promise as a departmental leader. In most instances a real gamble is taken that this faculty member will quickly acquire on his own the philosophy and repertoire of techniques that make for vigorous department leadership. The lack of preparation for a vastly different kind of job has created chronic problems in academic science. As a consequence, errors in judgment, naivete resnlting from inexperience, and a frequent chauvinistic attitude toward his own department can lead to situations that are detrimental to the department itself and to the entire institution, often for years to come. Research Corporation felt that these problems could at least be minimized if there were some way for new department heads to have an opportunity to discuss the whole spectmm of philosophies and techniques of department leadership in a relaxed and freeflowing atmosphere with seasoned heads who had had distinguished careers as department leaders. In an attempt to create this kind of opportunity, an experimental conference was organized in the summer of 1971 at Point Clear, Ala. Its purpose was to learn whether discussions of this type would materially deepen the background of understanding for new department chairmen and help them more effectively undertake their new role. Arrangements
The presidents of 100 liberal arts colleges widely respected for their undergraduate science programs were invited to nominate as conference participants 1 Reprints of this article or complimentary copies of the complete Notes of the Conference can be obtained by writing: Jack W. Powers, Regional Director of Grants, Research Corporation, 6075Roswell Road, N. E., Atlanta, Ga. 30328.
heads of natural science departments who had been in office for less than two years or people designated to assume department leadership in the very near future. From the nominees, 17 were invited to participate-7 chemists, 4 physicists, 5 biologists, and 1 geologist. Four resource people agreed to serve as discussion leaders-James H. Barrow, Jr., Professor and Chairman, Department of Biology, Hiram College; Bailey Donnally, Professor and Chairman, Department of Physics, Lake Forest College; G. Tyler Miller, Jr., Professor of Chemistry and Assistant Dean, St. Andrews Presbyterian College; and Calvin A. VanderWerf, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, University of Florida, former President of Hope College, and a memher of the Board of Directors of Research Corporation. The conference lasted for five days, each day having a three-hour session in the morning and 2-3 hr in the evening, with the afternoons left free for small informal group discussions and recreation. At each session one or more of the resource leaders opened the discussion with a prepared statement on the topic to he covered. This was followed by extremely frank and open-often high-spirited-airings of view on philosophies and techniques by the group as a whole. One of the Research Corporation Grants staff served as an unobtmsive recorder for the purpose of preparing an informal summary of the conference. Post-meeting sessions often carried over to the early morning hours as the resource leaders continued to field questions and amplify earlier statements.
Program
The major topics of discussion set by the resource people and foundation staff at a planning meeting held prior to the conference were Thr ('huirman i n i(clolion lolhr (bllrgr oan ll'hob, l{t4at:urrship~with the;lum~rw~mtion and i ~ ~ s t i t ~ ~ t i w ow a lial Ilerp,n~sibilitie.tu his u w t awl other deptrtmcnti, h t h scimce and nonscience Opportunities with non-academic units such as alumni, development, and admissions offices The Chairman in Relatian lo his Faculty Curriculum and momam olannine Financing the department 'Creating a productive climate The Chairman in Relation to his Students Recruiting Student participation in departmental affairs Placement Alumni Volume
49, Number 6, June 1972
/
409
Highlights of Discussions
Particularly lively discussions centered around a few topics which were treated not so much in terms of administrative techniques as in exchanges of views regarding administrative philosophy. It was repeatedly emphasized by the resource leaders that although a department head represents his faculty and is responsible for the vigor of his department, he is at the same time a member of the administrative team; to be maximally effective he must function as a two-way communication channel, carrying his own and his faculty's views convincingly to the administration and leading his faculty to understand and embrace the administration's institutional goals and procedures. A common weakness of new department heads is an intensely chauvinistic attitude with regard to their departments and a more or less combative stance in their dealings with the administration and with other departments. Far more can he accomplished, both for the department and the institution as a whole, if the head clearly recognizes his dual role as representative of the administration to the faculty and representative of the faculty to the administration. There was also a great deal of discussion of the value of active collaboration and cooperation with the other academic departments of the school and with the nonacademic units such as maintenance, public information, admissions, development, and alumni. The resource leaden drew upon their own successful experiences to point out that tactful and constrnctive working relationships with these other colleagues can prove a great asset to the building of a strong department. A topic which generated some lively exchanges was the extreme importance of realistic and fair evaluation of the department's faculty and the assignment of responsibilities so that the diverse members of the faculty can exercise their highest talents. In such a climate the faculty members not only have the satisfaction of doing most of what they do best, hut also of having their distinctive contributions recognized in terms of promotion and salary progress. Among resource leaders and participants there was general agreement that wise leademhip involves in considerable part the stimulation by the chainnan of active research by the faculty with their students and of true creativity in teaching where it can be realized. It was recognized that not all teachers are researchers, nor all researchers teachers, but that the contributions of both are vital to overall departmental strength and
410
/
Journal of Chemicol Education
should be recognized on the occasion of promotion and salary adjustment. Particularly important to the chairman in a liberal arts college, it was pointed out, is recrniting new faculty members who are not only competent and vigorous hut who also understand, respect, and want to help achieve the academic goals of the institution. Evaluation of the Conference
To get a rough assessment of the value of such a conference, Research Corporation requested that each participant complete a questionnaire prior to the conference and-without the participant's foreknowledge that it would be repeated-after the meetings. The new chairmen were asked to describe the five major strengths and the five major weaknesses of their present departmental programs, their impressions of the nature of their roles in relation to their administrations, their feelings about the caliber of their faculty and students, and their judgments regarding the re& ative importance of research and teaching on the part of the faculty. Comparing the before and after-conferenceresponses, more than four-fifths of the participants reflected a significant increase in their awareness of their responsibility to the administration, and two-thirds showed heightened sensitivity to now being a part of the administrative team. Nearly two-thirds indicated a greater understanding of their role as academic innovators. There was a much clearer recognition of the department chairman's responsibilities for faculty development. More than half the participants changed the ranking of the strongest and weakest aspects of their present departments. Three-fifths of those attending the conference showed a considerable increase in their concern for the post-graduation careers of their students. At the conclusion of the conference there were also a number of spontaneous expressions by the participants to the effect that their wide-ranging discussions with the knowledgeable and more seasoned department heads during the week had been worth several years of experience to them. While recognizing that these assessments are far from conclusive, Research Corporation has decided to continue the experiment while compiling a more detailed evaluation. Two more conferences are being planned for 1972, one for private liberal arts colleges and one for public, predominantly undergraduate institutions.
