Faculty Conversations in a New Frame

Daniel J. Anderson, Psy.D.                 

 Little ditty about Jack and Diane…oh yeah, work goes

on long after the thrill of tenure is gone…1                                                            

Changing the Conversation to Engage Failing Faculty

(Strategies and Tactics for Chairs)

A small but significant number of (tenured) faculty members are not meeting university performance expectations for research, teaching and/or for professional behavior. This cohort includes very high potential faculty who became less funded at some point after receiving tenure. Also included are members who may have achieved tenure in a time of less rigorously applied criteria (and have not become more productive since). These faculty members often seem to have limited desire or skill in meeting the threshold for good teaching. They have lost the passion to become better.

Very few faculty members have engaged in such ‘bad behavior’ that referral to the faculty senate is a viable option. However, some faculty are not contributing much of measurable value to the academic enterprise and are not actively pursuing opportunities to improve their research, teaching, or collegial performance. They seem stuck in a holding pattern of poor performance and diminishing engagement despite the good faith efforts of chairs to encourage, cajole, admonish or advocate for changes in attitude, behavior, communications or visible effort that might predict enhanced performance anytime soon. If they were graduate students or recent hires, they would not make the cut, based on their performance of the last decade.

Think of one or two faculty in your department who are failing. Let’s call them “Jack” and “Diane” for simplicity sake. Assuming you have had conversation(s) about the gap between expectations and delivery, there is no point in repeating a conversation that goes nowhere and then expect different outcomes. Repetition will drive you mad.

The university (and chairs) can no longer accept this erosion of faculty value and damaged careers. But faculty will not be terminated ‘for cause’ (see above) or in response to global recession, escalating costs, or the financial uncertainties confronting every university. Maybe it is time for changing the conversation. But what practical strategies and tactics might make changing this conversation worth the discomfort and adaptive learning required? What questions might inspire greater engagement?

We all make private assessments in the blink2 of a first encounter and across time with faculty colleagues reflecting our cumulative perceptions; others’ input; objective measures and personal values. In conversations with some faculty, the lists of things we think but don’t say grow ever longer. And our frustration and helplessness inspire us to seek (or create) “scheduling conflicts” to avoid or at least postpone another pointless encounter. If only “never” were an acceptable option on your administrative calendar.

You will need to find a new frame if you hope for a change in the conversation. You may find this new frame (or context) by adopting a more honest and integrated point of view that can serve as a different window for seeing your next faculty encounter. How do you create a new frame and open a different window? In short, how do you engage in what is sometimes called “double loop” learning?

Framing the Change

Draw a line down the center of a blank page. In the left side column, make a few notes of what you said and how your colleague responded to you in a recent conversation that touched on issues related to productivity and performance. Be as specific and descriptive as recall allows without noting any inferences, evaluation, or internal feeling. Focus on behaviors and communications that were particularly defensive, hostile, irritating; repetitive or revealing of hidden concerns. If you responded in kind, please make note of your communications that might be sustaining the dysfunction for at least another year. In both instances, be descriptive, not evaluative.

In the right column, make note of what you think but don’t say during the encounter just described. Since this is a private communication for your eyes only, concerns for policy, HR, liability, defamation of character or political correctness are irrelevant and are often obstacles to discovering what you really think, feel, or know (but would never say) about your colleague. Now you should feel free to note inferences, reflect feelings and make attributions. What is your best guess about what is really the root cause of failure? Intuition matters. Your mind and gut are your most powerful diagnostic tools if you make full use of them.

Engaging in more constructive conversations with smart people requires elevating awareness of patterns of interacting that do not work well and will never work. (Begin by seeking feedback on how you tend to sabotage learning during difficult conversations). These patterns are often referred to as defensive routines. The written product of this process of self-reflection can be a cheat sheet to avoid defaulting to familiar and comfortable but ineffective routines in communicating under pressure. We all do this until we surface an awareness that interrupts the pattern. The first step to changing the conversation is to abandon hope that “practice” will make the wrong conversation right. It won’t. Just stop. Do not repeat. This may be good advice, but you still have to say something.

Review what you know, think, or feel on the right side of your page. When you connect the dots of what you think but don’t say what’s your best guess why this faculty is failing? And how might your private assessments frame a constructive change in your next conversation?

Framing a change in the conversation often begins with defining the most important hypothesis/question that your right column cannot fully confirm or reject. I would like to offer a number of frames (or categories); create possible point(s) of view; propose a significant strategic question for each frame; surface sample tactical inquiries designed to sustain a different dialogue about enhancing the value of a colleague’s contribution; and emphasize the goal of agreement on “next steps” to be reviewed as leading indicators of progress (or not) in subsequent conversations.

Frames for Change

           The most effective frame for any conversation is always custom made to reflect relevant knowledge and history; grounded intuition and inference; tolerance for discomfort and uncertainty; and respect for cultural norms, policies and procedures of the department and university. There are, however, many generic frames for changing the conversation that may prove useful in designing constructive interventions. These include:

1.     Smart Talk Trap5 in which both participants collude in (unconsciously) maintaining current interactional dysfunction while espousing “the importance of change” without actually doing anything different. 

2.     Firm Partners in most large finance and strategy consulting firms have a lot in common with tenured faculty members. There is an organization expectation that you will be qualified in seven years (or less). Becoming a partner is a career long appointment without further review unless warranted by abysmal performance; ethical lapses in judgment; or engaging in sexual harassment or creating a hostile work environment. Innovation transfer is an exercise in importing behaviors, methods and techniques from a similar context for possible application. In this analogue, chairs are managing partners. In a partnership, there is continuing focus on the value of the contribution that a partner makes in return for salary and benefits. There is an expectation that work will be closely measured and monitored for ways in which service or productivity can be improved.

3.     Power Paradox reflects the theoretical authority that resides in the position of incumbent chair at most universities in contrast with very limited actual power at his/her disposal when it comes to leveraging behavior with carrots and sticks. Investing in improved compliance is often a frustrating and fruitless effort. Disabling the threat potential of the encounter, however, can reduce reliance on defensive routines and allow Chairs to create informal relationships of greater referent power based on enhanced trust; augmented influence; and sharpened skills in the art and science of persuasion.

4.     Motivation Matters in any serious effort to encourage a change in attitude, approach, productivity or results. Research into human motivation by Maslow, McClelland, and McGregor all reached some common conclusions more than forty years ago. Once security is assured (e.g. tenure), people seek success (i.e. mastery; recognition) and significance (i.e. meaning). The relative strength and balance of these factors often shift across a career and in response to stages of adult development. Perhaps the most substantial refinement of motivation for practical, work related applications is well summarized in the recent work of Daniel Pink that confirms that the “work itself” can be much more motivating than external rewards or consequences.

5.     Story Time is an approach that requires deep listening and abundant curiosity to learn more of the narrative journey your colleague might be willing to share. Who does Jack want to be in a decade? What does Diane hope to achieve as a career legacy? The intentis to discover how you might join this story in the making by identifying resources, alliances or insights that could facilitate progress of mutual benefit.  

6.     Great Explanations are the stories we tell ourselves (and others) about why we did not keep a promise; complete a project; make an appointment; meet expectations; or otherwise fail to align what we do with what we said we would do. Such explanations often reveal our real values and priorities; and sometimes they will surface the obstacles that constrain us from realizing our full potential and peak performance. The four great explanations for not doing something are: (1) Time; (2) Money; (3) Work; and (4) Love.

7.     Passion Prospecting8 is the process of rediscovering an old source of joy, excitement or intense curiosity for meaningful work. Sometimes passion prospecting demands that we seek a new fire within to ignite our efforts when a previous career fire lead to unexpected burn-out. (This was the experience that drove me away from my practice as a clinical psychologist and toward working as an organization and leadership consultant).

8.     Pursuing Purpose directly addresses a person’s search for meaning or achievement of significant goals. Since tenure is not awarded for random effort and the choice of an academic career most often reflects a sense of vocation or a call toward some field, as with passion, rediscovering a clear sense of purpose may be a critical step in elevating the vital signs of a viable direction for current and future work. While the scope of pursuing purpose may encompass the stretch for a life beyond the grasp of work alone, for most faculty either teaching or research was once fundamental to the clarification of purpose.

9. Addiction Behavior is a frame that acknowledges that most of us are vulnerable to (or captured by) one or more addictions ranging from caffeine, sugar, cigarettes, sleeping pills, alcohol, and opiates to more benign obsessions with exercise, meditation, or reading great mysteries until dawn. It often requires compassion and courage to offer feedback on observable addiction behavior. If a colleague accepts a referral for help, it is quite a gift. If a colleague denies any dependence on alcohol or drugs, then engaging Jack or Diane in any of the other frames for changing the conversation is fair game.

10. Psychiatric Conditions are rarely resolved or well-managed without treatment by a competent psychiatrist, psychologist or therapist. And sustained reengagement and productivity will not happen absent treatment and/or appropriate medication. Given the hierarchical relationship between chair and faculty member, if you are not a close personal friend with the faculty in question, it might be wise to find someone who is. Although such a conversation will be difficult at best and require a caring and diplomatic touch, what is the cost of remaining mute with so much at stake?

11. Difficult People usually act in ways that are intimidating, enraging, anxiety provoking, demanding and/or confusing. They are often described as hostile, passive-aggressive, hysterical, self-centered, rigid, arrogant, entitled, and lacking in awareness of their negative impact on others (including you). If tacitly accepted as appropriate, such behaviors can seed an epidemic of acting badly. The key to working with difficult people is to stay calm, setting and keeping a clear agenda about work and professional boundaries. It is critical to remember that you have a choice about how you respond. Focus on facts and gaps in research productivity and/or teaching skills while refusing to meet the demands of neurotic styles in the workplace.

12. Uncommon Narcissism consistently exceeds the broad tolerance for self-absorption, arrogance, manipulative expressions of self-interest and iconoclastic behavior often characteristic of academic communities. We all listen to WIIFM – ‘What in It for Me?’ – but for some faculty this is the only station they hear 24/7. Your best option to engage in constructive conversation is to focus on the future benefits of enhanced performance (e.g. reputation; respect; resume) while expressing concern for the current sacrifice (i.e. change in effort/productivity) that will inevitably be required to assure progress. With ingrained narcissism, all suggestions will be experienced as painful attacks. Any referral for professional consultation is probably futile, since there is “nothing wrong” with them. Without some ownership (and insight) for their particular defensive routines, double loop learning is beyond understanding for those afflicted with such uncommon narcissism.

 …a little ditty about Jack and Diane, two American kids doing the best they can.

There are a lot of other possible frames for changing the conversation. Many may have a more relevant ‘fit’ by reflecting the particular language and fertile culture of the department or university. Reading about changing a really complex and dynamic conversation with frames and windows; scenarios and scripts is intended to encourage you to make the effort. But please don’t confuse encouragement with any reassurance that your experiments in framing will be easy to begin or comfortable to complete. Most important learning is hard to begin and frequently gut wrenching in real time application. With practice and an occasional ‘live’ rehearsal, however, you will engage colleagues in a change of conversation that makes a true difference to both the faculty member and to the university community.

_______________________________________________________________________

1.     With apologies to John Mellencamp for lyric substitution, “Jack and Diane”, 1982

2.     Gladwell, Malcolm, Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking, Little, Brown & Co., 2005

3.     Argyris, C’, Knowledge for Action, “Defensive Routines That Limit Learning” Jossey-Bass 1993

4.     “Teaching Smart People How to Learn”, Argyris, Chris, Harvard Business Review, 1991

5.     “The Smart Talk Trap”, Pfeiffer, Jeffrey; Sutton, Robert, Harvard Business Review, 1999

6.     Pink, Daniel, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, Penguin Group, 2009

7.     Kotter, John; Cohen, Dan, The Heart of Change: Harvard Business Press, 2002

8.     “Great Explanations” Anderson, D, Fresh Choices: Seizing a 2nd Chance in Life (in press)

9.     “Passion Paralysis: What does your heart desire?”, ibid, 2013

10. “Being True to You: Where are you going?”, ibid, 2013

11. “LifeWorks Bio” is a self-assessment exercise (one page) required as pre-work for all participants in the Fresh Choices learning experience designed by Anderson, D., Soquet, J, Nichols, A.,2004

_______________________________________________________________________

2 Downing Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 + 802.522.2379 + [email protected]