History Department Chairs: Characteristics, Influence, and Role

In the spring of 1984, in association with the Institute for Departmental Leadership at Florida State University, I conducted a survey of history depart­ment chairs in four-year colleges and universities in the United States. Includ­ed in the study were the 384 depart­ments identified in the ninth edition of the American Historical Association’s Guide to Departments of History, 1983-84.

Thus, a questionnaire was mailed to each chair, and 323 (84 percent) of the questionnaires were completed and re­turned. Statistical tests were used to identify relationships between the chairs’ influence and role and organiza­tional characteristics. The tests used were the chi-square test and analysis of variance. Statistically significant differ­ences accepted were those at or below the .05 level of confidence. What follows is a summary of  the results.

 

Characteristics

The average age of history depart­ment chairs is 49.3 years, and 92 percent of all history chairs are male. Near­ly all acquire the position from within the department (94 percent), and three­-fourths of the chairs are appointed for a specified term, most commonly a term of three (65 percent), four (16 percent), or five (11 percent) years. (Of those chairs serving indefinite terms, 15 per­cent were hired from outside the de­partment). Overall, the average number of years in the position is 4.7. Chairs serving indefinite terms have a greater average tenure, 6.4 years. Faculty exer­cise considerable influence in the selec­tion of the history department chairs: 56 percent are selected primarily by faculty, and 43 percent are appointed by the administration. The single most common method of selection is nomina­tion by the departmental faculty with approval by the dean or president. Ad­ministrative appointment is more likely at private colleges, in small depart­ments, and in indefinite terms of office. Faculty selection is more likely at public institutions, in large departments, un­der collective bargaining agreements, and in appointments of a specified term.

Most history department chairs (59 percent) receive an administrative sti­pend, and 85 percent receive some re­duction in teaching load. The larger the department, the higher the incidence of salary differential and reduced teaching loads for the department chair.

The chairs report that little or no training is provided for the position (65 percent), although a majority recom­mend that some training be provided. The most frequently recommended ar­eas for training are budget preparation and administration, personnel and per­formance evaluation, and basic manage­ment and communication skills. Also requested were training sessions on col­lege procedures, legal issues, schedul­ing, and “biofeedback techniques for tension reduction.” The chair request­ing help in “playing both sides against the middle” was undoubtedly seeking basic management skills.

History department chairs accept the position primarily because of the oppor­tunity it affords to strengthen and influ­ence the department (42 percent). Oth­er reasons frequently cited are the chal­lenge or change of pace it provides (19 percent); the salary, status, or personal advancement associated with the posi­tion (19 percent); a sense of service or obligation (19 percent), most frequently expressed as “Someone has to do it” or “It was my turn”; colleagues’ confidence (14 percent); and the view that no one else is suitable or the desire to block another from the position (14 percent). (The total is over 100 percent, because chairs listed more than one reason for accepting.)

The chairs report favorable condi­tions in most departments, with 53 per­cent agreeing that their departments are growing in strength and stature and 50 percent agreeing that their depart­ments compete favorably with other de­partments in institutional budget alloca­tions. This is in contrast to the fiscal stringency and enrollment declines of­ten forecast for social science and hu­manities departments during the 1980s. Nearly four-fifths (79 percent) of the chairs agreed that their departments were able to plan and carry out their activities with a reasonable degree of autonomy.

However, many departments are ex­periencing difficulties, with one-fourth of the chairs reporting a recent pattern of enrollment declines, one-third re­porting a decrease in faculty, and one-third reporting that their departments do not compete favorably for budget allocations. Chairs who perceived their departments to be declining do not be­lieve they compete favorably with other departments for budget allocations, perceive less departmental autonomy, and see a stronger trend toward central­ized administrative power than do chairs from growing departments.

Influence

History department chairs exercise their greatest influence in areas com­monly associated with administration: budgeting; scheduling; committee as­signments; and hiring, firing, and eval­uating personnel. They exercise less in­fluence in areas where authority is tradi­tionally shared with faculty: curriculum development, academic standards, and promotion and tenure. Their lowest lev­els of influence are in the areas of faculty salary decisions and teaching loads, setting institutional policies and goals, and securing research funds.

The data show that chair influence is related to the following organizational characteristics: department size, term of office, institutional control (public or private), current conditions, and the lev­el of degree awarded.

Each of these organizational charac­teristics is associated with a higher level of chair influence: 1) the larger the department, 2) an indefinite term of office, 3) a public institution, 4) the higher the degree awarded by the de­partment, and 5) a department that is growing in strength and stature.

Method of selection, collective bar­gaining, and the formality of the deci­sion-making structure had no statistical­ly significant association with the level of chair influence.

Role

The role ambiguity commonly associ­ated with chairing academic depart­ments is also apparent in the role per­ceptions of history department chairs, although their leadership roles are much more closely associated with the department than with the central ad­ministration. There is a clear consensus (95 percent) among the chairs that their role is to represent their department to the administration. This is in contrast to the decidedly mixed response of chairs to the role of representing the institu­tion’s administration to their depart­ment, where a plurality of 40 percent disagreed that that was their role, 38 percent agreed, and 23 percent de­clared neutrality on the matter.

There was also strong agreement (86 percent) among the chairs that their role was to perform administrative tasks, expediting the decisions of the department faculty. This again points out the strong departmental and faculty orientation of the chairs. A smaller ma­jority of the chairs (55 percent) agreed that their role was one of basically medi­ating and facilitating consensus.

Nonetheless, history department chairs also accept a leadership role. More than four-fifths (88 percent) of the chairs agreed that their role was a leadership role with opportunity for ini­tiative and influence in departmental decisions. A majority of the chairs (59 percent) disagreed that they were sim­ply taking their fair turn at the job. Also, the most frequently cited reason for accepting the position was the opportu­nity it provided to influence and strengthen the department.

Organizational characteristics related to the chairs’ perceived role include:

1. Institutional Control. Chairs at private institutions were more likely to see their role as basically mediating and facilitating consensus.
2. Current Conditions. Chairs of declining departments were less likely to agree that their role was a leader­ship role and more likely to see them­selves as simply taking their fair turn at the job. The implication is that those departments in need of strong leadership may be encountering con­ditions under which very little leader­ship may be exercised.
3. Specified Term. As might be ex­pected, chairs appointed to specified terms were more likely to see them­selves as simply taking their fair turn at the job than were those appointed to indefinite terms.
4. Method of Selection. Chairs ap­pointed by the deans or presidents were more likely to agree that their role was to represent their institu­tion’s administration to the depart­ment than were those chairs selected primarily by the faculty.

Allocation of Time

How history department chairs allo­cate their time between teaching, de­partmental governance, and faculty af­fairs varied by department size. The larger the department, the smaller the amount of time spent teaching and the greater the amount of time devoted to departmental governance and faculty affairs. Chairs of small departments (two to six members) devote almost half their time to teaching (48 percent), while chairs of large departments (sev­enteen or more members) devote more than half their time (53 percent) to governance and faculty affairs, with only about one-fifth (22 percent) devot­ed to teaching. The amount of time devoted to student affairs (10 percent) and scholarly research (13 percent) re­mains relatively constant regardless of department size.

Job Satisfaction

History department chairs  (54  per­cent) agree that they enjoy being department chair, with only 16 percent disagreeing and another 30 percent being neutral on the matter. The only organizational variable significantly re­lated to job satisfaction is current condi­tions. History department chairs do not enjoy presiding over decline. Chairs from departments growing in strength and stature enjoy their position more than their colleagues in declining de­partments.

The most onerous aspects of the job are adverse personnel decisions; paperwork and petty chores; faculty discord and petty disputes; inadequate budgets; meetings; dealing with deans and other major administrators; and the loss of time for research, writing, and teaching.

Personnel matters are identified by more than two-thirds of the respon­dents as being particularly unpleasant. Adverse personnel decisions are cited by 42 percent of those responding, and another 25 percent cite faculty discord and petty disputes as being unpleasant. Chair displeasure with adverse personnel decisions (e.g. faculty promotion, tenure, reappointment, or salary deci­sions) includes the unpleasantness of  “judging friends and colleagues,” the observation that “Personnel decisions are often onerous and unpleasant—but not necessarily unrewarding,” and the rather stark response of “Termina­tion—always  horrible.” Chairs also express considerable displeasure with fac­ulty discord, with being “caught in the middle between factions,” dealing with “vocal and strident obstructionists,” and working with “prima-donna col­leagues.” Particularly difficult is the handling of student complaints about faculty. Dealing with administrators is also cited as being unpleasant, “con­tending with egotistical and/or incompe­tent administrators” as one character­izes it.

Nearly half the chairs responding list paperwork and petty chores as onerous, and another 15 percent of the respon­dents cite “too many meetings” as burdensome. In particular, the chairs object to the “needless” or “unnecessary” pa­perwork and the meetings that lead to nothing, or go on “endlessly,” or “meetings with the Deans, especially to hear outside ‘experts’ talk.”

The chairs are also concerned over the “constant demands” of the job, the “seemingly endless calls upon my time which distract from scholarly efforts.” In addition, the chairs from private in­stitutions complain of the “very limited” or even nonexistent “salary increases to compensate for additional duties.”

History chairs gain job satisfaction primarily in helping faculty colleagues, improving morale, and recruiting good faculty. Nearly two-thirds of the chairs responding indicate that helping faculty colleagues is one of the most satisfying aspects of the position. This aspect is by far the most frequently cited activity. The chairs communicate a genuine sat­isfaction in helping their faculty col­leagues, in recruiting good faculty, in “helping to reward the deserving—of­ten in small ways,” and in the opportu­nity the position provides for getting to know their faculty colleagues better.

In addition to serving colleagues, the chairs also derive a considerable degree of satisfaction from serving the depart­ment, by having “the power to make a difference,” to “shape curriculum,” to shape policies, and to strengthen the department.

Chairs appreciate the opportunity the position provides to encourage and ad­vise students and to get to know them better. They also find the associations and influence within the larger universi­ty community to be rewarding, enjoying the opportunities the position affords to “represent the department to campus administrators,” and of coming to “know colleagues in other departments—chairpersons in particular.”

Chairs also expressed satisfaction in solving problems, in establishing effi­cient and humane administrations, in “getting the job done,” and “in doing a competent and fair job.” Others appre­ciated being in a position of responsibil­ity and influence, a “feeling of knowing what is happening.”

In summary, the predominate satis­factions of chairing a department of history come from a sense of service: service to the department, service to faculty, and service to students. Person­al rewards of power, salary, or status, in and of themselves, are not rated as important. (But then, it is an open ques­tion to what degree such rewards exist for history chairs.) Although some chairs agree with the colleague who de­scribed the job as “A damn nuisance and distraction,” most history chairs enjoy the position and find satisfaction in the opportunities it affords for service.