MEMORANDUM
TO: The
St. Lawrence Faculty
FROM: President
Daniel F. Sullivan
RE: Search
for a Vice President of the University and
Dean
of Academic Affairs
DATE: December
15, 2006
With Grant Cornwell’s announcement that he will become
the next president of the College of Wooster we need to commence
a search for his replacement as Vice President of the University
and Dean of Academic Affairs immediately. As we have
in our last two Vice President and Dean searches, I have
asked Faculty Council (minus any declared candidates for
the position), and they agreed by vote last night, to serve
as the search committee, which I will chair.
Critical to the search process is pausing to reflect on
the position itself. Let me set the stage for such
a period of reflection—by Council, the faculty as a
whole, and other concerned people and groups—by expressing
my own views on the matter. What is the position of
Vice President and Dean structurally at St. Lawrence? What
does the Dean actually do, in reality? What are special expectations
for a Dean who works with this President? What are
some of the critical qualities a Dean must have, both to
excel and to survive? Why do I feel so strongly that
the Dean should come from within this faculty, if at all
possible?
The characteristics of a successful Vice President and Dean
that I describe below set the bar pretty high. Let
me say up front that a significant motivation for my advocacy
of an internal search for the Dean of Academic Affairs is
my conviction that there remains a strong pool of St. Lawrence
faculty members who can do this job really well. That
this is so is something of which we can all be very proud.
Our Management and Governance Structure
A place to start is with what the Charter and By-Laws of
the University say about the Vice President and Dean.
- Article IV.3. says: “The President, the Secretary
and the Treasurer of the University shall be appointed
by the Board. The Board shall also appoint the
Vice Presidents upon the recommendation of the President,
and may delegate to the President the appointment of
such other officers as he deems necessary.”
- Article V.4. says: “The Vice President and
Dean shall be the chief academic officer of the University
and shall be responsible to the President for the execution
of educational policies and programs and for the general
management and conduct of faculty affairs. In the
absence or disability of the President, the Vice-President
and Dean shall act as President unless or until the Board
or the Executive Committee otherwise directs.”
- Article V.5. says: “Each Vice President shall
perform the duties assigned to him by the President. Such
assignments may be changed or modified by the President
at his discretion.”
- Article VI.1. says: “The Faculty consists
of the President, the Vice President of the University
and Dean of Academic Affairs . . . . . . . The
President of the University is a non-voting member of
the faculty; the Vice President of the University and
Dean of Academic Affairs is a voting member.”
Those provisions don’t need much elaboration, I don’t
believe, except to reinforce the fact that the Vice President
and Dean is the second highest post in the University. While
there are other Vice Presidents and Deans who report to the
President, the Vice President of the University and Dean
of Academic Affairs is first among them. This provision
both symbolizes and actualizes the central importance of
our academic mission by insisting that the person who is
second in command be the one most critically engaged with
our core educational programs.
The Faculty Handbook also describes the position of Vice
President and Dean:
- Section II.C.1. says: “. . . . . . The
Senior Administrative Officers of the University are
appointed by the President with the advice and approval
of the Board of Trustees and report directly to the President.”
- Section II.C.2. says: “The Vice President
of the University and Dean of Academic Affairs is the chief
academic officer of the University. He/she is responsible
for the supervision of recruitment of faculty, curricula,
and academic responsibilities of faculty, as well as the
budgetary supervision of all academic departments. The
Vice President and Dean of Academic Affairs presides over
the Department Chairpersons’ Council and faculty
meetings, and is a voting member, ex officio,
of the faculty and Faculty Council, and is a non-voting
member of the Professional Standards Committee. Under
the jurisdiction of this office are the department chairpersons,
the library, the art gallery, and the Registrar’s
and Chaplain’s Offices. In the event of
the absence or inability of the President to act, the
Dean of Academic Affairs shall act in his/her place and
stead unless otherwise directed by the Board or the Executive
Committee.”
With only a few exceptions, the Faculty Handbook’s
characterization of the Dean is correct. The Chaplain
now reports to the President, with a “dotted line” reporting
relationship to the Vice President and Dean of Student Life. And,
since last spring, the Vice President and Dean also has responsibility
for Information Technology. Intercollegiate Athletics,
until recently a responsibility of the Vice President and
Dean, now reports to the President. I am inclined,
for the next few years at least, to bring IT back under the
President and to keep Intercollegiate Athletics reporting
to the President.
Unmentioned, too, but probably implied in the charge to
have supervision over all academic departments, is the Dean’s
responsibility for all of our programs of student academic
support, such as HEOP, CSTEP, the Office of Accommodative
Services, and Academic Achievement and Academic Support. Finally,
the Vice President and Dean is the administrative liaison
to the Trustee Committee on Faculty and Academic Affairs,
working very closely with the trustee chair and vice-chair
to facilitate an appropriate trustee oversight and engagement
with the academic program of the University.
It is obvious that it is, by any measure, a very big job! Interestingly,
I have always been amused that the Charter and By-Laws say
the Vice President acts as President upon the “absence
or disability” of the President, while the Faculty
Handbook says “absence or inability to act.” The
latter suggests that the faculty hope the Dean can take over
when the President is merely confused (which is occasionally
the case) or so struck by the complexity of an issue that
he or she cannot figure out what to do. I choose to
accept the formulation in the Charter and By-Laws!
When one puts the Charter and By-Laws provisions and the
Faculty Handbook together, I believe they are a very good
summary of the formal structure of the position of Vice President
and Dean. Let’s move on to other matters.
What Does the Dean Actually Do?
The first and most important thing to say on
this, I think, is that unlike almost any other position in
a modern organization, the academic dean of a liberal arts
college has a huge “span
of control,” to use the formal descriptive term. While
the faculty is organized into departments and programs, and
each has a chair who meets with the Dean in a Chairs Council,
which suggests hierarchy and perhaps the efficiency of structure,
it is also the case that each faculty member in some sense
reports to the Dean directly. In a way, the existence
of structure meant to simplify adds complexity instead.
Fine Deans I have known and with whom I have worked say
that a very high percentage of their time with faculty is
therefore spent in dealing with individual faculty members’ issues
and concerns, both appearing to be and actually being accessible
to them, and very importantly, being responsive and timely
on e-mail. Grant reports having received 80,000 e-mails
last year which required over 12,000 separate e-mails in
return. Crafting responses to issues and concerns and
taking initiatives that are simultaneously sensitive and
particular to a faculty member while also embedded in a strategic
context is a big part of the job. Anyone whose make-up
precludes simultaneous attention to detail and strategic
thinking should think carefully before imagining him or herself
a successful Dean.
A second and critically important cluster of activities
involves giving strong leadership to the educational mission
of the University. Dealing with faculty (and students)
individually, as described above, must be accompanied by
strategic initiative and leadership. A Dean must help
make good things happen that would not otherwise happen without
his or her leadership. And the Dean must do this in
a situation where the faculty and the administrative organization
function in some very different ways organizationally. The
administrative side of a University is a more traditional
organizational structure. How one approaches management
and decides on appropriate process can sometimes be very
different in the case of faculty or administrative staff. In
any event, a good Dean is able to function well in both kinds
of situations. An effective Dean understands that good
process in a University requires time and patience—many
one-on-one meetings and many committee meetings.
A third set of activities is focused on leading the effort
to recruit, support, evaluate, and retain the very best faculty
we can. Whatever one might say about the occasional
tensions that can arise between the administration and the
faculty, no Dean can be successful who fails to grasp the
extraordinary importance of the faculty to our success as
a University. Fostering a partnership spirit to help
that happen, working with faculty members and departments
in effective strategic planning, seizing opportunities that
may present themselves to take a leap forward, and using
the financial resources of the office and the University
to get the very most out of our situation as we pursue our
mission describes a critical cluster of activities in the
deanship.
A fourth cluster is working with senior staff colleagues
to help us get all of the different parts of the University
right. Strategy development and planning at the level
of the University as a whole, and thinking systemically with
respected colleagues responsible for other parts of the University,
are all very important and take a meaningful chunk of time. I
have always sought to find senior staff who are highly trained,
experienced, and outstanding performers in their respective
administrative disciplines, but who also have the intellectual
strength and breadth necessary for making a contribution
to the solution of a problem no matter where it resides in
our University structure. That must especially be the
case for the Vice President and Dean, given the second-in-command
status of that position.
There is certainly more that one might say on the question
of how the Dean spends his or her time. But the items
above capture the gist.
Special Expectations for a Dean Who Works With This President
This president wants to be fully informed and
included as the Dean thinks through issues on his or her plate,
while allowing the Dean the freedom to make up his or her own
mind about what is the right thing to do. When this approach
works, the Dean feels empowered but always has the support
of the president for the decisions he or she makes. In
this model, if things go wrong, the president is able to
say “we made this decision together so how can we fix
it,” not “you made your bed, now sleep in it!” The
relationship between the Dean and the President must be a
partnership.
This president relies a great deal on senior staff dialogue
and deliberation to seek the best strategies or solutions
to problems. Academic issues are rarely, in reality,
just academic issues, and so all members of senior staff
need to be players when it comes to setting overall institutional
direction. Almost all issues require people in more
than one university administrative division to be part of
the solution, so it is imperative that a spirit of collaboration
exists within the senior staff. The senior staff doesn’t,
itself, decide things—it is not a voting body with
the president acting as chair—but when this approach
works all members of senior staff feel as if they and the
president have made key decisions together. The Vice
President and Dean must be comfortable with this style.
While power and politics are ever present in any formal
organization, and one ignores their presence at one’s
peril, this president wants a senior staff prepared to focus
constructively on getting good and important work done. A
colleague of mine once said: “Sully, sometimes
things are exactly as they seem.” I want a senior
staff whose members are prepared to be straight-up and honest
with each other, able to give and receive criticism constructively,
and willing to work together in a partnership spirit to solve
tough problems. There should be no hidden agendas,
and members of senior staff should not have to worry that
their colleagues may have hidden agendas. What we all
do together, faculty and staff, is hard enough even when
you approach it this way. It is almost always impossible
if there is no partnership spirit.
I expect all senior staff to be ambitious, in the best sense,
for St. Lawrence. A few years ago I met the president
of an historically black college who is also on the board
of his alma mater, an elite northeastern liberal arts college. He
said the contrast between his own presidency and the issues
faced by the board of his alma mater is like night and day. He
feels like a visitor from Mars at his alma mater’s
board meetings because the issues are about running even
faster around the same track. Major matters of institutional
strategy hardly ever come up. At his historically black
college, every day is filled with big, tough, strategic issues. Figuring
out how to stay happily in the same place is not where St.
Lawrence is. The Vice President and Dean must be prepared
to give a great deal of thought and energy, every day, to
how St. Lawrence can be an even better place. While
celebrating our great strengths, he or she must care deeply
about how we might realize better the best that is in us.
What are Some of the Critical Qualities a Dean Must Have?
A Vice President of the University and Dean of
Academic Affairs must have a high appreciation for and an attractive
vision of liberal education. Trained, obviously, in
one or more specific disciplines, the Dean must be able to
imagine how liberal education, not just disciplinary education,
can happen in a university like St. Lawrence. Ideally,
the Dean should also be an effective public spokesperson
on behalf of liberal education and St. Lawrence’s mission,
goals and objectives as a liberal arts university.
I, for one, do not think it should matter from what discipline
the Dean comes. It is a mistake, I think, for an institution
to select a Dean purposely from a discipline or division
that may have an unusual number of strategic issues to work
out where the specific disciplinary expertise of a Dean might
make a difference. We need the very best person we
can find, whatever his or her disciplinary training.
A Vice President of the University and Dean of Academic
Affairs must exemplify high levels of achievement in the
three areas in which we assess faculty performance for tenure
and promotion. He or she must be an outstanding teacher,
with a passion for his or her discipline, a passion for being
an important agent in student learning, a passion for the
mission of liberal education itself, and a devotion to helping
the University get things right for students. He or
she must in our context be a scholar of significance, who
understands that students will not become life-long learners
if faculty members are not life-long learners, and whose
own approach to scholarly work models for students the qualities
of mind we hope they will acquire. And he or she must
exemplify, and therefore understand, the way in which a great
University relies on its faculty in shared governance. It
is rare that a faculty member who is not him or herself a “player” in
shared governance will know how to include and involve other
faculty effectively in it. The Vice President and Dean
must be a peer of our very best faculty members and, because
of his or her role in peer review of faculty—including
the review of faculty for promotion from associate to full
professor—must be a full professor.
The Dean must appreciate the true centrality of the faculty
and the academic program to our success as a University. He
or she must be an articulate advocate within the administration
and the University as a whole for our core academic values
and purposes. The faculty should feel and be assured
that they have an advocate in the Dean. But whoever
becomes Dean must also be able to set faculty and academic
needs in a wider context, and be an advocate for the University
as a whole as well. The kind of education we seek to
provide cannot be managed by the faculty alone, and the faculty
are not the only group on campus who must thrive if the University
is to thrive. In his opening address to the Columbia
University faculty as president, Dwight Eisenhower began
by saying: “Fellow employees of Columbia University
. . . . .” I. I. Rabi, the Nobel Prize-winning
Columbia physicist, leaped to his feet, interrupted Eisenhower
and said: “Mr. President, the Columbia faculty are the
University.” In my view, neither Eisenhower nor
Rabi was right in his view of the faculty.
Finally, the Dean must play a leadership role in the University’s
commitment to diversity. He or she should oversee faculty
and staff hiring practices in the Division of Academic Affairs
that lead to greater diversity, should be a leader, both
in his or her area of direct responsibility and within the
University as a whole, in our efforts to create and sustain
a climate of inclusiveness and equity at St. Lawrence, and
should be a leader in our efforts to capture the positive
benefits of diversity for student learning.
Why a Dean from Within the Faculty?
As many of you know, I feel quite strongly that,
if possible, academic deans should come from within the faculty
and be appointed to a fixed term, with the expectation that
at the end of their term they will return to the faculty. Absolutely
critical to the success of an academic dean is having the
trust of both the faculty and of the President. The
level and kind of trust that is required is not easily granted,
because to feel trusting one must have a good sense of how
the Dean is likely to act in a whole variety of circumstances. How
will the Dean act when personally attacked? How will
the Dean handle stress? What sort of balance will the
Dean likely strike between conflicting values when a tough
case is on the line? It is nearly, though not completely,
impossible to know these things in a candidate for Dean from
the outside. It is easier, though not completely easy,
to know these things about internal candidates. I have
come through experience to value good knowledge about such
matters greatly when selecting an academic dean.
The issues with which an academic dean must deal require
a real dexterity with regard to process, and the essence
of successful process in most liberal arts colleges is highly
contextual. If one knows the local culture, the likelihood
of getting process right goes up dramatically. This
is a second reason I favor an inside Dean.
Some believe that inside Deans will automatically favor
the status quo, and that only a Dean from the outside will
be able to challenge a university in ways that will help
it to be better. In other words, only Deans who do
not take the culture for granted can be successful change
agents. I have come to believe just the opposite—namely
that strong, well-respected and trusted inside Deans working
closely with the President are most likely to be successful
change agents. That is because, as I said in my very
first public remarks here in 1996, institutions change most
readily when change is seen to flow from rather than conflict
with deeply held traditions and values. Knowing how
to get an institution to move in ways aligned with key elements
of its own culture—sometimes to places it might not
imagine it can go—is far more likely, in my view, when
one understands that culture intimately.
Why don’t these arguments lead also to insisting that
other senior staff be appointed from within? There
are at least two critical differences, in my view, between
selecting a Dean and selecting other senior staff. The
first is that the faculty and its culture are so central
to the University. Other senior staff members also
have constituencies with which they must relate, but the
Dean’s relationship with the faculty is, in my view,
far more affected by context. Also, unlike the student
body or the pool of prospective students, the faculty does
not change in composition very quickly. Also, a Dean
from the faculty knows that student body from teaching them
over a period of years, and is therefore highly aware of
the challenges they provide in the classroom as well as their
potential for achieving more academically than perhaps we
have customarily asked of them.
A second reason is that, with the exception of the inside
pool from which one can select a Dean of Academic Affairs,
the inside pools from which one can select other senior staff
members are very small.
A weakness of this approach, to be sure, is that if diversity
is a goal for the senior staff—and it is—one
is limited by the diversity that already exists within the
faculty in a way that one is not limited (at least in principle)
if one searches nationally. This is a weakness, but
it is one I have come to be willing to live with given what
I see to be the many positives of at least trying to locate
one’s academic dean from within the faculty.
Conclusion
As you read all of this you may wonder if anyone can do
such a job well. It’s a hard one—no doubt
about it. It takes a great deal of energy, and a kind
of basic optimism of spirit lest one become so discouraged
at the complexity of many issues that one fails to stay with
them until an optimal solution is found. In my tenure
as President of St. Lawrence we have had two exceptionally
fine Deans from out of the faculty the Faculty Council played
a critical role in helping to identify, recruit, and select. What
I know of this faculty tells me that there are several more
current members who are well up to it. That in itself
says something important and very positive about this place.
My purpose in writing this is to stimulate
a discussion of the position of Vice President of the University
and Dean of Academic Affairs at St. Lawrence as we prepare
to search for our next one. I greatly look forward
to it.
