Joe, Bob, and Susan - three art professors at a major university - are
having problems.
Joe has been chair for more than 20 years but has garnered little support from
the administration. His style is relational, yet passive. He wants everyone to "feel
good" and get along. His has been criticized by the faculty in his department for
being more concerned with student's self-esteem than their learning. Joe's
artwork is practical in nature, but he has not produced much work in recent
years.
Bob, a ten year veteran of the department, is hard working and maintains high
academic standards for his students. He is proud of his philosophy that
understanding art can only be achieved through reading art criticism. He enjoys
leading discussion groups with his students encouraging them to think and talk
about art and challenging their opinions. His artwork is conceptual and has been
fairly well-received in the art community.
Susan joined the faculty around the same time as Bob. She is extremely
ambitious, industrious and diligent. She has shown her work mor ethan the other
members of the department and continues to focus on building her vita. This is in
line with her philosophy that students should learn by example. Focusing on the
creative process, Susan expects her students to produce a large body of work in
each class.
The root of the conflict is philosophical. Bob is dogmatic in his insistence that
students must learn through deep study and intellectual pursuit. In contrast,
Susan, maintains high academic standards but would rather her students spend
their time in the studio than reading criticism. Both Susan and Bob express
frustration over Joe's approach which they feel sets low standards and
encourages artistic fluff.
Joe prefers not to join in the conflict saying, "You're grown-ups; work it out." That
approach has been used since the year Bob and Susan joined the department.
As a result, Bob and Susan's relationship has deteriorated to the point that the
student's are choosing sides and complaining openly about the conflict.
As chair of the department, Joe has a problem. And to add to the problem, he is
part it. Joe has contributed to the conflict indirectly by his approach to teaching
which meets disapproval by at least two of his faculty and directly by his refusing
to acknowledge the situation. Previous articles in The Department Chair
Newsletter have discussed methods of conflict management and the five
responses: accommodator, avoider, collaborator, competitor, and compromiser.
Joe is obviously an avoider. This article focuses not on management methods,
but on categories of conflict. Identifying the category of conflict occurring in your
department is the first step toward resolution.
Nothing is as important for American higher education than the emergence of
academic leaders equipped to handle conflict. A study conducted by the Center
for the Study of the Department Chair found that chairs identified conflict with
colleagues as their major source of stress. Much of the reported chairs'
dissatisfaction resulted from faculty disagreeing with each other which resulted in
"bickering, whining, and feuding," "acting without reason," and "ideological and
personal wars" (Gmelch & Miskin, 104).
These behaviors can be reduced if the department chair can recognize wha tkind
of conflict is occurring. There are four categories of conflict which represent
stages of escalation: pseudo, content, value and ego.
Pseudo conflict is conflict that is waiting to happen. It starts with sarcastic
comments and cutting jabs and can escalate into one of the other forms of
conflict. The trick is to confront the conflict while it's at this irritation stage before it
escalates into a more serious type.
Content conflict, a disagreement over a fact, is the easiest solved. This category
is often referred to as simple conflict because the information necessary to
resolve the conflict is easy to obtain. Examples of content conflict include
disagreements over deadlines, schedules, written policies, etc. If your faculty are
involved in content conflict, encourage them to disengage until a source for
verifying the fact can be found. It's important to confine the conflict to the issue at
hand to prevent it escalating to the value or ego conflict stage.
Value conflict is frustrating and difficult to resolve. Working with people who have
different values is challenging. And simple value judgments between right and
wrong, good and bad, difficult and easy are triggers for deeper conflict. Value
judgments also extend to the heart of faculty work. What makes a good teacher?
What constitutes failure? What is the best way to motivate students?
Because of the nature of value conflict, chair involvement may be unnecessary
unless the conflict affects faculty work. Chairs should help faculty look for areas
in which both parties agree and work from there. If no agreement can be
reached, faculty at odds may have to agree to disagree.
Ego conflict, such as the conflict that rears its ugly head in the opening scenario,
often involves value conflict, but to the extent that participants cannot "agree to
disagree." The hardest category of conflict to resolve, ego conflict uses a winlose approach. There is no room for compromise and admitting one might be
wrong is a sign of weakness. As a result, this type is the most difficult to manage
in academia, ego conflict is manifested in issues such as theoretical vs. applied
research, value of teaching vs. scholarship, and pedagogical preferences.
Confronted with ego conflict, the chair should try to help move the conflict away
from the ego to the content level.
Identifying the kind of conflict simply involves active listening. Once the kind has
been identified, the chair will know best how to advise and direct the faculty
toward resolution. Some practical suggestions include:
● Listen carefully. Help guide the conversation by prompting with phrases
such as:
-
Tell me about...
Explain...
How do you feel about...
Describe...
What do you mean by...
● Restate the positions held by both sides to ensure that the conflict is not
just a misunderstanding;
● Attack problems, not people. Encourage faculty to depersonalize the
conflict (personal attacks are most used in ego conflict);
● Bring all parties together. To maintain trust and appear impartial, avoid
talking one-on-one;
● Allow others to vent their frustration, but know when it is time to direct the
discussion toward solutions;
● If a conflict escalates, call for a time out. Reconvene when tensions
are reduced;
● Help your faculty stay focused on the big issues: What's best for the
students? The department? The university?;
● Bring closure by summarizing the discussion and asking the faculty
how they think the conflict should be resolved; and
● Conclude by giving encouragement and direction.
The opening scenario describes a fairly common type of conflict situation. Faculty
in a competitive discipline disagree over the way courses should be taught,
demonstrate a lack of respect for different approaches, and are stymied by a
chair who refuses to deal with the conflict. While most conflict is healthy, bringing
forth creative ideas and much needed change, ego conflict and unresolved
conflict cripple departmental productivity. Chairs must take an active role in
identifying and addressing conflict between colleagues.
This article was originally published in The Department Chair, Spring 2000.