Sarah Johnson
English 680W
December 14, 2003
Job Description Revision and Analysis for
Larry Nichols, Seattle University Writing Center Director
Context/Background Information:
Seattle University is a small, Jesuit institution of about 5,000 students, the vast majority of whom
are undergraduates. It is a teaching university with a strong ethic of service, especially in terms of service
learning and social justice. Professional service is also valued more highly than at many institutions,
though the research, teaching, service hierarchy is still present. Larry was hired 11 years ago to direct the
Writing Center. He has an MA in Literature, and is considered a full-time, non tenure-track English
faculty member. His contract is renewable each spring through Annual Professional Review. Although he
must go through this process to renew his contract, it is the same process that tenured faculty go through.
Also, it is understood that Larry has the WCD position for as long as he wants it so long as he doesn’t do
anything outrageous. Before Larry was hired to direct the Writing Center, John Bean, now Director of
Writing at Seattle University, created the Writing Center. Larry and John are situated as colleagues, with
neither reporting to the other. Both report to the English Chair and the Dean.
Analysis of Current Job Description:
Larry created his current job description because he didn’t have one in 1997. He uses it in two
contexts: first, it is part of the tutor handbook and second he submits it with his other APR materials each
year. Larry feels that this job description is a bit dated, and that it fails to represent the work he is now
doing with faculty and the ongoing relationships he maintains with former consultants. Some of the
information was out of date, for instance the current job description says that Larry teaches 3
courses/year, when in fact he has recently negotiated to teach 2 classes/year and hopes to continue that
trend. Also, his current job description says that he manages a 16-22 person staff, when in it is now 18-25,
the norm being 20. One of the problems I have with it is that it is not easy to see how it is organized and
some responsibilities are repeated. When I asked him, Larry said it was sort of organized from global to
local, and sort of organized by the role he plays. These organizational patterns are subtle, though, and
hard to catch without visual cues. Another difficulty with the organization and list format of the current
document is that all of Larry’s responsibilities seem to have equal weight, though some are more
important or more time-intensive than others. For example, “Coordinates initial consultant hiring and
ongoing supervision, and payroll” apparently has equal weight with “Designs and oversees maintenance
of an aesthetic and efficient work environment, including purchase of necessary supplies for operation.”
The former is both more central to Larry’s ongoing work and more time intensive than the latter.
Analysis of (and Reflection on) Revised Job Description:
The revised job description seeks to function more to Larry’s benefit in his Annual Professional
Review. Although he receives an annual cost of living increase, Larry is not eligible for a raise on their
merit-based pay system unless his work is rated “substantially above expectation” (which is the highest of
three categories). Because Larry is not tenure track, he is paid less. Moreover, he is not eligible for
promotions (assistant professor to associate professor to full professor, etc). Thus he is not compensated
fairly for the professional level of his work and is only eligible for merit based pay increases beyond the
cost of living increase. The difficulty with this system, however, is that Larry must continually show that
he is doing more and more. The new job description attempts to limit this ever-increasing workload by
establishing a fairly stable (yet negotiable) set of broadly defined responsibilities, augmented by a section
for new initiatives (in which Larry can make his case for the merit-based pay increase during those years
when he feels it is necessary). The annual initiatives will NOT be folded into the stable responsibilities
though, leaving room for Larry to maintain a reasonable workload while proving that he has gone above
and beyond expectations fairly regularly.
I had initially intended for the whole document to be written in prose, and actually drafted a
complete job description that way, but then decided that only the overview should be in paragraph form. I
thought that the responsibilities new initiatives should be bulleted lists because it made the document
visually more appealing and easier to read quickly. The overview is based upon the section of the
Portland Resolution that addresses job descriptions. The Portland Resolution states that the WPA’s job
description should determine equivalence – what responsibilities are equivalent to teaching a full load and
what release time will be give for administration. I also tried to situate Larry’s position within “a clearly
defined administrative structure” by clarifying who he works with as a colleague and who he reports to. I
did not get into what kind of administrative work counts as scholarship because Larry is in a non-tenuretrack position (because he has a MA and not a PhD) and so is not required to produce scholarship (though
he does). I also did not get into qualifications and kinds of expertise required for the job because he is in
such an unusual position (in that he is essentially assured that his contract will be renewed every year). I
did, however, want to make a case for the professional nature of the job and the need to stay informed of
recent scholarship because Larry receives (and hopefully will continue to receive) $1000 for professional
development and travel each year. My main difficulty with the overview is that I am not sure if it was
necessary for me to spell out all of these things in the job description. That is, Larry has a contract that is
renewed annually. I began to ask myself if the specifics of his teaching load, compensation, etc were
spelled out in that contract, and if the contract acted as a companion document for the job description.
However, not knowing anything about the nature of the contract document (and not having time to ask
Larry), I have assumed that the information I put in the overview is helpful.
My main conflict ended up being whether or not to include faculty development and alumni
relations in the “Responsibilities” section or not. I see the “Responsibilities” section as the core set duties
that Larry must complete every year. The “New Initiatives” section, however, details ways that Larry has
gone beyond his core set of responsibilities for any given year. In my correspondence with Larry, he
indicated that he would love to have his work with faculty and alumni articulated in his job description
because he enjoys that work and hopes to do more of it. However, his work with faculty development is
quite recent. Moreover, I am conscious of not including too much in his stable responsibilities because
doing so could contribute to his being overworked. I decided that it is important to represent the work
Larry does (and enjoys!) in the stable part of his position, but I left the sections vague and sparse enough
that he wouldn’t be compelled to devote large amounts of time and resources to them. In years he does
spend a lot of time and energy on those areas, he can list his extra efforts in the “New Initiatives” section.
I am still uncomfortable with the titles of the sections, especially “New Initiatives.” I wanted to
indicate that these were projects beyond the necessary scope of duty and done on a year-to-year basis. I
considered “Special Projects” and “Yearly Initiatives.” I still don’t feel I have found an accurate phrase
to represent this section. I also want to point out that I listed 6 “new initiatives” in that section, but I think
that is too much for any one year. My purpose was to show examples of possible things to list.
Another difficulty I had was where to put data collection, budget, and teaching. I thought that
they were important enough to include, but couldn’t fit them under the categories I had decided on. I
considered naming the category “Administrative Duties,” but did not want to contribute to the denigration
of the word “administration,” thereby making belittling the administrative work of WPAs.
Seattle University Writing Center Director
Job Description
Overview
The Writing Center Director is a full-time, non-tenure track English faculty member whose 11-month
administrative appointment is renewable annually. The director’s position is 2/7 teaching and 5/7
administration during the regular school year and 16 hours/week during summer session. The Writing
Center Director works collaboratively with the Director of Writing, reports to the Chair of the English
department, and is evaluated by the English Chair, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, and the
English Faculty Committee. Because directing a writing center requires current knowledge of writing
center theory, practice, and pedagogy, $1000 of the director’s budget is allocated for professional
development and travel each year. The Writing Center Director nurtures the overall vision and design of
the Writing Center by fulfilling the following responsibilities:
Responsibilities
1. Writing Center Development and Promotion
 Develops and maintains working relationships, and in some instances close partnerships,
with faculty, student service entities, and departments across campus
 Serves as a member of the English Department composition committee
 Represents the Writing Center at professional meetings and workshops
 Supervises publicity efforts, including developing materials (e.g. brochures, faculty
announcements, t-shirts), offering informational presentations to classes, and maintaining
the center’s website
 Creates an aesthetic and efficient working environment in the center
2. Staff Development
 Hires and supervises a staff of 18-25 writing consultants, including 2 student coordinators
who help manage the center’s day-to-day operations
 Trains writing consultants by developing and teaching English 390 “Tutoring Writing:
Theory and Practice,” creating and conducting on-the-job workshops during monthly staff
meetings or quarterly workshops, and observing and evaluating consultants
 Mentors the professional development of consultants, especially through encouraging
student research, conference participation, and publication
 Serves as the primary resource person for consultants’ applications to graduate school and
for professional employment beyond Seattle University
3. Alumni Relations
 Maintains contact and correspondence with alumni
 Creates opportunities for alumni to interact with current writing consultants
 Provides continued mentoring for alumni
4. Faculty Development
 Works with the Director of Writing to implement projects with faculty
 Seeks to foster communication about writing and learning among faculty and students
5. Other Duties
 Teaches two courses a year, including English 390 “Tutoring Writing: Theory and Practice”
 Supervises data collection and encourages consultant research utilizing this data
 Oversees all budgetary and financial matters for the Writing Center, including payroll
New Initiatives for 2003*
1. Promotion and Development of the Writing Center
 Supervised development of peer review workshop for Sr. Trainor’s honors philosophy
course
 Served on hiring committee for the composition specialist
2. Alumni Relations
 Organized and hosted an alumni workshop on career paths for current writing consultants
 Assisted alumnus with a project for her graduate course in Writing Program Administration
3. Faculty Development
 Conducted assignment design workshops with 5 faculty members
 Two faculty members gave presentations on writing initiatives in their disciplines at the
Winter Workshop, joining three writing consultants who presented their research
________________
*Note: These are meant to be examples of the kinds of projects the director might list in this section. Half of these
new initiatives have actually happened this year; the other half either have happened in the past or are likely to
happen in the near future. The actual content and number of new initiatives will vary from year to year.