Department Chair Online Resource Center The Politics of Securing Campus Resources: Suggested Budget Strategies for New Chairs

Transcription

1 Department Chair Online Resource Center The Politics of Securing Campus Resources: Suggested Budget Strategies for New Chairs A critical task for new academic department chairs is securing campus resources to operate their department and support their budget priorities. Although there are many indicators of success, securing resources is one of the most significant aspects of a chair s responsibilities, and performance in this area can affect his or her tenure as chair (Meisinger, 1994; Tucker, 1992). Given the importance of this responsibility, one might expect that there would be a larger literature base on what chairs need or can do to secure campus resources. However, my research on the strategies chairs use to secure campus resources found limited empirically grounded evidence on what chairs actually do to get financial resources from their institutions. What I did find was a plethora of literature on budgeting processes, concepts, and techniques. The broad literature on budgeting is important to understand from a foundational perspective, but in my view chairs learn little about what to do to increase their budget base beyond following the campus s directions for submitting budget requests. This article will provide new chairs with insights and strategies to help them get their budget priorities funded when they take on their new leadership role. RESEARCH SUMMARY The purpose of my research was to explore and understand the strategies used by three reputedly exemplary department chairs to secure campus financial resources. The three chairs were selected in part because they were consistently nominated by campus officials and they had a pattern of increases in their budgets over a brief period of time. Using a political perspective (Allison & Zelikow, 1999; Meisinger, 1994; Wildavsky, 1979) as a conceptual framework, my study focused on answering five research questions. Specifically, the research questions were concerned with the actors the three chairs sought to influence, the types of resources the chairs sought from the campus, the sources of power at the chairs disposal, the strategies the chairs used to secure resources, the outcomes of the strategies, and the factors accounting for the choice of strategies. To collect data for the study, I interviewed the three exemplary chairs, the former and current deans, the vice chancellor for academic affairs, faculty members, a budget officer, and a business manager. I also reviewed budgetary data. Chairs from sociology/anthropology, biology, and

2 communications were selected. A primary finding from the study indicated that the chairs were successful at securing campus resources in part because of the strategies discussed next. SUGGESTED STRATEGIES The strategies I propose are based on the findings from the study but are not limited to the three aforementioned disciplines from which the chairs came or even to new chairpersons. Anyone in a position to seek financial resources may find the strategies useful. Target multiple actors. A new chairperson may think that all he or she has to do to secure campus resources is to work with the dean. My study found that working directly with the dean, while essential, may not be sufficient. Understanding the politics of securing campus resources means, in part, understanding who the various actors are and how those actors help chairs get funding for their budget priorities. I found that the chairs also targeted the vice chancellor for academic affairs, the university chancellor, their department faculty, and other department chairs. Two of the three chairs had considerable access to the university chancellor because of their persistence, personality, or position on key campus committees. In interviews with the dean, he stated that he considered the chairs access and relationship to the chancellor when he made his budget decisions. Further, department faculty were targeted because the chairs were expected to demonstrate faculty support of the budget priorities, and other chairs were targeted to create alliances so budget requests could be reduced. Interview evidence from the dean suggested that faculty support and partnerships with others on campus were also taken into account when he made budget decisions. Use your power bases. Whether they knew it or not, the chairs in the study used their sources of power to increase their chances of success. The power bases provided the chairs with the capacity to exert influence. Without their power bases, the chairs may not have been successful in influencing the dean. Six primary sets of power bases were evident in the data, albeit in varying degrees across the three cases. First, the chairs had a reputation for developing strong, successful proposals. The dean and other informants all agreed that the chairs were good at putting together sound, convincing proposals that were easy to understand. The chairs were also able to effectively and clearly communicate their proposals orally. ace_departmentchairs@ace.nche.edu Page 2

3 Second, the chairs were knowledgeable about institutional priorities, faculty preferences, department programs, and different revenue streams on campus. Their knowledge of campus priorities, the initiatives that may or may not get funded, and where there might be additional available resources on campus made the chairs influential and successful. Third, the chairs had credible connections with key institutional actors (e.g., the dean, vice chancellor, chancellor, and other experienced chairpersons) and constituencies such as the minority community and alumni. I found that the chairs established and cultivated relationships with campus decision-makers and with peers who were highly regarded on campus and whom they trusted and respected. One chair in particular developed strong relations with external minority organizations. Building relationships with minority groups in the community was valued by the campus and was part of the university s strategic planning priorities. Fourth, the chairs all had supportive faculty, which was a critical factor to their success. Senior campus officials indicated that, in general, chairs budget requests were funded in part based on the extent to which faculty supported their initiatives. Fifth, stable enrollments in the departments enabled the chairs to influence the dean. None of the three chairs experienced serious declines in enrollments. Campus officials were adamant that resources followed students. That is, if a new chair could link budget requests and priorities to serving students, then stable enrollments become an important source of influence. A final source of power found in the study was that the chairs possessed relevant skills that enabled them to analyze and use institutional data, develop sound arguments for their priorities, lobby others for support, forge alignments with their peers on joint faculty appointments, and communicate their ideas and priorities in clear and compelling terms. Promote your department. The chairs in this study deliberately and strategically promoted their departments. To influence budget decisions, two of the three chairs sought to increase their visibility within the broader university. The chairs used their access to the vice chancellor and chancellor to promote their departments accomplishments and they did this whenever the opportunity presented itself. Promoting their departments was a useful strategy for creating a receptive environment for their proposals. Promoting the department was also a way to soften up campus leaders, especially the dean, prior to submitting requests. Develop, sustain, and use credible linkages with institutional authorities and department faculty. This strategy involves developing and sustaining connections and networks with key actors, such as the dean, chancellor, and vice chancellor for academic affairs. The chairs all enjoyed positive ace_departmentchairs@ace.nche.edu Page 3

4 working relationships with the dean and avoided conflict with him because he had the formal authority to make decisions regarding their budgets. As mentioned, the chairs also had access to senior campus leadership and they engaged their faculty members regularly on budget matters and priorities in an attempt to obtain their support. From a political perspective, the chairs understood the importance of faculty support if they wanted to increase their chances of influencing the dean to approve their budget requests. The deans (former and current) noted that they did not want to give resources to a department if there was no faculty support for the chair s initiatives, which would be a waste of money. Align proposals with available revenues, institutional priorities, and departmental strengths. I found that in all three cases, the exemplary department chairs had access to and used institutional data (e.g., enrollment, staffing, and priorities) to influence budget decisions. Of all the strategies mentioned by the informants and the chairs, the issue of using data was repeated during interviews. The importance of data was heightened because of limited resources. Using institutional data was necessary to comply with the university s doctrine of resources follow students. The chairs were successful in influencing the dean and the faculty based on how well they were able to use institutional data in their requests to demonstrate a response to normal inflation, student preferences, budgetary shortfalls, and/or enrollment trends. Further, in addition to considering how chairs aligned their budget requests with institutional priorities, the dean also considered the extent to which chairs worked with other unit heads in the college or across campus to reduce the need to fund requests at 100%. Department alignments and interdepartmental cooperation were considered pluses by the dean when he made budget decisions. On occasion, the sociology/anthropology and communications chairs developed strategies that focused on relationships with other chairs rather than independent requests. Persist. This strategy refers to the chairs overall determination to get their initiatives funded. The chairs in the study did not give up on getting their requests funded. They were persistent to the end. The chairs had reputations for being committed to their initiatives and for ensuring those initiatives were funded. The chairs were not new chairs. They were experienced and understood the budget process and how budget decisions were made on campus. They persisted by making sure their proposals were clear and compelling, garnering faculty support, reaching out to campus leaders, seeking external resources, and pursuing funds not available through the regular budget process (i.e., special technology grants made available to departments through a competitive process). ace_departmentchairs@ace.nche.edu Page 4

5 CONCLUSION There are many reasons why chairs are successful at securing campus resources. My study sought to explore and understand some of these reasons by focusing on three reputedly exemplary chairpersons. A political perspective of organizations and budgeting enabled me to see the full range of dynamics and issues that come into play where budgeting is concerned. Before submitting major budget requests, new department chairs should spend time building goodwill on campus, cultivating relationships with key actors, learning from other chairs reputed to be successful, understanding campus priorities, and engaging in other activities that develop their budgeting skills and potential power bases, which may be used to influence budget decisions in their favor. Wallace Southerland is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Maryland and a former administrative department head at Creighton University and San Jose State University. This article is based on the findings of his dissertation research. wsoutherlandiii@yahoo.com REFERENCES Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile crisis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman. Meisinger, R. J., Jr. (1994). College and university budgeting: An introduction for faculty and academic administrators (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers. Tucker, A. (1992). Chairing the academic department: Leadership among peers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: /Macmillan. Wildavsky, A. (1979). The politics of the budgetary process (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Company. ace_departmentchairs@ace.nche.edu Page 5