Sometimes things bring you up short in ways you weren\u2019t expecting, and that happened this past week as I was trying to prepare for a talk. I\u2019ve been asked to discuss my \u2018leadership journey\u2019 with a group of mid-career academics who may be facing up to the challenges of moving beyond research to, for instance, chairing committees for the first time. Now, over the years I\u2019ve written a lot on this blog about the ups and downs of committee work and the characters one encounters.\u00a0 You might have thought I\u2019d find it easy to do such a talk. Instead, I found myself reacting badly to the whole concept initially: I\u2019ve never been a leader was my initial thought, stoked by the fact I failed both to become a head of department or a PVC, for all I tried. (What went wrong on both occasions is perhaps a story for another day.) \u00a0But, not only was I Master of Churchill College for ten years \u2013 undoubtedly a leadership role \u2013 but I have chaired more committees over the years than I could possibly count. My first reaction was simply imposter syndrome getting loose again. For younger readers (probably just about everyone, given I\u2019ve been retired for some time) suffice it to say imposter syndrome \u2013 at least in my case \u2013 doesn\u2019t go away, one just gets better at managing it.<\/p>\n
As I say I\u2019ve written a lot about chairing committees but over the years I\u2019ve also learned that every committee is different and one has to flex tactics to suit. When asked, by the facilitator for the upcoming talk, what my style was I can come up with some overarching themes regardless of the nature of the group, but beyond a handful of phrases one has to adapt one\u2019s style according to what the nature of the desired outcomes is (sometimes much clearer than other times as for instance when a ranked list of grant applications is required) and whether the committee is made up of well-known colleagues or a bunch of strangers meeting for the first time. The dynamics will vary, particularly if everyone knows everyone else and has strong views about their colleagues. More on that below.<\/p>\n
The first, and I think most important word I used to describe my style of chairing in this preliminary chat with the facilitator was \u2018inclusive\u2019. This is a word currently much bandied about; some years ago, I would have used a less definitive statement, such as \u2018make sure everyone\u2019s voice is heard\u2019, caveated with \u2018and don\u2019t let anyone dominate\u2019. The latter is easier said than done. Some people like to take over any discussion, regardless of their depth of knowledge or what anyone else might want to say. Practicing phrases for how to shut such people up without being downright rude can be helpful. Things like \u2018that\u2019s very interesting, now can we hear from other people round the table\u2019 tending to the more blunt \u2018I think we\u2019ve heard your thoughts, but not everyone agrees\u2019 if needed. At meetings where hands are raised (electronically or otherwise) it is possible simply to ignore the dominant voice for as long as possible. Sadly, on hybrid calls I have had people say \u2018since I\u2019m online I\u2019m just going to jump in here…\u2019 which is a tough one to control. Hybrid meetings are, in my view, the hardest to keep in good order.<\/p>\n
But to be inclusive, it is important not just to shut the vociferous people up, but to make sure the quieter voices are heard. In Churchill, the governance arrangements at the time (since modified) meant that both students and staff were equal Trustees on the College Council. Both groups were often, I suspect, daunted by the louder voices and I tried to make sure I always brought them into the debate, particularly on matters specifically relevant to them. In general, turning formally to them meant they were happy to express their views but might have been reluctant to jump in without that invitation.<\/p>\n
A College Council is an example of a meeting where many of the individuals know each other and may have done so for twenty or more years. That can bring its own challenges as old rivalries or tensions get played out for the nth time. As an example of how not to handle this situation, I am reminded of a search committee I sat on (not as chair) in my department many years ago. One of the other members was someone who I had a fractious relationship with, and I went into the meeting apprehensive about this. When push came to shove the two of us, in discussing one particular candidate, ended up in the unhelpful situation of claiming that \u2018yes he would\u2019 versus \u2018oh no he wouldn\u2019t\u2019 about someone well known to both of us. As the external on the committee said to me afterwards, that was not a very constructive discussion but was definitely fuelled by past antagonism and present anxiety (at least on my part).<\/p>\n
All that is about inclusivity, which I believe has to sit at the heart of good committee work. There are lots of other tactics I use to make sure that people remain engaged: a bit of light humour, coffee breaks in long meetings and keeping to time, for instance. I can remember one committee \u2013 again not one I was chairing, but one where the chair seemed to have no regard for time \u2013 which turned into farce as one after another of the members left for other meetings as the meeting dragged on about an hour past its scheduled end point. It is a trick to manage to keep to the allotted time without making anyone feel a decision was rushed or that they didn\u2019t get a chance to speak. For sure, no one objects to a meeting finishing a few minutes early, but everyone can get peeved with an overrunning meeting. Once more, an example of how not to do this comes to mind, again not when I was chairing. The chair of this committee allowed the group to go round and round in circles about a particular candidate until the then Vice Chancellor stepped in and essentially said \u2018enough\u2019 and broke the loop. The chair should have done that at least half an hour earlier.<\/p>\n
As will be apparent, I have learned a lot from watching other chairs make what, to my eyes at least, are a mess of things. That is certainly a key piece of advice I will be passing on to the mid-career academics later this week. Know what works and what does not from watching others succeed or fail. Chairing is a skill that improves with practice (and confidence). I copy below a list I made in a previous post<\/a> on this subject that includes what I think are some crucial essentials (to be read in conjunction with how to be a better committee member<\/a>):<\/p>\n Finally, it is probably good to be aware of what not to do. I had fun many years ago describing all those chairs<\/a> you do not want to be or meet. Sadly, I have met all of them, but I sincerely hope I cannot be pigeonholed into any of the categories myself.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Sometimes things bring you up short in ways you weren\u2019t expecting, and that happened this past week as I was trying to prepare for a talk. I\u2019ve been asked to discuss my \u2018leadership journey\u2019 with a group of mid-career academics … Continue reading \n