departmental politics and the n00b

I start a lot of posts that never amount to anything, here in my blog space. Sifting through posts to apply labels (look! I'm organized!) over the past few weeks, I realized I had some interesting topics abandoned in my drafts folder. They are particularly interesting for me to look back at now, with my perspective as a no-longer-new-and-shiny professor.

A few weeks into my tenure track job, I started a post about something unbloggable (I'm not even sure, in retrospect, what this was exactly). And I said: 

I am beginning to suspect I was pulled into some departmental politics long before I got here. I don't even know what the politics are or what the purpose is, but I am not very trusting of someone whom I used to see as a Great Help.

That quote raises some points that might be helpful to know, if you're a new faculty member. Some things I suspected and others I didn't know. My perspective of this suspicion now is influenced both by my experience and my recent read of James Lang's Life on the Tenure Track*

First, my suspicion that I had been drawn into department politics before I even arrived was probably true. Most departments will look collegial and happy when you interview. Regardless of how collegial and happy those departments really are, all of them will have a history that you cannot even begin to understand as a new member. In fact, some of the history might not even be facts that exist within the memory of current faculty members, but divisions and disagreements that have been passed down from the department's past. Lang's book has an interesting take on this, in the chapter that describes a contentious faculty meeting at which Lang really begins to see the divisions he suspected were there.

Just because people are already drawing you into department politics doesn't necessarily mean this is a bad thing, or that they are malicious and mean people. Every department has issues that they are divided on, and new blood means new potential allies. Or new blood might mean new potential allies for the "other side" on issues that are important to you. Every time a new faculty member arrives (there have been 5 since I was hired in my department), I wonder if they are going to agree or disagree with me on issues I consider important. Everyone will try to feel them out, without perhaps them even realizing it. 

Second, it is true that people who are helpful sometimes won't be helpful at other times. I am quite fortunate to have a fair number of colleagues in the department who help me out when I need something (read a manuscript, serve on one of my students' committees, provide me some literature recommendations when I enter a new area). But no colleague will be 100% helpful 100% of the time. Someone who is a Great Help (like the person I started describing in this original post) will not necessarily always be a Great Help.

This is because (third), everyone in academia ultimately (on the balance of things) needs to put themselves first. Some people do this in a mean spirited and non-collegial way. Other people can do this very politely and kindly. Putting yourself first does not automatically mean you are an awful person - it is the nature of academia. We are, in a sense, all entrepreneurs that have been thrown together as a group. Everyone has their own research, their own grants to apply for, and their own promotions to look after. In some ways, it can be more odd when we are called upon to work together (and I don't know any departments who have an easy time making big decisions).

A lesson that was drilled into me early (mainly by myself): I am the only one who will look after my own progress. I am the only one who will protect my time. I am the only one who will set boundaries.

Colleagues might give you advice, but rarely will they clearly and publicly intervene to protect you. (This includes from yourself).

So, Great Helps cannot be Great Helps all of the time, because sometimes they will need to look after their own interests. Just like you will look after your own interests.  You might be a helpful colleague, but on average you're going to put yourself first. (To me, this means that while sometimes I put myself second and I put a colleague or a student first, the overall balance is in favor of putting myself first). You can trust people, but don't trust them to put your interests ahead of your own - no good entrepreneur would do that on a regular basis.

Fourth it is naive to come into a new department and expect to make change in the first year. Lang notes that new faculty members like to remake departments in their own experiences (to paraphrase him). Not only is it ill-informed to enter a new department and begin taking sides on issues, it's bad politics. You haven't earned the right to speak up loudly yet.** Hollander referred to these as idiosyncrasy credits. They are a thing. Go forth and use them wisely.

So what is a new faculty member to do? What any good research should do (and what Lang advises as well) - sit down, shut up, and observe. Watch and collect information. Research before acting. Be willing to speak when people ask you to, speak if something occurs that you feel especially passionate about, but also listen. You will learn a lot more about your new home department (including how well it fits your personality and your goals), if you do more listening than speaking.

*I'm not sure if I liked and/or recommend this book. At the time the book was published almost 10 years ago I suspect it was quite unusual. However as someone who 1) has been reading academic blogs for about 11 years and 2) is no longer new on the tenure track, I didn't find this book very helpful. However, if you aren't into the snarky, honest academic blogs and already aware of what your first year on the tenure track might be, it's a quick read. Note: Lang is at a SLAC, so there isn't as much about research. The chapter (including his math) where he finally figures out how many meetings he is going to have to do to is absolutely hilarious in a lolsob kind of way.

**I do not mean this in the sense that you need to sit down, shut up, and suffer abuses. Just that you cannot gather enough information in the first few months of a new job to know where everyone falls on a department issue or how decisions will effect your department or your own scholarship