How to Be a Successful Administrator

Think About Your Academic and Administrative Career . . . Before Going to Graduate School

For individuals considering a scholarly career in higher education (which may include administrative appointments), “where” you are likely (or even able) to become a faculty member (or an administrator) has largely been defined for you by several important considerations (see Moore, Salimbene, Marlier, & Bragg, 1983; Wessel & Keim, 1994). Research demonstrates that the prestige of your PhD impacts where in the higher education institutional hierarchy you may obtain tenure-track positions (particularly your first job placement). In turn, this appointment will likely have important implications on the type (and prestige) of institution at which you may land a future academic administrative appointment (see Bedeian, Cavazos, Hunt, & Jauch, 2010; Burris, 2004; Dutton, 1987). That is, a PhD earned at a more prestigious institution—and holding tenure-track faculty positions at such a place—enhances significantly the odds to moving up administratively among the hierarchal structure of American universities (Birnbaum & Umbach, 2001; Burton, 2003; Burton, 2009).

Although American universities present themselves as open and equitable institutions, the reality is that educational credentials and faculty appointments along the career path either enhance or constrain future access to administrative opportunities. The status of one’s credentials restricts access to “where” one can likely administer. Thus, for students considering where to pursue the PhD in the discipline, the greater prestige of the doctoral degree granting institution, the greater the odds of “landing” a faculty appointment at a similarly ranked (prestige) institution and subsequently advancing your administrative career (see Birnbaum & Umbach, 2001; Burton, 2003; Madsen, 2007; Piazza & Castelluci, 2014; Roebken, 2010).

Develop a Strong Academic/Scholarly Record

“There is no substitute for scholarship” is what I heard from Dr. Edward Latessa as a master’s student in criminal justice at the University of Cincinnati. Some 30 years later, I have come to appreciate more fully the wisdom of these words: Institutions of higher learning are scholarly organizations, and those seeking administrative positions as chairs (or eventually higher) would do well to develop a strong academic record in both teaching and scholarship. Higher education “fads and fashions” will come and go (Birnbaum, 2000; Maddux & Cummings, 2004), but research (scholarship) and quality teaching remain central to the technical core of universities (Atkinson & Blanpied, 2008; see also Thompson, 1967). Thus, I would strongly encourage anyone with aspirations in administration to develop their scholarly portfolio to enhance their odds of success.

Succinctly, career advancement in administration is unlikely unless a person has a strong scholarly record. I have discovered that as a department chairperson, one can continue to work with faculty colleagues and conduct a respectable level of research and publications. Beyond the department level (i.e., the dean level and above), university administration consumes virtually all of a person’s time and thus makes it difficult to complete quality scholarship. The result typically is diminished scholarly productivity. So, for the aspiring chairperson (or an existing chairperson), my advice is to maintain a healthy research agenda and publish!

To illustrate the point that scholarship matters for department chairpersons, most notably at research universities, I compiled a “crude” estimate of research and scholarly impact (via current and publicly available Google Scholar Citation counts) for all department chairpersons (or those at the administrative “helm”) among the nation’s “top” 10 criminology and criminal justice programs as of March 4, 2014. These programs are ranked and published in the U.S. News & World Report Rankings as follows: (1) University of Maryland, (2) University at Albany, (3) University of Cincinnati, (4) University of Missouri–St. Louis, (5) Pennsylvania State University, (6) University of California–Irvine, (7) Florida State University, (8) Michigan State University, (9) Rutgers University–Newark, and (10) CUNY–John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The U.S. News & World Report Rankings of these programs, as well as scholarly rankings of these same doctoral programs (albeit in slightly different order of ranking), indicate that these are the most prestigious criminal justice and criminology programs in the discipline (see Davis & Sorensen, 2010).

Moreover, given that all of these academic units house doctoral degree programs, they are characterized as “well-funded” and receive greater disciplinary attention than criminal justice/criminology programs at small and more regionally focused institutions. These elite criminal justice/criminology programs typically carry lower teaching loads by faculty and provide greater graduate student assistantship support than lesser ranked programs in the discipline (see Davis & Sorensen, 2010; Sorensen, Burton, & Marquart, 1995).

This analysis reveals that among the 10 administrative leaders (chairs, heads, directors, deans, or president) of these elite criminal justice and criminology units (offering the doctorate degree in the discipline), the highest cited leader/scholar had 4,270 listed scholarly citations, whereas and the least had 458. Moreover, the average number of scholarly citations for this group was 2,482. Thus, the highest ranked criminal justice and criminology programs are typically led by heavily cited scholars and scholarship “matters” for individuals leading these programs.

Moreover, research and publishing increases the odds of having the opportunity for a successful administrative career as well as of gaining the respect of faculty scholars within your department and across your institution, particularly at research universities (Burton, 2003; Goodall, 2006, 2008).

Furthermore, research and publishing is essential to earn tenure and promotion to full professor, which are often required by institutions to hold chair and dean positions. Also, a solid research record makes potential chair candidates more attractive to other universities and their hiring committees (typically comprised of full professors who often possess lengthy publication records and heavily cited works). Notably, although senior academic administrators lacking a solid scholarly record (with few citations and publication) can occasionally be found (perhaps a dean, provost, or president) in a research university, this is uncommon.

Understand the Structural Hierarchy of Higher Education Institutions

Understanding your likely “fit” with an institution (or in a criminal justice or criminology department) is as important as any other consideration when contemplating applying, accepting, and remaining in an administrative (department chair) role (Atwell & Wilson, 2003; Enke, 2014). A good place to begin understanding the different types (e.g., research vs. liberal arts, regional vs. community college) of universities is to examine the different classifications of universities developed by The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (2014).

Entering the search for chairperson positions will require that you realize these institutional differences (missions), particularly variations in the research and scholarly expectations for faculty within research universities. For instance, if your career path (or personal interests) has led you to primarily small public regional institutions (more teaching focused), it would be wise to assess the likelihood of success at a large flagship research institution (high research expectations), much less getting hired there. The often-stated reason for administrative turnover at all levels in higher education is usually the “lack” or “poor” fit between the individual and the unit or institution. Again, the question you must answer is: Where do I fit?

Apply for All Departmental Administrative Positions—And Do It Early On

To become an academic administrator, you must obtain your first administrative job! This may sound simplistic, but securing an initial position can be more challenging than expected. Given that the majority of departments have only one graduate director (assuming that the unit offers a graduate degree) and one undergraduate director (assuming that the chairperson does not handle these duties), the opportunities to gain administrative experiences are sparse. Nonetheless, the route to becoming a department chair is usually through these early administrative experiences as a graduate director or an undergraduate director. Thus, it is important to become involved in your own department’s administrative structure. Also, while national (external) searches do occur, it is common for many chair positions to be filled internally. In terms of understanding the administrative pathway (moving up in administration, particularly at research universities), you must similarly progress and develop a “track record” of administrative service, with the ideal routing in rank from chair to dean and then usually provost to the presidency (see Cohen & March, 1974).

At the department level, several models exist for leading a department or program. For instance, some institutions “rotate” department chairpersons, whereby the tenured faculty “rotate” by “taking a turn” at serving as chairperson for a specified term (usually 3 to 5 years). Typically, these appointments are made by an academic dean (with provost and president approvals). In other universities, a department may be administered by a “head” (with more “autonomy”), but he or she still serves at the pleasure of a senior administrator (most often a dean).

Secure as Much Committee Service as You Can

In the event that departmental administrative roles are not available, you can improve your administrative portfolio of experiences by serving on (and chairing) key departmental committees for the experience. The value of serving on department committees is the acquisition of learning how the unit operates. In addition to service and participation in your unit/department, it also helps to move outside the department to serve on committees and posts in your college and at the institutional level. These committees range from academic assessment to tenure and promotion to serving on an institution’s faculty (or university) senate (non-union institutions may have either). Serving on various committees is valuable because it provides essential knowledge of the workings and culture of the faculty member’s home college or wider institution. Moreover, committee service provides colleagues who may serve as a future reference, insider knowledge of the institution, and a stage where prominent colleagues in the university can evaluate your “potential” as an administrative leader.

Furthermore, should a faculty member desire to pursue administration beyond the department level, serving as a dean, provost, or president will require knowledge of the roles and workings of those committees that support the functional operation of the university. Moreover, a lengthy list of committee experiences furnishes assurances to both search committees and hiring authorities that a faculty member has added knowledge and insight to leading beyond the department level. Such committee experiences, then, take on added salience as you advance along your administrative career path. Put succinctly, service matters at all levels.

Be Prepared to Move to Obtain Administrative Roles

Similar to faculty positions, obtaining an administrative position often requires moving to a new university, whether this is needed to obtain a chair’s position or a more advanced administrative post. Most faculty are aware of this reality. As David Brown (1967) described in The Mobile Professors, most faculty migrate institutionally over the course of their careers. Like faculty, then, the majority of academic administrators have changed their institutions to secure their current position. Among research university presidents, for example, the median number of moves over a career prior to reaching their current presidency was 5.5 (see Burton, 2003). In sum, although it is possible to begin and end an academic/administrative career at a single institution, this career path is not the norm.

Research the Institution and the Job

When applying for external (and even internal) chair positions, do your homework, read everything, and call a few insiders. Despite reading strategic plans, the campus news, web sites, and other sources proclaiming that a department or a university aspires to reach certain levels (or highly values teaching, research, or service), what you may soon discover is that you should not believe everything you read and hear. As an insider staying at your home institution, you should have information for what is expected in your new administrative role. For outsiders coming into a new institution, however, beware! Despite gleaning the department or institution’s publicly stated truths, the reality is that those around, above, and below you may in fact not zealously aspire to anything in particular for the department, college, or institution!

As social organizations, people occupy other interlinked administrative roles (e.g., subordinates, peers, superiors) who may have other opinions on the goals for you “as chair” and your department’s (that you are responsible for administering) “purpose” within the institution. Also, many senior administrators are not always enthused to “move the institution up” in the rankings or truly improve it. To make “tough” decisions invites risk and uncertainty for senior administrators! So, before taking on the role of chair, attempt to find out the direction those around and above you want your department to go, if at all possible.

Moreover, learn all that you can about the department and institution (and do not forget, its culture) when contemplating a move for a chair role. Within a research university, for instance, there is an expectation for faculty to engage in research activities by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, having university press books, and obtaining competitive grants and contracts. Thus, in considering chairperson roles as an external candidate to the department, do your due diligence and find out just how productive the tenured members of the department actually are. That is, are they highly published and well-cited scholars, or not? Is this a department you wish to lead? Will you fit? These issues are certainly worth a closer examination.

Be an Advocate and Help the Faculty Be Productive and Successful

As chair, your duty is to be a strong advocate for your department and help the faculty to be productive and successful in their scholarly work of conducting research and teaching. Your efforts must be about them, not you. Research indicates that most faculty work long hours (Jacobs & Winslow, 2004; Tierney, 1997), with the majority of professors averaging approximately 50 (or more) hours of work weekly (see American Association of University Professors, 1994; Flaherty, 2014; Thulasi-Kumar, 2005). As chairperson, then, you must strive diligently to facilitate opportunities for faculty to enhance the quality of their work and improve their quality of life; this is realized by creating an environment conducive to your faculty being as productive as possible. As chair, you must advocate strongly for your department, to your dean, and various administrative offices on your campus to obtain new (and continuing resources) and gain advantages for your unit within your college.

Keep the Department Consistent With the Institutional Mission

Nearly every “university” and particularly at research universities, excellent teaching and research are mandated. Thus, it is safe for a chair to conclude that it is imperative to preserve (and vigorously promote) the teacher-scholar model in your unit. Whatever, your institutional type (see Carnegie Classification of Institutions), there are consequences for having a department that is not consistent with the mission (and culture) of the broader university. As chair, you will soon learn the hard way by being slighted at budget allocation time, ignored at key recognition opportunities, not offered representation on important search committees, and various task forces, and denied access to key external campus stakeholders! These are the informal lessens discovered by departments (and their faculties) who are out of kilter with their institution’s mission.

Be Fair to Everyone: Decision-Making Basics

As with employees generally, faculty members can perceive unfairness in most everything. Still, it is important to try to treat all faculty—regardless of their idiosyncrasies—as fairly as possible. This means having policies, knowing the process, and following through on what is proscribed. A core element of effective academic administration is to follow “policy and process” and adhere to the principles of shared governance in decision-making. Within this understood framework, it is important to consider multiple viewpoints and “listen” to competing voices among departmental stakeholders. Shared governance at its best involves listening, discussing, assessing evidence, understanding rationales, establishing goals, and positioning the outcome of consensus to move forward.

Moreover, open communication among actors possessing “good faith” is critical at all levels within the institution. However, it must be noted that shared governance does not mean a chair (or academic administrator) should give in to unreasonable demands, indefensible requests, or decisions that weaken the academic integrity of the department or its degree programs. That is, administrators (and chairs) must be willing to hold others accountable and be decisive when necessary in the framework of shared governance (Olson, 2009). What I have learned, despite all efforts taken, is that sometimes others will not always appreciate a direct and honest answer on matters contrary to their belief or position on an issue.

Be Prepared to Have Decisions Scrutinized in the Department and Above

A chair’s obligation is to share equally in both the rewards (and shortcomings) of the department with colleagues and not use the position for personal gain or advantages. In addition, you must be prepared to “chair” the academic department by example, continue to carry your portion of the departmental “load,” and remain a contributing teacher-scholar. It is further advised that you not immediately (if ever!) renovate your office, buy the nicest office furniture, or even order the newest computer. These indulgences are manifestly self-serving and invite scrutiny.

You should remember that it is the small things that faculty will long remember about you as chairperson (or administrator). For instance, past decisions that did not satisfy a faculty member’s preferences for a particular teaching schedule, merit raise, travel monies, computer allocations, or graduate assistantship assignment can create resentments that may never be fully ameliorated. It may take little (such as purchasing yourself a new high-back chair) to incite feelings of unfairness and inequality, and thus to bring about scrutinizing attention. It is for this reason that any decisions reached must not be personalized (i.e., getting even with a “bad” faculty member). Rather, they need to be transparent and based on equitable criteria.

You should also remember that “someone” above you in rank will be assessing your decisions; every administrator (including the chair) reports to someone. Chairpersons report to a school or a college dean (or perhaps even a dean of the faculty at smaller universities), and your dean (or supervisor) typically reports to a chief academic officer (provost or vice president for academic affairs). Your decisions will inevitably be challenged (e.g., by an unhappy faculty member) or perhaps even by a dean who wishes to micro-manage your department. Decisions that are not idiosyncratic but based on existing policy and process and on the equitable application of clear criteria will be defensible. It is important to be known as an administrator who is fair and who can be decisive because your decisions are good ones.

Decision-Making, Shared Governance, and Decisiveness

Whenever possible, it is best to use shared decision-making for the major decisions (Birnbaum, 2004) effecting your department. The use of committees (and participatory process) helps ensure that multiple voices are heard and viewpoints are considered to hopefully reach consensus on an issue. One strategy that works well among smaller-sized unit faculties is to utilize a “faculty as a whole committee,” whereby all faculty members are involved. That is, decisions effecting the entire department as a group (one for all, all for one) can be highly productive.

As chair, you should remember that the department’s faculty members are usually very talented, skilled, and educated professionals with their own “informed” opinions. Unlike factory workers or even corporate employees, faculty cannot simply be told what to do. The norms of academia place a value on rationality. Certain policy decisions have legitimacy only if their utility can be clearly demonstrated. Leadership thus involves nudging a department forward based on reasonable initiatives that clear logic or evidence support. Of course, shared governance can be challenging. Academic norms aside, the reality is that academics are human beings, and thus they arrive at your office or at a meeting with various motivations, experiences, political reasons, and individual preferences. Years back, one of my supervisors once quipped to me that administering academics is like herding cats each steadfastly going in their own direction! Chairing the academic department is no easy task!

Make Decisions Based on Academic Integrity

In job interviews over my own career, I have often been asked by search committees: “How do you make decisions?” As an administrator, usually after consultative discussions and processes with others, I seek to make decisions based on academic integrity. That is, a chair must strive to keep personalities and their individual preference out of unit-wide decisions. In all cases, substantial effort must always be made to base outcomes on preserving the quality of the department’s degree program and its faculty, remaining true to the discipline’s prevailing standards, and meeting the university’s mission. This “above-board” approach is good for the students and the program’s faculty because in the end both the faculty and students come to a university for the strength of the program!

Employ Universalistic Criteria Based on Merit and Quality

As a chair, it is unwise to make decisions based on factors other than merit and quality. That I would have to state this may seem odd, but I have observed the consequences of past decisions based on the use of “other” criteria in departments. The goal of effective administrators is to leave a department, school/college, or institution better than when they entered their position. This basic goal is not always easy to accomplish, especially in personnel decisions of hiring faculty and staff. Hiring in higher education is supposed to be based on merit, equity, and talent. However, occasions exist when pressure is brought to bear during the hiring process either from external sources (e.g., political influence) or from internal sources (e.g., faculty wishing to hire acquaintances). Again, employing universalistic criteria is key to making solid decisions to maintain the vitality and strength of programs and units over time. In the long run, decisions based on merit are also defensible and set a precedence for how future issues are decided.

While most administrators have the functional competence to do their jobs, the difficulties in administration are usually the social and psychological stressors, and cultural unknowns (see Carrington, 1987; Gmelch and Burns, 1994; Gmelch, Wolvetron, Wolvetron, and Sarros, 1999). In this regard, the safest route for a chair is to make evidence-based or data-driven decisions that are consistent with the department and institution’s mission and policies. Afterward, it is important that you communicate these decisions clearly with those in your department and those you report to (be it a dean, provost, or president). Despite these best intentions, what I have also learned is that sometimes others do not like the use of universalistic criterion (or even a direct and honest communication). In these unfortunate situations, little can be done, but you have done the right thing!

Be Prepared to Work Long Hours and Get Used to It

For anyone thinking of a career in university administration (and chairing a department), they should be prepared to work long hours and weekends. Because chairs are responsible for their departments, they are the focal point of attention of anyone who needs a question answered or a problem resolved—whether a dean, faculty member, staff member, student, or parent. Carefully organized days are invariably disrupted when a crisis arises, usually minor and resolvable but always time-consuming. Faculty members often “drop in” to talk; if they ask to “close the door,” you know that some problem is brewing and they are unlikely to leave for another hour or so. More generally, as a chair, you are responsible for your department. The job is large and the demands are unending. As a young department head, I worked long hours with the assumption that my time commitment would be scaled back as I moved up the administrative ladder. I was wrong!

Recruit, Recruit, Recruit

A good department, like any good athletics team, requires the effective recruiting of talent—particularly faculty. There is no substitute for recruiting, developing, and retaining quality faculty in an academic criminal justice or criminology department. In this context, there are several truths that I have come to realize as a department head (and even more so as a dean). The primary rule to follow is that departments and units must only recruit and hire tenure-track faculty who are going to be tenure successes. As chair, you owe this to your students, other faculty, the department, the institution, and the discipline.

For productive departments at research universities, hiring talented faculty members is not usually a problem. In departments undergoing transition, or possessing more applied and vocationally orientated criminal justice faculty members, however, there may be challenges. Despite some faculty still believing that criminal justice is a “practitioner-based” and “agency-driven” discipline, the type of university one serves will determine the academic “orientation” of the faculty one recruits. Recent research by Tewksbury and Vito (2012) indicates that among criminal justice and criminology faculty, those individuals with former practitioner and/or agency experiences (e.g., law enforcement) will publish less and generate fewer scholarly contributions over the course of their careers versus traditional research orientated faculty with no practitioner experience. Should your department or program be located within a regional university or community college, then practitioner experiences are likely to carry more weight and be seen as a valuable asset among the faculty. Thus, institutional mission and type will be key to setting the stage in the recruiting and selection of faculty for your department or program. In the recruiting game, then, there is no substitute for hiring the most talented faculty, and it only takes one or two bad hires to make you realize this basic principle: It is wise to hire the best teacher-scholars available in every search opportunity.

The importance of hiring faculty who are teacher-scholars has taken on added salience, given the increased emphasis placed on faculty research and scholarship by regional accrediting bodies (including SACS [Southern Association of Colleges and Schools], HLC [Higher Learning Commission], or others), particularly at research universities. In these universities, regional accreditors are calling for faculty members’ greater involvement in research and scholarship in the form of publishing peer-reviewed works. Thus, the lack of quality teacher-scholars in a department will soon grab the attention of any dean and/or provost; i.e., the department—and you!—will be in the difficult position of addressing these matters before regional accreditors. As chair, you must be committed to doggedly recruiting criminal justice and criminology faculty members who will make scholarly contributions to the discipline while meeting institutional accreditation requirements.

Have a Plan to Grow the Department

Effective chairs will have a plan for growing the department in a scholarly discipline that continues to expand in higher education; in fact, criminal justice is often one of the larger academic degree programs on campuses. In addition to growing enrollments, productive chairs can “grow” their department in these ways: the procurement of external grants and contracts, fundraising and donor relations, adding new degree programs (particularly at the graduate level), overseeing or developing online and distance degree programs, and even developing a new research center. The reality is that crime pays, and the enterprise of criminal justice and criminology is enormous and ever-growing with abundant opportunities. You should seize them!

Again, the mission of your institution and its type (be it national research, regional, liberal arts, or community college) will determine which activities support the mission and your personal development as a department chairperson. In all likelihood, remaining “mission smart and market centered” will position you well as chair (and the department) inside your college and institution (Zemsky, Wegner, & Massey, 2002).

Know the Policies and Procedures of Your Department and Campus

As a chair, you must read all policies and know them—not only at the department level but beyond. I have learned in my time in academic administration that you should not assume that administrators (above and/or below you) have actually read and understood the policies and procedures of the institution! In reality, few academic administrators were trained to become academic administrators. Although some have pursued higher education administration doctoral degrees, in addition to their disciplinary PhD, this is not the norm. Thus, just because most chairs, deans, and provosts have attained scholarly recognition within their disciplines, departments, and research areas, this does not mean that they have organizational intelligence and have an informed understanding of university policies. As a chair, it is thus essential that you should read and have a working knowledge of all policies and procedures relevant to your unit. Such policy knowledge can be an invaluable resource when dealing with issues such as job advertisement and recruitment, tenure and promotion decisions, and allocation of overhead funds from grants.

Often, new chairs (or administrators in general) discover that very little has been written down or that few departmental policies exist. Thus, as a new chair, one of the initial orders of business is to make sure that your department has a policy and procedures handbook (a compilation of policies) or bylaws. If it does not, you must work with your faculty, in the form of a task force or committee comprised of faculty of all ranks, to develop these rules of interaction. The goal of having published up-to-date departmental policies (or bylaws) is to assure consistency, equity, fairness, and rules of operation by which you (as chair) and the faculty can live. When necessary, a policy handbook provides written documentation that can be referred to when any decision that is reached is questioned on policy and procedural grounds.

Know Your Budget and How It Functions

As a former department head, I soon discovered that no pot of gold exists for a department to do as it wishes. Often, faculty are convinced that the chair is flush with money or somehow hides it from them. Your faculty may not know, however, that the chair plays a zero-sum game with funds (take from one, depletes the other), which places constraints on the ability to expend funds. When serving as a department chair, I believed that the best approach to budgeting was that the faculty should know “how much money” we had to spend on things such as travel, equipment, operations, and other costs. Even today, as a dean, I never feel compelled to “hide” the amount of funds we have in our budget accounts. In public universities, this transparency is not a problem. In my mind, if the funds derive from public sources, why hide this information?

Moreover, as a department chair, your dean should require you to plan generally for where the department will spend its discretionary funds during the upcoming year. Although this exercise may sound straightforward and easily accomplished, it is a bit more challenging than you may think. First of all, unforeseen things happen at the department level that cost money and drain the budget (e.g., a computer crashes and needs to be replaced, a faculty member requests travel to a conference to accept an award, an adjunct is needed to teach a course). As dean, I distribute school “profits” directly to our department chairs. For example, when instructional profits are calculated, I distribute 60% of these funds directly to the departments. The remaining 40% is held and our school’s faculty (and departments) will receive these funds over the course of the year to enhance teaching and research to support school’s “teacher-scholar” efforts. This budgetary context enables productive and motivated department chairs (and their faculties) to compete and continuously improve, ensuring value to our students and our discipline. It is in such a competitive environment that effective department chairs are crucial to the well-being of their departments.

Get the Paperwork Done

Serving as chair involves a great deal of paperwork, requests, reports, and so on. Effective chairs complete these on time and without error; never miss deadlines to your superiors and be accurate. There are no excuses for tardiness or sloppy work, so being a chair requires that you take care of your business. Thus, if you are a procrastinator, you should not become a chair.

I will also note that this paperwork reality cuts across virtually every domain of overseeing a department ranging from accreditation, assessment, personnel administration, tenure/promotion, fundraising and development, alumni relations, student affairs, curricular oversight and development, academic program review, outreach, and service. This list is not exhaustive, and chairs must generate documentation—as do all academic administrators in the institution.

Document Your Accomplishments

In addition to building your portfolio of administrative experiences as chair, remember to document your accomplishments. How much real revenue gain, increased enrollments, departmental research productivity, improvements, quality enhancements, programs, gifts and contributions, or other quantifiable impacts have you actually generated during your tenure as the chair of your department? These “dashboard indicators” are relevant in that they paint a picture of your accomplishments “with” your departmental colleagues and supervisors. These documented gains will also make you more competitive in future administrative searches should you seek to advance your career in upper administration.

Have an Appreciation for the Informal Department and Institutional Culture(s)

Another important consideration to better understanding your institution’s (and department, college, division) culture is to learn quickly the interrelationships between people and where you fit in. This knowledge is crucial because universities are social organizations. That is, informal structures of who is married to whom (who caused the divorces), whose children know whom, who consults or socializes with whom, what outside groups are people connected with (via activities, church, clubs, neighbors) are important to know. Being aware of these underlying dimensions early in your term as chair can save you headaches and allow you to avoid needless conflicts that can diminish your administrative effectiveness. From direct experience, I can say that issues and decisions that “rattle the network cage” are often the most challenging for administrators. Thus, taking your time and learning the lay of the land on the big issues (and informal relationships) for at least the first 6 months to a year is well advised for any department chair.

Develop a Good Relationship With the Dean and Fellow Administrators

Remember that as chair of a criminal justice department you represent the department and its functions to your dean and the upper administration, as well as serving as an advocate for your department and its interests. Managing these relationships (and balance) is key to your department securing resources and moving forward. Thus, you must not only educate your dean as to your department’s goals, but you must also keep him or her well-informed of your progress. It is also essential that if you have personal aspirations to advance administratively to the next level, you must have your dean (and other administrators) serve as reference(s).

Know How to Define Administrative Success

Hopefully, we all approach our careers and duties with the goal of being successful. When I accepted the invitation to write this article, I immediately wondered: How should I operationally define “success as an administrator (chair)? My initial thoughts included the following: enjoying a long and prosperous career marked by the development and implementation of a “new” PhD degree program in criminal justice or criminology (highly ranked, of course), leading a department of renowned faculty scholars, overseeing thriving research centers funded by major grants, and producing legacy doctoral students who are the next generation of scholars shaping our discipline! Although a few chairs in our discipline may enjoy these indicators, far fewer chairs actually experience these successes. What I have discovered along the administrative trail, unfortunately, is that success for many administrators is merely “survival” and holding onto their jobs. More specifically, some individuals take administrative jobs to lead, others for the prestige and monetary rewards of the position, others because they care about their work and truly want to help their department, college, or institution, and yet others for combinations of these reasons. As a long-time administrator, I would suggest that the reason you should become or remain a chair—or pursue any academic administrative role—is to improve the lives and conditions of those around you. This goal gives true purpose to your work, is close at hand and attainable to a degree, and tends to have the most enduring effects as others advance in their careers and have gratitude for your support.

Make Sure You Hold Tenure as Chair

When considering administrative posts, it is wise to remember that administrators “don’t own their jobs, they simply rent them” and serve at the pleasure of someone above them! Thus, in taking on any chair’s role, make sure you hold faculty tenure. This security is crucial because, if for any reason, you have to relinquish your administrative position and “retreat back to the faculty.” I would also caution that you remain aware of at-will institutions that do not grant faculty tenure to academic administrators. In these institutions, if you are no longer an administrator, you have no tenured faculty position to retreat to afterward. Hence, know your faculty tenure status!