The Professor as Colleague

"Collegiality to most educated people is familiar term, a concept with a positive connotation but likely am amorphous meaning. It may be taken merely as the equivalent of camaraderie or even congeniality in the workplace"(McCafferty, Ziegler, Liebold, & Hill, 1990, p. 8). I have argued elsewhere that collegiality consists of mutually supportive ally relationships among colleagues in the academic units (Webb, 1998). Acknowledging that "collegiality has traditionally been associated with faculty governance," Katula and Doody called for an expanded definition of collegiality as a faculty members "total presence at the institution and in the discipline" (1990, p. 76). McCafferty et al. used the term collegiality to refer to "the expectation of shared work" (1990, p.9). Regardless of their definition, most observers praise collegiality where it remains and decry the decline of collegiality among academics during the 1990s.

Two recent analyses (Massy, 1994; Ochs, 1984) have identified the conditions that led to a decease in collegiality in the academy – a decrease so wide spread that even campus faculty clubs are folding due to lack of membership and interest (Schneider, 1997). These conditions include a strong element of atomization and isolation among faculty, mismatched expectations among the constituencies in the academy, the privateness of the academic experience, a veneer of civility among faculty, generational differences, and tight recourses which strain faculty relationships. Indeed, some critics of higher education openly attack the tradition of collegiality. They argue that, because "the academic culture [which] requires a consensus for every decision" (Serb, 1997), collegiality can prevent the expedient mergers of departments, schools and colleges.

According to Massy (1994) and Ochs (1984), faculty can address directly the conditions identified as culprits in decreasing collegiality. When Massy (1994) examined academic departments that successfully supported effective teaching, he discovered a culture of collegiality that successfully eliminated the previously mentioned problem-condition. According to Massay (1994, p.17), these "collegial organizations emphasize consensus, shared power, consultation, and collective responsibilities … status differences are de-emphasized and individuals interact as equals. Members … share aspirations and commitments, have frequent face to face interaction, and use civil discourse."

How did these faculties develop a culture of collegiality? They engaged in 11 key behaviors, identified and described by Massy (1994). The present paper discusses three of these eleven behaviors in detail: (a) Successful faculties interact frequently; (b) they tolerate differences; and (c) they engage in generational equity. As an eleven-year colleague of Don Williams, I can state definitively that these three behaviors are a part and parcel of Don’s collegial activities. Let us examine these three key behaviors individually.

First, successful faculties interact frequently. Don favored frequent interaction with colleagues: He was a strong supporter of weekly faculty meetings. He served on university, college, and departmental committees too numerous to mention. Note that Don actively participated in these service activities and rarely missed a meeting. He was usually the first one present and always had a kind and cordial word for each person who entered the room. Indeed Don’s continuing interest in his colleagues’ professional and personal welfare set a warm and inviting tone at meetings. He offered me the one smiling face I could count on.

Second, Massey (1994) stated the successful faculty tolerate differences. I can think of no better exemplar of the open-minded scholar than Don Williams. In all the years I’ve known Don, I have never heard him criticize others’ for thinking, speaking, or acting differently.

Third, Massey (1994) stated the successful faculty engaged in generational equity. When I met Don in 1980, he was the senior ranking professor in speech communication on the University of Florida faculty. Yet, he never requested any special treatment based in his status. In fact, just the opposite: Don expected to teach the same number of classes as everyone else, to compete for summer teaching assignments on an equal footing with his colleagues, and to meet the same publication requirements as younger faculty to maintain graduate faculty status.

My favorite memory of Don surrounds my first faculty meeting at the University of Florida. The ink was still wet on my PhD diploma and there I was training doctoral students at the largest research institution in the southeastern United States; I felt like a child in her pajamas peering down the stairs watching adults talk at a New Year’s Eve party. I spent most of my time that first quarter feeling like an outsider and trying to figure out what was expected of me.

The faculty meeting I remember so vividly was called to decide the next semester’s teaching assignments. Being the junior faculty member, I assumed I would get last choice of teaching assignments and therefore I walked into the meeting with a rather lengthy list of possible assignments in preferential order. Don Williams chaired the meeting. After a few opening sentences, he turned to me and asked me what I’d like to teach next quarter. In my astonishment, I blurted out that since I was the least senior member of the faculty, I thought I should select last. He patiently smiled at me and said, "You are the newcomer here. That is true. But we want to make you feel welcome and comfortable here. We want you to teach exactly the courses you’d like to teach. We will fill out the rest of the schedule." I was glad I had written my choices down; I simply read the first few entries on my list. I was stunned speechless and could not have spoken spontaneous dialog if my life depended on it.

This impulse of Don’s, to welcome me to the faculty by allowing me to choose my teaching assignments right from the beginning, exemplifies his collegiality. He obviously showed no generational bias that benefited his personal situation. He accepted that I had a different viewpoint about how the course selection would proceed; he accepted that difference with a smile. Perhaps most importantly, his generous and welcoming gestures set a tone that made me feel comfortable interacting with him whenever I needed help or advice. We had many long and productive talks in his office with journals shelved floor to ceiling and tables crammed with mementos of talks given, countries visited, manuscripts submitted, and students advised.

Don was a wonderful colleague, not only to me, but also to all his peers at the University of Florida. Through informal conversations as well as formal meetings, through moments of consensus as well as the moments of extreme disagreement, Don accepted us all and simply kept interacting. That kind of blind faith in collegiality is, regretfully, a rare thing among faculty today.

The many benefits of collegiality are well researched and known to the professorate. For example, researchers have linked collegiality to such positive outcomes as success in school improvement efforts (McCafferty, 1994), decreased stress for female doctoral students (Smith, 1995), as well as establishing a sense of community among a diverse professorate (Cornell, 1995). Further, "collegial structures [can be] viewed as forums within communication [can] take place between those in highly specialized roles, thus ensuring the preservation of shared ethical standards that would mitigate against naked self-interest on the one hand and arbitrary exercises of power on the other" (Walters, 1989, p. 846).

I hope this occasion, this celebration of Don William’s many years as an outstanding scholar and colleague, will inspire us to continue in the tradition of faculty self-governance and collegiality that has served the academy so well for centuries. "Yes, there have been changes in the culture of higher education in the past few years. But tenure and collegial governance, linked firmly to academic freedom, have served us all, creating a model structure for the rest of the world. Abandoning those concepts threatens to bring the structure down" (Perley, 1997). To the extent that others follow the collegial model articulated by Massey (1994) and typified in Don Williams, then collegiality, the faculty self-governance, and academic freedom will remain firmly in place for many years to come.

References

Cornell, T. (1995). Community, collegiality and diversity: Is there a conflict of interest in the professorate? Journal of Negro Education, 64, 1-5.

Katula, R. A., & Doody, A. (1990). The collegiality model: An alternative for evaluating faculty productivity. ACA Bulletin, 74, 74-82.

Massey, W. F. (1994). Overcoming "hollowed" collegiality: How department cultures effect teaching. Change, 26, 11-21.

McCafferty, S.P. (1994, October). Building community in an administrator development academy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Philadelphia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 796)

McCafferty, S., Zigler, T., Leibold, G., Leibold, C., & Hill, J. (1996, October). The administrator development academy: Addressing the behaviors, beliefs, and practices needed for future educational leaders. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Louisville. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401 636)

Ochs, P. (1984, October). On the search for academic community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of General and Liberal studies, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 252 128)

Parley, J.E. (1997, April 4). Tenure remains vital to academic freedom. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Schneider, A. (1997, June 13). Empty tables at the faculty club worry some scholars: They see loss of a common meeting ground, but many professors see only a relic. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A 12(2).

Serb, C. (1997). So much for collegiality: Obstacles to merging medical schools. Hospitals and Health Networks, 71, 42-43.

Smith, B. (1995, April). Hidden rules secret agendas: Challenges facing contemporary women doctoral students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 401 833)

Waters, M. (1989). Collegiality, bureaucratization, and professionalization: A Weberian analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 945-972.

Webb, L. M. (1996). Proactive collegiality: Stalking the demon where he lives. Spectra, June, p. 13-15 and Connections, Summer, p. 1, 4, 6-8.