Administrative Shenanigans

Disclaimer: This tale is to be interpreted as a piece of fiction, not because it is, but because it would benefit the blogger immensely. Consider the narrator as narrator, not as author of this blog.

About a year ago, a new director of ___________ was hired to take over the position previously held by Dr., er, Snow. I rather liked Dr. Snow. She was a no-bullshit kind of lady, but she wasn't bitchy about it. In fact, she's the only professor in this department who ever asked me to take on a position outside of my regular duties, which may stand to benefit my CV. I'm not using the past tense because she's dead, thank god; she's just no longer heading up the program.
Anyway, the new director--let's call him Dr. Smeld--seemed harmless enough originally. He's young and seemed pretty laid back upon first impression. Unfortunately first impressions cannot always be trusted.
My first personal interaction with Dr. Smeld was via email. I had a student in an international class (the class from hell!--not due to its multicultural nature, but due to the tendency of many of the students to come from money) who wanted me to excuse 2 weeks worth of absences so his band could go on tour. When I told him that being a rockstar is not a legitimate excuse for absence from class, he wouldn't take no for an answer. After squabbling with him for days, I finally sent him to Dr. Smeld because I was always told that if I had a problematic student, the department would have my back and take care of it. Afterward I received an email from Dr. Smeld essentially saying that the next time I have a problematic student, I should try handling the problem myself rather than sending him down to the office. Understandably, I was incensed. How dare he assume I didn't even attempt to handle the problem myself before handing it off to someone else? Further, this was his first assumption, not rather that I attempted to handle the problem first. Strike one.
I am not usually one to hold a grudge, or to write people off immediately without giving second chances. Unfortunately, any interaction however little that I've had with Dr. Smeld has been less than pleasant. I think the nature of the problem is how he interacts with people. He seems to be a very nervous man. He holds a position of power but does not have the confidence to handle his authority with grace. He is passive-aggressive. He is not comfortable giving orders and often is not clear about what he wants; however, when one does not follow his not-really-ever-given-in-the-first-place orders, he takes issue with it. For instance, all Teaching Fellows were given packets to "look over" concerning imminent changes in the "direction" of the program. We chose new textbooks and were told to make syllabi for them. We were given no further instructions. At the orientation which occurs at the beginning of every semester, it appeared that we were to have followed the sample syllabus for each textbook given in the packets to a T. We were never explicitly told to do this. In fact, the sample syllabi were never even mentioned prior to this point. When I questioned Dr. Smeld about it, he told me to rewrite my syllabus with an air of confusion as to why I hadn't read his mind. This is the way he interacts with people. As far as I am concerned, it is not a particularly efficient way for a program director to interact with his underlings.
Though there are various other issues that I as well as others have with Dr. Smeld (his complete lack of a sense of humor, his obsession with theory over practice in the teaching of pedagogy), I see no need to detail them here. The point is that this blog may be the only outlet in which I may express my grievances. Of course I could bring them to Dr. Smeld directly, as others already have. I could raise these issues in discussion with other members of the department (in positions of authority). Unfortunately, I believe my concerns would, if not fall on deaf ears, at least be left unattended. This job is like any other in that way. Those in authoratative positions always say they are open to suggestion if underlings find that something isn't working, but that is just a front. Directors of programs, particularly young, relatively insecure directors of programs often think that they have found THE most efficient way of functioning. Suggesting otherwise not only risks bruising egos, but it also calls their positions into question. Not in reality. Just in their minds.
As far as I'm concerned, Dr. Smeld has nothing to prove. I think relaxing a bit would do him some good. I do not think that he is "wrong". I do not think he is unsuitable for his position. I do
think that he takes himself too seriously. If he chose to relax, it would solve a lot of problems. He would not be afraid of his position and may be more comfortable giving direct orders. He would not view the world around him so rigidly and may be more open to suggestions by others and to loosening up policy. It is always easier to work with people who respect each other, who respect themselves, and who are willing to laugh at this whole silly experiment we call life.