By shifting accountability the department is no longer able to manage the means that allow it to exist. It would be akin to having world-class concert musicians work with rented instruments. No matter how good the musicians are, if they have no control over that which gives their performance shape, there is no guarantee of how the work will sound. Departments must have direct authority to operate their administrative staff because those professionals alone understand the necessities and exigences of their fields, students and what type of administrative support is required to provide for effective and adequate study. If the University trusts their Professors to recommend mastery of fields, I find it anarchic and patronizing to presume their Professors can not understand how to administer education in those fields.
U
Ulrich Kremer
8 years ago
The proposed alignment will potentially disrupt departmental operations.
R
Robert Karlin
8 years ago
It is absurd to reorganize University staff without faculty input.
C
Casimir Kulikowski
8 years ago
Responsibility in organizations is best exercised through supervision by those who are in daily direct contact at the departmental level. Efforts at "remote standardized control" are likely to introduce confusion in reporting responsibilities, ethically fraught division of allegiances, and further inefficiencies in administrative business in the University beyond the existing ones given the failure of most top-down schemes to manage completely disparate needs and responsibilities of very diverse types of departments such as exist in large academic units like SAS. This will be especially true if such schemes are designed by Taylorism-driven human resource consultants working with IT consultants who are paid to experiment on the faculty, staff, and even students - all without IRB approval!
N
Naftaly Minsky
8 years ago
it is an idiotic idea, we should fight it.
M
Martin Farach-Colton
8 years ago
Over the last few years, every change at Rutgers has meant more meaningless paperwork for staff, faculty and students.
E
Eric Allender
8 years ago
Staff should report to departments. The proposed realignment is an absolutely terrible idea. It is demoralizing both for staff and for faculty.
H
Heinz D Roth
8 years ago
Heinz D Roth, Distinguished Professor, CCB
"Administrative restructuring"? Does not seem to be the greatest idea.
L
Leah DeVun
8 years ago
Leah DeVun, History
J
Janos Komlos
8 years ago
Janos Komlos, Distinguished Professor, Department of Mathematics
R
Roger Nussbaum
8 years ago
At first glance, this "administrative restructuring" seems like a terrible idea.
N
Nancy Sinkoff
8 years ago
Nancy Sinkoff (Jewish Studies and History)
N
Nancy Sinkoff
8 years ago
Featured
Nancy Sinkoff (Jewish Studies and History), New York City
It is critical that the departments retain their administrative independence. The "plan" thus far outlined is murky and Central needs to explain clearly what it has in mind to the faculty.
T
Terence Butler
8 years ago
The proposed SAS Realignment plan
is ridiculous. It presents an obstacle to comfortable and effective operation of a department. I was a department chair many years ago.
S
Stephen Miller
8 years ago
This is obviously a major change with long-term ramifications, and so it's important it be thought through carefully at such a meeting.
M
Martin Gliserman
8 years ago
no comment
E
Evie Shockley
8 years ago
Featured
This plan sounds like the opposite of efficiency. A certain amount of institutional knowledge and continuity obtains in the department admin's position, the loss or dilution of which will have ripple-effect consequences for how effective faculty and staff can be in every area of their jobs.
E
Elin Diamond
8 years ago
Featured
In Comparative Literature, we witnessed the demoralization of faculty department officers who could no longer count on working with loyal staff, and staff "silo-ed" into a dean-run chain of command that was confusing, inefficient, and made everyone angry. Why is SAS declaring war on its departments? The student "experience," which SAS is always trying to improve, depends on strong coherent departments where faculty and staff pull together. A staff realignment will fracture and cripple us and be terrible for students.
C
Carolyn Williams
8 years ago
Featured
Our staff is already cut to the bone, and we have worked steadily for years to make sure that the assignments and divisions of labor make sense. I would be seriously opposed to being forced to participate in centrally shared staffing. Please do not implement this! "Silos" are often condemned in management-speak these days, but I implore you to think about when divisions of labor make good sense. Furthermore, when a staff person is part of a department culture, her or his work is going to be more dedicated and more productive. Breaking these ties would harm the work ethic and working culture of SAS.
J
John Kucich
8 years ago
This organizational move raises serious questions about the ability of departments to govern themselves.
By shifting accountability the department is no longer able to manage the means that allow it to exist. It would be akin to having world-class concert musicians work with rented instruments. No matter how good the musicians are, if they have no control over that which gives their performance shape, there is no guarantee of how the work will sound. Departments must have direct authority to operate their administrative staff because those professionals alone understand the necessities and exigences of their fields, students and what type of administrative support is required to provide for effective and adequate study. If the University trusts their Professors to recommend mastery of fields, I find it anarchic and patronizing to presume their Professors can not understand how to administer education in those fields.
The proposed alignment will potentially disrupt departmental operations.
It is absurd to reorganize University staff without faculty input.
Responsibility in organizations is best exercised through supervision by those who are in daily direct contact at the departmental level. Efforts at "remote standardized control" are likely to introduce confusion in reporting responsibilities, ethically fraught division of allegiances, and further inefficiencies in administrative business in the University beyond the existing ones given the failure of most top-down schemes to manage completely disparate needs and responsibilities of very diverse types of departments such as exist in large academic units like SAS. This will be especially true if such schemes are designed by Taylorism-driven human resource consultants working with IT consultants who are paid to experiment on the faculty, staff, and even students - all without IRB approval!
it is an idiotic idea, we should fight it.
Over the last few years, every change at Rutgers has meant more meaningless paperwork for staff, faculty and students.
Staff should report to departments. The proposed realignment is an absolutely terrible idea. It is demoralizing both for staff and for faculty.
Heinz D Roth, Distinguished Professor, CCB "Administrative restructuring"? Does not seem to be the greatest idea.
Leah DeVun, History
Janos Komlos, Distinguished Professor, Department of Mathematics
At first glance, this "administrative restructuring" seems like a terrible idea.
Nancy Sinkoff (Jewish Studies and History)
Nancy Sinkoff (Jewish Studies and History), New York City It is critical that the departments retain their administrative independence. The "plan" thus far outlined is murky and Central needs to explain clearly what it has in mind to the faculty.
The proposed SAS Realignment plan is ridiculous. It presents an obstacle to comfortable and effective operation of a department. I was a department chair many years ago.
This is obviously a major change with long-term ramifications, and so it's important it be thought through carefully at such a meeting.
no comment
This plan sounds like the opposite of efficiency. A certain amount of institutional knowledge and continuity obtains in the department admin's position, the loss or dilution of which will have ripple-effect consequences for how effective faculty and staff can be in every area of their jobs.
In Comparative Literature, we witnessed the demoralization of faculty department officers who could no longer count on working with loyal staff, and staff "silo-ed" into a dean-run chain of command that was confusing, inefficient, and made everyone angry. Why is SAS declaring war on its departments? The student "experience," which SAS is always trying to improve, depends on strong coherent departments where faculty and staff pull together. A staff realignment will fracture and cripple us and be terrible for students.
Our staff is already cut to the bone, and we have worked steadily for years to make sure that the assignments and divisions of labor make sense. I would be seriously opposed to being forced to participate in centrally shared staffing. Please do not implement this! "Silos" are often condemned in management-speak these days, but I implore you to think about when divisions of labor make good sense. Furthermore, when a staff person is part of a department culture, her or his work is going to be more dedicated and more productive. Breaking these ties would harm the work ethic and working culture of SAS.
This organizational move raises serious questions about the ability of departments to govern themselves.