annual ugh
Music: And Also the Trees: Green is the Sea (1993)
I feel somewhat relieved but still more than a little annoyed after receiving a letter from my chair yesterday. The letter was a response from the "Budget Council," the Star Chamber of full professors in my department, which is charged with (a) approving all major decisions made in the department (e.g., rubber stamping hires recommended by committees) and (b) reviewing the performance of junior and associate professors. The letter indicated that the previous letter of review sent to me in October was "in error." So what happened?
My annual review letter this year was somewhat of a shock. To paraphrase, the punch line was something like, "although the BC applauds your research efforts, we note that this year was not as strong as last. In particular, invited publications do not count toward tenure," and on and on it went about the necessity of external funding, publishing single-authored essays in top tiered journals, and so on. This is my second annual review letter, but the first was two months after I arrived, so it didn't say much. I had been warned by colleagues the annual review letter was somewhat of a bummer, because legally they had to cover the department's bum in the event I went postal or psycho or just turned into petrified wood. Nevertheless, the letter shocked me because it said my work the last academic year was substandard. I went to the chair and asked for some clarification, and was told that "technically" my year was not as strong as my last because I published a book then.
Now, I stewed on this for weeks. I spoke to a number of colleagues and different places, and they said they received similar letters (indeed, one friend of mine had a series of abusive ones). But still, I'm a sensitive boy and I need to be stroked every now and again. I published four things last year, two of which were indeed invited. One of those invited things won an award. The other two things were either first- or single-authored essays in top-tier, peer reviewed journals. It is true that all but one of these essays were composed before I arrived here, but, even so: I had a pretty darn good year. In fact, as I told my chair informally, I cannot do better—period.
While Mirko was in town visiting I shared the letter with him. He said, "well, you're going to write a response, aren't you?" I had been thinking about it, but I worried that there might be political implications and so on. Yet, there are possible legal ramifications and stories about Uberproductive Professor not getting tenure here are a dime a dozen. So I eventually decided to write a formal response to be included in my file. The response was brief. I basically said that I disagreed with the BC's assessment of my performance, and that if they expected more than 2, top-tier, peer reviewed essays "on average" per year, then I needed that stated for me, in writing. It was short and polite (I thought), but would provide a paper trail. And besides, I felt a whole lot better.
The letter I received yesterday was an apology and quite contrite. It basically admitted that the BC was too hasty in its review and said upon further review I was doing a great job. What a relief! I thought I was going crazy or something, and I worried that my seniors were just too demanding. My worries about possible backfire and so on were unfounded. I should not be afeared to address my senior colleagues; I know that they want us juniors to succeed, and I know they are good people. I think too many juniors are afraid to disagree with their senior colleagues on these sorts of things. I mean, I recognize some departments are way more political and there are consequences to disagreement, so I won't say this is the course for everyone. Regardless, this incident and its resolution makes me feel a whole lot better about my department (and myself). Lots.
Ok, so: why am I still a bit annoyed? Because the letter of apology proceeded toward a "teaching moment," suggesting an alternative way to present myself on the annual review form (the directions of which I followed precisely). They suggested that instead of listing the "invited" publications first, I should list the peer review publications first. Nevermind that the invited publications were listed first because my publications were listed in alphabetical order, which is what the form and common sense seems to suggest. Nevermind that peer reviewed appears in boldface next to the publications that were peer reviewed. Believe it or not, I did realize my file would be reviewed quickly, which is why I put peer reviewed in boldface in the first place! Sheesh. I know, I know, the admission and apology are enough and I should not be annoyed.
Sorry, folks, I know this is just grousing, so let me see if I can make this sharing a professional contribution somehow: I suppose the moral of the story is that when one gets a review that does not reflect one's own summation of her performance, write a response! Of course, you don't want the letter to seem defensive, and so you should only list the facts. Such as letter may impact your tenure case and merit pay decisions. Paper trails are important!