How to Deal With an Irrational Faculty Colleague

A reader over at Lifehacker asks, "How Do I Get Out of an Argument with an Irrational Person?"  The advice boils down to this:

In the real world, the best way to win when someone gets irrational is to keep your calm, exit the conversation skillfully while leaving the option open to future discussion—because after all, you're the one with the evidence to back you up and the willingness to discuss it, and leave the other person blowing steam while you keep your cool. When you know for sure you're not getting anywhere, exit the conversation quickly, making clear that you could continue to prove your point, but see that there's no reason to continue.

Keep calm, maintain your position, and postpone the conversation.  Makes sense in the interpersonal context. (The full piece is available here.)

I don't think this advice translates easily to faculty politics.  (Of course, I do not imply that any colleage of mine might hold an intractable position about faculty parking, the brand of turkey on offer in the school cafeteria, or...anything....ever!)  "Keep calm, maintain one's position and postpone the conversation" would lead to institutional gridlock.  Sure, sometimes it's good to table a motion, but what about the cases in which postponement isn't a viable alternative. 

 

So how to deal with an irrational faculty colleague?  A friend once described the importance of squirt guns to her business school working group.  Each member had a squirt gun and was meant to deploy it against anyone who did not observe group norms during brainstorming sessions.  The person who repeated himself, interrupted another, or otherwise failed to observe group norms was likely to be hit with water from the rest of the group.

Super Soaker, anyone?  Backpack water-storage option available.

    image source: here

Comments

[Jim Milles]

Really? I wouldn't accept the premise of the question. I've too often seen charges of irrationality used to shut down women at faculty meetings who are "too emotional" and "take things too personally." "Irrationality" is notoriously loaded with gendered assumptions.

[Bridget Crawford]

Good point, Jim. I was thinking more about scenarios where a faculty member maintains a position in the face of evidence to the contrary. To use an absurd example, Professor X might say, "I am the only one who can teach Course Y, so we need to hire someone else who can teach Course Y, to lift the burden from my shoulders." The Academic Dean might offer, "Ten capable, existing faculty members with experience in this area have expressed an interest in teaching Course Y, so I do not think it is necessary to hire someone who can teach in this area." Professor X's position -- that Professor X is the *only* person who can teach Course Y -- is irrational. What I do accept as rational is that Professor X may not want to teach Course Y; Professor X may not like the way any of the ten colleagues might teach Course Y; or Professor X might think that Course Y is the most important course in the whole school. But that Professor X is the only one who can teach it? No way.

[Jeffrey Harrison]

Hmmm. It seems like rational and truthful are being confused here. Irrational means logically inconsistent. For example, I like apples more than pears and pears more than oranges and oranges more than apples. Or, I really want to lose weight: Please hand me that jelly doughnut. If Professor X knows he is not the only one he is not irrational, just lying, If he assumes he is the only one he is just being a law professor which, in its own way, can be even worse. Of course, maybe X is right in effect because the Dean could be just saying what is necessary to get X to stop telling the truth.