The fight for influence in academic departments is rarely about authority. It is about whether someone’s expertise and contributions are seen.
Power and status conflicts are among the most emotionally charged situations a chair will encounter — and among the easiest to misread. On the surface, they look like turf battles: a senior faculty member undermining a colleague’s initiative, a dispute over who gets to speak for the department, resistance to a junior colleague’s growing influence. Underneath, what is usually happening is a contest over recognition — over whose expertise matters, whose voice carries weight, and whether the department acknowledges the contributions someone has made.
In academic settings, formal authority is limited. Status is shaped instead by scholarly reputation, years of service, informal networks, and the respect of peers. When any of these feel threatened, the response can be intense — because what is at stake is not just a title or a committee seat. It is someone’s sense of their professional worth.
What Power and Status Conflict Looks Like
A long-tenured faculty member consistently undermines a newer colleague in meetings. Two faculty members compete intensely for the same committee leadership role despite similar qualifications. Someone who held informal influence before you became chair actively resists your leadership. A senior faculty member is dismissive of initiatives that didn’t originate with them.
These conflicts are often subtle and may not be openly named. They show up in tone, in who gets interrupted, in whose ideas get credited, in who is included in informal conversations. The conflict may be invisible to the people not involved in it — which makes it harder for the chair to address without seeming to take sides.
Your goal is to expand the pie, not redistribute it. Instead of trying to balance competing status claims — which creates winners and losers — look for ways to create multiple forms of recognition and influence. Different leadership roles, visibility for different types of contributions, new opportunities for influence can all reduce the zero-sum dynamic.
Address the underlying need for respect directly. Often the specific power struggle is less important than the faculty member’s need to feel valued. Acknowledge expertise publicly, seek input on decisions within their domain, and ensure that contributions are visible to others.
Your First Move as Chair
Address the pattern, not just the incident. When you see a power or status dynamic playing out, resist the urge to address only the specific behavior in the moment. Meet individually with the faculty members involved and name what you are observing: “I’ve noticed some tension around how decisions are being made in this area. I’d like to understand your perspective.”
Find ways to publicly recognize the contributions of faculty who feel overlooked. This is not about flattery — it is about making expertise and effort visible to the department in ways that reduce the need to compete for acknowledgment. Highlight different kinds of contributions: teaching, service, mentorship, and scholarship all deserve recognition.
Distribute leadership opportunities deliberately. If one or two faculty members have dominated informal influence for years, creating new formal roles and rotating leadership opportunities can shift the dynamic structurally rather than interpersonally. This reduces the need for any individual to fight for status because influence is distributed by design.
Five Paths Connection
How your leadership style shapes how you navigate power and status conflict
Warriors may inadvertently escalate power conflicts by responding to resistance with increased directness and authority. If this is your dominant path, recognize that a faculty member who is fighting for status will dig in harder when they feel steamrolled. Try curiosity before authority: “Help me understand what matters to you about this.”
Relators tend to be attuned to status dynamics and may have already sensed the conflict before it surfaces openly. The risk is over-accommodating the faculty member with the most status — giving them informal deference that reinforces unhealthy dynamics. If this is your dominant path, be intentional about who you consult and in what order.
Visionaries may unintentionally create status conflict by elevating certain ideas or initiatives in ways that imply a hierarchy of contributions. If this is your dominant path, be deliberate about framing new directions as building on what the department has already achieved rather than departing from it.
Reflect
Think about a faculty member whose behavior suggests a status or recognition concern.
- What does this person seem to be protecting or fighting for? What would it mean for them to feel truly recognized?
- Are there ways you could create visibility for their expertise or contributions that you have not yet tried?
- Is the conflict really between two individuals — or does it reflect a broader dynamic about how influence is distributed in your department?
- How is your own leadership style affecting the power dynamics in this situation?
Describe a power or status conflict you are navigating. What does the person involved seem to need — and what would it look like to address that need directly?