The Reluctant Accreditation Chair

Diagnose D3: moderate-to-high competence, variable commitment. Competence evidence is strong: he is a nationally recognized researcher, knows the department's history, and his writing and analysis are excellent. This is not D1 or D2, where competence is low or developing. The problem is willingness. He agreed in public, then missed two planning meetings, delegated data collection without instructions, and called the work 'administrative busywork.' That pattern suggests low value for the task, not inability to do it. D2 would require low competence on the task plus low commitment; he has the analytical and institutional capability to produce the report. D1 would require high commitment and low competence, which is the opposite of his profile. D3 fits the experienced contributor whose commitment fluctuates because the task feels beneath or beside their real work. The diagnostic trap is assuming that missed meetings and poor delegation mean he cannot do it. The evidence points to 'won't,' not 'can't,' and the style response is different: support and involvement rather than heavy instruction.

Lead with S3 supporting: lower direction, high support. Behaviors: open with questions about what would make the work worth his time, connect accreditation to something he already values such as student quality, faculty lines, or the program's reputation, and involve him in shaping the report's structure and scope. Negotiate a realistic cadence: monthly two-hour working sessions, a named data owner for each section, and a decision rule for what he can delegate. Address the 'administrative busywork' comment privately, not in the committee: 'When you call this busywork, the junior faculty hear that the work is beneath them. I need you to either own the value of the report or tell me what would make it worth your time.' That is support with candor. Avoid S2 high direction: he would comply minimally and resent being taught how to write. Avoid S4: he has not demonstrated commitment. S3 means sharing the problem-solving, not removing accountability. The goal is to convert his capability into willing engagement, with clear agreements about what he will personally deliver.

Test the agreement before changing the diagnosis. First, check whether the S3 contract was specific: did he agree to a scope, a cadence, and personal deliverables, or did you only listen and encourage? If the agreement was vague, fix that first with a written one-page plan and a 48-hour response expectation. If the agreement was clear and he still misses the next milestone, the commitment problem is more serious than D3's normal variability. Have a direct conversation with consequences: restate the 24-week deadline, the dean's reaccreditation risk, and the effect of his public cynicism on the committee. Ask him directly whether he wants to continue. If he says no, negotiate a face-saving reassignment, such as a senior advisor role with limited deliverables. If he says yes but does not perform, move to formal accountability. In SLII terms, you might temporarily increase direction toward S2 to protect the deadline, but do not misdiagnose him as D1 or D2. The diagnosis is still capability plus low willingness; the issue is whether the willingness can be contracted.