Guidelines for Managing Multiple Roles in the Clearinghouse

Because those of us involved with the WAC Clearinghouse make up a relatively small, committed community, we may periodically volunteer for multiple roles with the Clearinghouse, such as journal editor and editor of a collection or associate publisher and book series editor. Sometimes, these multiple roles may result in a conflict of interest, or the perception of a conflict of interest. Rather than prohibit multiple such roles, the Clearinghouse leadership has created these suggestions so our volunteers have resources and support for managing potential conflicts before those conflicts become a problem.

Establish Clear Position Expectations

All positions with the Clearinghouse should have a clear description of duties and responsibilities. When you take on a second role, consider arranging a meeting with the relevant group leader(s) (publisher, associate publisher, and/or editor) to discuss the respective roles and distinguish responsibilities. For example, if an associate editor for a book series took on an associate publisher role, then they would arrange a meeting with the publisher and the book series editor.

Discuss Priorities, Deadlines, and Requests

If multiple projects arise that have overlapping timelines, work with your relevant colleagues to create an agreed-upon set of deadlines and to prioritize tasks based on each team’s needs and the Clearinghouse’s overall modes of operations. For example, journal releases tend to be more time-dependent than book releases, so a book review editor for a journal may elect to prioritize book reviews over their other work as an associate editor for a book series, at least until the relevant issue is complete.

Suggestions for Managing Conflict

Sometimes, one group of which you are a part may criticize another group of which you are a part. Consider the following strategies:

• Encourage your colleagues to write a memo of their actionable criticisms and send them to the leader of the other group.
• Volunteer to arrange a meeting between the two groups or a subset thereof to discuss complaints.
• Avoid becoming a go-between who communicates complaints from one group to another group.

At other times, you may notice one group engaging in problematic behavior, such as violating policy, misusing your work or others’ work, or failing to complete a task. Consider the following strategies:

• Address the problematic behavior with the coordinator of that group: describe what you noticed, explain why it is a problem, and suggest a way of addressing the problem.
• If that individual is not responsive, request a meeting with them and the next leader up the chain, usually an associate publisher or the publisher.

Occasionally, you may be the subject of a complaint from one group to another, such as from an editorial team to the publisher. If you become aware of such a complaint, consider the following strategies:

• Ask the leader of the group with the complaint to explain the nature of the complaint to you in writing first.
• Arrange a meeting to seek a resolution or agreement.
• Have at least one other individual, such an associate publisher or publisher, present at such meetings as a neutral arbiter.

A Note on Triangulation: Triangulation is an abuse tactic in which one person (in a three-party situation) attempts to establish one’s own value by criticizing another person, often behind that person’s back, and often by exaggerating or fabricating the complaints. Unfortunately, triangulation is all too common in professional situations, including academia. To avoid enabling triangulation, encourage accusers to discuss complaints directly with the individual who is the subject of the complaint, using any of the above strategies. Typically, if the complaint is not legitimate, then the accuser will back down rather than risk social embarrassment.