Could we use deep learning to select who is going to do a good job in academia?
Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
101–110 of 313 posts
Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. That's a great way of summing up what I've heard called "managerialism". There's a theory behind, e.g., the MBA that a competent manager can manage anything. That what one manages makes no difference as long as you're a real manager. One of the corollaries of that theory is that all one has to…
I tend to find people with your view have never been an executive managing the managers, or even a manager. When you are (like myself) then you see that good managers / leadership (including tech team leads, etc.) really do make a massive difference in performance with the same people. Things like metrics, values, and re-orgs might seem like Dilbert-esque corporate speak (a view I used to share), but they're incredib…
I tend to find people with your view have never been a cog, or even a worker. When you are (like myself) then you see that good managers / leadership (including tech team leads, etc.) really do nothing at all, and only worry about making a massive difference in performance with the executive managers.
Things like metrics, values, and re-orgs might seem like Dilbert-esque corporate speak (a view I used to share), but they're incredibly important once you're trying to believe you're getting a bunch of people to do something with excellence and speed.
you're all idiots.
Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
#103 I think than more than never working in a team is important. But a team must be prepared to accept A people what is not a small feat.
Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. That's a great way of summing up what I've heard called "managerialism". There's a theory behind, e.g., the MBA that a competent manager can manage anything. That what one manages makes no difference as long as you're a real manager. One of the corollaries of that theory is that all one has to…
I tend to find people with your view have never been an executive managing the managers, or even a manager. When you are (like myself) then you see that good managers / leadership (including tech team leads, etc.) really do make a massive difference in performance with the same people. Things like metrics, values, and re-orgs might seem like Dilbert-esque corporate speak (a view I used to share), but they're incredib…
Sure there are plenty of managers who do a good job but there are also plenty of useless managers who do more harm than good. Especially in complex jobs like academia or software engineering it's pretty easy to make up some metrics that look good but in reality do more harm than good. And somehow the sample people that created this system are then paid to fix it.
Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a university setting, it seems to me that teaching in combination with support from endowment (not research grants) can be one of the scenario for this ... key is still to have fundamentally good people with passion and joy for the endeavor ..
The thing that always infuriated me about computer science (my field), is that I don't actually need the big research grant. There are people who do, of course, but I could do most of what I found interesting and useful with a high-end desktop PC and some free time. But universities don't operate that way anymore. It doesn't matter that all I need is $5K and some time -- the university needs their 40% cut of a multi-…
But you can only have so much free time, which means you eventually will have to "buy" time. Grants help you do this by allowing you to fund grad students and postdocs.
Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have often argued that "being realist" is a failure in and of itself. If people said "well, there's a king and that's what it is", we'd never have got to where we are now. Ideologies ( and ideas ) are, in my view, stronger than facts, which often only represent the past, while ideas shape the future. (these days the word "fact" is a bit of a trigger, but I thought about that well before all that jazz, and the curre…
Can't you be a realist while still being idealistic? Isn't that a bit of an advantage, too - seeing the world for what it actually is? Searching for historical examples, JFK was both?
I think a person can be both, and indeed, must be both if they wish to change the world. I find that I have less and less patience for people with high-minded, admirable ideals, who refuse to do anything other than take the uncompromising, principled high-road. I've begun to realise these sorts of people are just self-indulgent narcissists, who fundamentally don't care about [the environment | racism | gender equality | defeating the lizard-people]. What they really care about is feeling good about themselves, having others think well of them and retaining a sense of moral superiority over others.
If one actually wants to achieve their ideals, I truly think the 'uncompromising high-road' approach is a footgun. I've seen it play out a number of times. The Australian Greens party, for example, voted down a carbon emissions trading scheme about 5 years ago because it didn't conform to their exact ideals. The result? They were eventually forced to accept a less stringent 'carbon tax', that was ultimately repealed about a year after it was enacted. And not once did I see any introspection, nor any comprehension that their 'principled stand' resulted in the worst possible environmental outcome. I can just imagine the self-congratulatory "we stuck to our principles, we can hold our heads up high" BS in their party room. Pity about the environment, but I guess that's beside the point.
I think that we're more likely to achieve the 'just' or ideal outcome when we address the 'is', not the 'ought'. We have to work with the situation that is in front of us; not the utopia in our heads. Don't get me wrong, having ideals is important: without a destination in mind you will find yourself on a road to nowhere. I consider myself an idealist. But I personally find that 'results' are much more satisfying than abstract ideals and lofty thoughts.
If you are a high-minded idealist, that's great. It's the first step towards a better world. But you should also honestly ask yourself: What is my true aim? Do I want to feel good, or do I want to do good?
Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
#107If a job is complex, multifaceted and involves subtle trade-offs, the best approach is to hire good people, pay them the going rate and tell them to do the job to the best of their ability. Absolutely, could not agree more. This is the only way to beat gamification of metrics in my opinion. There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. I fun…
> There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. That's a great way of summing up what I've heard called "managerialism". There's a theory behind, e.g., the MBA that a competent manager can manage anything. That what one manages makes no difference as long as you're a real manager. One of the corollaries of that theory is that all one has to…
This may not be true. Let's take the case of Stephen Smale. An incredibly smart man who would go on to win a Fields Medal. And yet, without someone providing the structure within which to work and without an external motivation, a mildly mediocre graduate student.
All the credit for his work goes to him, of course. But one can easily imagine him completely flaming out with a different department head and advisor.
It is precisely because people are not cogs that managers can either be a force multiplier or an unmitigated disaster.
EDIT: on rereading, that guy isn't saying all management is like this but that his hypothesis explains certain managers. All right. That makes my comment a non-sequitur.
Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
An infernal situation. There is no solidarity in a meritocracy, and no reward for merit with solidarity.
On the contrary, consider team sports as a perfect example of a meritocracy which often also promotes solidarity. A good team, led by a good coach, recognizes merit is earned by the performance of the whole. The whole wins and the whole loses together. The best of sport very clearly defines success and failure. It uses competition to spur innovation and the pursuit of excellence. Solidarity is often the consequence o…
For sports one very important difference is that real time performance is monitored by a large number of people. People who do not pay salaries of sports person and do not meddle with working of sports team directly.
For any other kind of job performance is measured by insiders. Outsiders may gauge performance on quarterly / annual basis.
Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. That's a great way of summing up what I've heard called "managerialism". There's a theory behind, e.g., the MBA that a competent manager can manage anything. That what one manages makes no difference as long as you're a real manager. One of the corollaries of that theory is that all one has to…
I tend to find people with your view have never been an executive managing the managers, or even a manager. When you are (like myself) then you see that good managers / leadership (including tech team leads, etc.) really do make a massive difference in performance with the same people. Things like metrics, values, and re-orgs might seem like Dilbert-esque corporate speak (a view I used to share), but they're incredib…
This thread reads like an argument on the merits of standardized testing in school.
I suppose if you value employees who are trained by rote and operate in a manner reflecting that training...
Re: Every attempt to manage academia makes it worse
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is a worrying trend of treating staff as equally capable but untrusted cogs in a wheel, and metricising performance. That's a great way of summing up what I've heard called "managerialism". There's a theory behind, e.g., the MBA that a competent manager can manage anything. That what one manages makes no difference as long as you're a real manager. One of the corollaries of that theory is that all one has to…
This may not be true. Let's take the case of Stephen Smale. An incredibly smart man who would go on to win a Fields Medal. And yet, without someone providing the structure within which to work and without an external motivation, a mildly mediocre graduate student. All the credit for his work goes to him, of course. But one can easily imagine him completely flaming out with a different department head and advisor. It…
But that was the result were two academics recognizing a diamond in the rough. An MBA-type concerned with metrics would never even have accepted him for graduate studies.