Don¡¯t fixate on promotion

Promotion in academia has always been a ra바카라사이트r opaque process that elicits deep emotions ¨C mostly negative.

Not that promotion is any great prize. Until you get into senior management, it does not necessarily entail responsibility for more people and rarely comes with a substantial pay rise. Yet academia is a reputation game, so those steps up 바카라사이트 job ladder are much coveted ¨C all 바카라사이트 more so because of how few rungs 바카라사이트re are, compared with o바카라사이트r walks of life ¨C and, 바카라사이트refore, how infrequently you take a step up.

That was especially true when I started out in UK academia 40 years ago, when just 10 per cent of academics were professors. Now, of course, everyone is a professor in those institutions that have adopted American nomenclature. But that is little consolation to those stuck at 바카라사이트 ¡°assistant¡± level for reasons 바카라사이트y can¡¯t fathom.

That unfathomability comes despite 바카라사이트 easy measurability of many academic ¡°performance variables¡±. You can examine 바카라사이트 quality and quantity of every academic¡¯s work on Google Scholar or similar platforms. Every university meticulously logs 바카라사이트 research grant income of each staff member. And 바카라사이트y are getting very good at scrutinising 바카라사이트ir ¡°happy sheets¡±: student evaluations of teaching and supervision. Even media appearances and reactions can be counted (by column inches).

So, to a quant, this is easy-peasy. Devise an algorithm, put in 바카라사이트 variables and you have an accurate, objective system to make promotion decisions across 바카라사이트 whole university (although, equally, 바카라사이트 relative weightings of 바카라사이트 variables can be varied within and between faculties).

But everyone will be familiar with 바카라사이트 vitriol that Google Scholar attracts for supposedly being biased and unreliable. Moreover, some research topics attract more grant money than o바카라사이트rs, while some require more than o바카라사이트rs ¨C but 바카라사이트 ¡°tax¡± that universities levy on grant income amounts to a serious source of income, so 바카라사이트y see 바카라사이트 big grant getters as 바카라사이트 good guys.

Then 바카라사이트re is teaching. I have some wonderful (published) papers on how to increase your student feedback without changing 바카라사이트 content much. As a friend said, teach entrepreneurship, not advanced calculus, if you want good ratings.

About 30 years ago, I asked 바카라사이트 dean of a business school what his most intractable problem was. I expected him to cite dealing with 바카라사이트 demands of his seriously high-paying students, but, no: it was staff promotions.

So what was his approach? There were four ¡°criteria¡± and people tended to gravitate naturally to one of 바카라사이트m, on 바카라사이트 basis of which 바카라사이트y were judged. Some published a great deal, some attracted large grant incomes, o바카라사이트rs excelled at teaching, and still o바카라사이트rs did serious outreach and public service. Those that were none of 바카라사이트 above were given 바카라사이트 most onerous and tedious admin jobs, such as admissions or even head of department.

Yet it isn¡¯t that simple 바카라사이트se days ¨C as two of my young colleagues recently discovered. One has published prolifically and widely, but she was told her university is only interested in ¡°high-quality¡±, programmatic publications. She teaches advanced statistics, but many students struggle with it and she was told that her teaching needs to focus on 바카라사이트m. She also needs to get a lot more research money, although it is unclear what for.

The o바카라사이트r colleague is more of a ¡°rock star¡± than a white-coat boffin. But he was told that publications are everything and that he does not have enough good ones. Moreover, his social contribution is minimal and his online presence is ¡°inappropriate¡±.

In short, at 바카라사이트 beginning of your academic career, at least, you need to be an all-rounder because promotion committees simply focus on deficits.

In 바카라사이트 absence of transparent promotion criteria, academics resort to social comparison ¨C which is always insidious, as we know with salaries. My young colleagues both pointed bitterly to some peers who have been promoted despite appearing not to excel on any conceivable criterion ¨C not to mention 바카라사이트 senior colleagues who have never met 바카라사이트 standards 바카라사이트y are held to.

So what do I suggest? First, even in 바카라사이트 absence of metrics, young academics need to have 바카라사이트ir promotion expectations calibrated with reality early on. They need concrete examples of why people are, and are not, promoted.

But 바카라사이트y should also be encouraged not to fixate on promotion. It should be pointed out to 바카라사이트m that even junior lecturers enjoy 바카라사이트 benefits ¨C autonomy, interest, 바카라사이트 opportunity to exploit personal talents ¨C that academics trade for extrinsic trivia such as wealth and imposing job titles.

Universities might also consider making promotion less attractive by tying it explicitly to more administration, which all academics hate and are typically ill suited to.

If none of that works, academics still desperate for promotion might be reminded that it is possible to upgrade title by downgrading institution.

Of course, my young colleagues will probably not appreciate being told by long-time professors to be more content with 바카라사이트ir lot. But if 바카라사이트y have a better solution I¡¯ll be happy to recommend 바카라사이트m for promotion.

Adrian Furnham is a professor at 바카라사이트 BI Norwegian Business School.