I know, unlike Trump, I shall not be nominated for a Nobel for this, but it's still worth trying to put my thoughts out. At least, they will not cause wars.. maybe a war of words, at most.
Academic leadership is different from its corporate version, in my view, after having been in 3-4 such situations. The top institutions in any discipline have motivated faculty who only need opportunities, and autonomy to thrive. Some incentives can help. But if you try too much to assert yourself as a leader, it has the opposite of the intended effect- they lose their motivation. They are put off, and stop excelling. They may even quit.
Of course, every institution may not be the same, so you may need to tweak this a bit based on the situation - the contingency part of the theory. But in general, the corporate version of push, push till the subordinate performs- or drops dead (I am not kidding, it happens)- will not work too well in academia.
Which is why, I think Publish or Perish is a bad idea. Incentivise publications, or case writing, or whatever is your organisational goal, but also recognise teaching excellence. Faculty can innovate in learning methodologies instead of publishing for its own sake. That could be incentivised too. Admin. work usually goes unrecognised. For me, a placement chair or an Alumni affairs chair who does well in a B school is also valuable, just like a guy who publishes a good paper. Or teaches well consistently, and in tune with the times.
No comments:
Post a Comment