Institutional Prestige vs Program Prestige For Interdisciplinary Field?

[polly_mer]

It is good to assess the jerk-to-genius ratio both on the individual and unit basis. A moderate J:G genius in a low J:G unit can work out. But even a moderate J:G in a unit really needs to watch the numbers. 

I'm in firm agreement that if we can get a low J:G excellent person, then that's the way to go.

However, one thing that was sinking Super Dinky was picking pleasant-enough administrators who would tinker only around the edges instead of picking leaders who would make real changes.  One new new president held a faculty meeting and said the equivalent of: I know you have pent-up ideas on how to save SD; let's hear them.  He was shocked to discover that all the people who had good ideas and were able to get other jobs had left because they were tired of being shut down for not being team players in a time of crisis.  The people remaining were those so close to retirement that they could ride SD all the way down and those who either didn't realize how serious the situation was or couldn't get other jobs even after years of looking.

[apl68]

It is good to assess the jerk-to-genius ratio both on the individual and unit basis. A moderate J:G genius in a low J:G unit can work out. But even a moderate J:G in a unit really needs to watch the numbers. 

I'm in firm agreement that if we can get a low J:G excellent person, then that's the way to go.

However, one thing that was sinking Super Dinky was picking pleasant-enough administrators who would tinker only around the edges instead of picking leaders who would make real changes.

Well, fair enough.  Still, there is a difference between being prepared to speak prophetically and propose making hard choices and merely being an abrasive jerk.  Hibush was probably thinking of J in "abrasive jerk" terms.  I'd agree that it would take a lot of genius to justify putting up with even a moderate amount of that kind of jerk attitude.  And I'm not sure any amount of G could justify a great deal of J. 

[Ruralguy]

I can tolerate most people until one of following happens:

1. They lie, I catch them in the lie, and they still insist its a matter of opinion.

2. They become incomprehensible or self-contradictory to the point of not being able to assign them the smallest of responsibilities.

[polly_mer]

I can tolerate most people until one of following happens:

1. They lie, I catch them in the lie, and they still insist its a matter of opinion.

2. They become incomprehensible or self-contradictory to the point of not being able to assign them the smallest of responsibilities.

How are you with the person who stands up in every meeting, tells everyone present that they are all idiots unless they adopt whatever the speaker's plan is, and only propose a good plan about 20-30% of the time?

[Ruralguy]

Well, they are almost always liars as well, so I mostly have them covered.

[polly_mer]

Well, they are almost always liars as well, so I mostly have them covered.

We clearly know different people, unless the lie is that we're all doomed if we don't follow this particular plan.  That one is hard to know in advance every time.

[Ruralguy]

So, Polly, are you thinking about people who are often correct, but are abrasive, so people are reluctant to follow?

[polly_mer]

So, Polly, are you thinking about people who are often correct, but are abrasive, so people are reluctant to follow?

That's one category. 

A related category is the people who weren't abrasive initially, but just keep getting louder as it's clear that the iceberg is right there and if we don't turn now, then the ship is doomed.  Having a group that doesn't want the reality to be correct so they shoot every messenger who appears drives me nuts.

Another category is the literal geniuses who will be the ones who come up with something fabulous and unexpected, but their spectacular failures outnumber their successes to everyone's frustration.  It's hard to know sometimes if one is shooting a correct messenger because the changes are so drastic and yet uncertain or whether one is declining to follow a brilliant visionary over the cliff to continue to build the airplane in mid-flight.

My "favorite" category involves an exchange along the lines of "You're probably right, but we don't have the resources/time/energy/luxury of doing the right thing so we're going to continue to do this and hope it turns out OK enough that at some future date, we'll have the resources/time/energy/luxury to do the right thing."  The messenger isn't shot, but isn't heeded, either, because staying the course is more important than doing the right thing.

[Ruralguy]

All of these are common at my school...

Our president, especially, is trying to combat that last type and has been somewhat successful.

Another one is : "The war/ill will/lack of collegiality that will ensue among the faculty will make this not worth it, and pretty much over before it starts"

[polly_mer]

Another one is : "The war/ill will/lack of collegiality that will ensue among the faculty will make this not worth it, and pretty much over before it starts"

My current employer has a new president who is getting tired of hearing that one.  We have had a few retirements announced by senior leadership who were notorious for "not worth it" as an excuse to not make changes to bring us into alignment with standard practices among our sister institutions. 

I anticipate a retirement wave of our equivalent senior faculty as they get told they will toe the line or go away.  I watched people walk out of a huge meeting (~200 people) about six months ago as they asked questions and really, really didn't like the answer of essentially "this will happen and you absolutely, positively, no-foolin' will choose one of these two options if you wish to remain employed here next year.  There is no exemption process and we will physically enter your office to make the necessary changes for Option A if you do not select an option by <date>".

[secundem_artem]

At one time, one of my courses included some basic information on the dissemination of innovations.  About 2.5% of the population are considered innovators - the first in your group of colleagues to have moved on to some new and innovative thing long before the rest of the group has even heard of it.  They are curious, have a high risk tolerance and are quite happy to ski "off piste" when everybody else is sticking to the bunny slopes.   They tend to be socially somewhat isolated and my be seen as incautious.  Don Berwick has written about them in regards to innovation and change in health care - an industry far less open to innovation than most not in the industry would suspect.

One point he stresses is that true innovators are usually considered weird.  They just don't think about things the same way as even those - about 13% of the population - who would be considered "early adopters" (e.g. those who used online to flip their classroom 5 years ago). 

But because innovators are often considered a bit strange, they usually do not get a lot of support.  Berwick's advice is that if you want your organization to be truly innovative, the organization has to tolerate the weirdness and recognize that although Professor Innovator may have some great ideas, some are gonna be clunkers.

But the alternative of just ignoring weird people who are solving new things in new ways is the kiss of death.  And unfortunately, that's probably the social climate most of us live in.  In our search for "collegial" people who "fit our mission" we are going to miss some eggheads who may truly bring value to our organizations.  The academic urge for consensus, collaboration and shared governance may get in the way of encouraging those who are bringing fresh thought to the problem.
 

[Hibush]

At one time, one of my courses included some basic information on the dissemination of innovations.  About 2.5% of the population are considered innovators - the first in your group of colleagues to have moved on to some new and innovative thing long before the rest of the group has even heard of it.  They are curious, have a high risk tolerance and are quite happy to ski "off piste" when everybody else is sticking to the bunny slopes.   They tend to be socially somewhat isolated and my be seen as incautious.  Don Berwick has written about them in regards to innovation and change in health care - an industry far less open to innovation than most not in the industry would suspect.

One point he stresses is that true innovators are usually considered weird.  They just don't think about things the same way as even those - about 13% of the population - who would be considered "early adopters" (e.g. those who used online to flip their classroom 5 years ago). 

But because innovators are often considered a bit strange, they usually do not get a lot of support.  Berwick's advice is that if you want your organization to be truly innovative, the organization has to tolerate the weirdness and recognize that although Professor Innovator may have some great ideas, some are gonna be clunkers.

But the alternative of just ignoring weird people who are solving new things in new ways is the kiss of death.  And unfortunately, that's probably the social climate most of us live in.  In our search for "collegial" people who "fit our mission" we are going to miss some eggheads who may truly bring value to our organizations.  The academic urge for consensus, collaboration and shared governance may get in the way of encouraging those who are bringing fresh thought to the problem.

For an R1 department, it's good to have perhaps 20% innovators and 50% early adopters. Less, and you don't lead innovation in the discipline. More, and the department become dysfunctional. Also, misidentifying a misanthrope as an innovator becomes especially problematic if you don't have enough steady hands reinforcing collegiality.