Are you saying all the people who can't understand kindness will opt-in to doing this? Because while it's great and people should be paid for their effort at retraining those who can't help but be mean at work... I fear those who need this have no idea they need it.
-
-
We're dealing with highly intelligent people (academics) who purposefully or just adaptively and without conscious realisation will find ways to continue as they are – being unkind in this case, or being outright abusive in others, it's a spectrum.
-
But also a system that enables it - we promote people on the basis of their scientific credentials, not their management / leadership credentials, and the two often reflect skills / dispositions that are in direct opposition (e.g., individual vs team focus).
-
In a world of hawks and doves, if you start to advantage doves even by a tiny bit... hawks will just kill a dove and wear its feathers. I see it happen even with the people who seem to be the least into playing games. The Ponzi scheme of science either ejects you or recruits you.
-
This just shows how this has to be an ongoing process - any change to the incentives will mean that behaviour gradually shapes around those incentives. So we can't fix things and walk away - we need to always be monitoring, tweaking, evaluating, etc.
-
For sure, it just doesn't appeal to me to help fix something I never broke for zero appreciation in return.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.