Also it's tricky because they don't *need* to pay a third party, they can listen to those who have come out to say kindness is important. But of course no academic will pay other academics for their emotional labour (an undervalued service that it seems only women provide).
-
-
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.