creating a community of scholars
A reader sent me an email asking my thoughts about the best way to develop a sense of intellectual community in a college or department. The problem is set in the context of a leadership change in the reader’s college – a point in time at which the organization should be most malleable to change and identity transformation. Since this is a problem that many of us likely face, I thought I’d post his query here (identifying features deleted, of course).
[P]eople have been telling me that they are impressed by my vision for the college. That is a shorthand way of saying that they want to take the school in the direction of more scholarship. Sounds simple enough, but as you know, moves like that require more than a wave of the wand. Moreover, the vision is more complex than just that. I do not believe that we can fulfill our mission by trying to emulate elite schools. Not only do we lack the resources, but we have different institutional goals. In short, there is no template for us.
The prior administration has attempted to pursue a more scholarly direction by adopting the usual trappings of scholarship support: generous conference funding, summer research grants, research leaves, works-in-progress sessions, annual conferences, etc. But something is missing. As I have spoken to my colleagues, some of us have concluded that we provide nice support for research, but we don’t really provoke research. Most of my colleagues suggest that we have the wrong incentives in place — insufficient consequences for failing to do research, for example — but I am not convinced that this is a game of incentives. Or at least that there isn’t more.
Perhaps this is like playing the piano. You can play all of the notes that Beethoven wrote, but still be lacking expression. Similarly, we can structure the incentives to promote scholarship, and we will get more, but will it inspire us and advance knowledge? I don’t want someone who is laboring over an article simply to get the completion bonus that we now offer. I want them to labor over the article because they have a thirst for knowledge. Intrinsic motivation.
So my question is this: does this have anything to do with organizational structure? How does one structure an organization to encourage the development of intrinsic motivation?
Members of organizations always have multiple, complex motivations. Financial incentives are just one motivation, but of course, there are a lot of other intrinsic motivations (e.g., experiencing intellectual development, attaining status). The question is, how do you use these natural or socially intrinsic motivations to get people mobilized around a goal like enhancing scholarly productivity? How do you create a community of scholarship that hasn’t existed prior to that? In some ways this becomes a problem of getting people to buy into a particular vision or goal for the organization that deviates from their own experience in the organization. You have to get people to change the way they think about the value of their contributions to an organization. What was once valued – teaching high quality courses – is now weighted less heavily than other outcomes, like publishing in top scholarly journals.
So what do the orgheads think? Organizational design is far from my area of expertise and so I’d be interested to see what other insights people might have.
I wade into this with no small amount of trepidation…
Vision, alas, courts homogeneity as well as commitment. My own background is heavy on talk of a “scholar-practitioner” vision, though this seems rare in practice despite the very applied nature of organizational design (a similar dynamic seems to afflict cross-disciplinary work, as any sociologist with some ideas about economics can attest…). The fact that we have to ask this question with so much work over decades in the primary journals suggests that we aren’t eating our own cooking where incentives and culture are concerned.
The common sense voice in my head counsels patience on the part of the new leader, recognizing that change occurs slowly, and that forcing it will likely produce a resistance exceeding what otherwise might have emerged. Experience suggests that influence works slowly when it works at all, at least in those examples where it has a lasting effect.
josephlogan
August 6, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I am not sure one can somehow just tell a group of folks to start publishing in A-outlets (or, put in associated structures) — it takes some time to cultivate that. And, an extant non-publishing dpt, with scholars that are (say) 5+ years out, not working toward publishing anything, is unlikely to all of a sudden decide/be able to/want to do A-level research. That said, I’ve seen dpts make turnarounds where no publishing was being done, to great scholarship. The key? Recruit and retain the right people (and then, they’ll demand all the usual support systems: $, research seminars, conferences, etc etc).
tf
August 6, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I think Teppo is getting at something important in his comment. Universities are distinctive organizations in that they are so dependent on human capital for their success. You can’t really create a great department or school unless you have great scholars to begin with. And so, if you want to drastically improve the scholarly quality of your faculty, the most efficient way would be through new hires. If you have lots of money, hiring senior faculty is an option, but otherwise you have to take the long, slow road of recruiting and retaining promising junior faculty.
That said, I’m not sure that recruitment and retainment is the only ingredient to creating a strong intellectual community of scholars. We can all think of departments that on paper look great, filled with talent and good scholarship, that are nothing more than the sum of their parts. Members of the department don’t interact, they don’t have seminars, and the environment fails to foster the potential of new faculty or grad students. I’m not sure how an administrator or department chair would go about transforming the community but it probably involves more than just brining in fresh faces (we’re also all aware of corrupting departments that turn nice new hires into faculty monsters).
brayden
August 6, 2008 at 7:28 pm
brining in fresh faces
This is a good description of what happens to junior faculty in some departments.
Kieran
August 6, 2008 at 7:32 pm
I agree; even with talent some dpts may have rather lousy research communities (the output might be there but there are no signs of the type of vitality and community, I am guessing, of a 60s Carnegie). Perhaps Bob Sutton’s book has some answers: a few bad (big and perhaps talented) apples may ruin things.
tf
August 6, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Great post! Well, I don’t do org design but I’ve read some about creativity and innovation and I study academic programs. Teppo is right that you can’t magically ask people to change who they are. That’s also a theme in the pop management literature. Org structure can only hinder or enable what people already want or can do. So what? Well, that points to a issues…
First, there is selection. You foster creativity by simply hiring creative people. That doesn’t have to mean people who place in “A” journals, as Teppo suggests. “A” journals publish both creative work and very traditional work (and both are important, may I add!). There are many programs where people publish a lot, even in top journals, but nobody associates the program with creative research. Look for people who are productive, but who can still get it published in decent, if not top, places.
Second, you can work on the margins. Even if Prof X doesn’t produce innovative stuff, they can still find an important role – they can mentor people, help with admin, teach their niche, etc. Find the person who can publish but is afraid to try new stuff because it won’t land in A journals. Then make incentives that reward them for risk.
Third, after you work on people and roles, provide resources and incentives. For example, a lot of promotion depends on placement of articles. Instead, lobby for rules that promote on creating new ideas as well. Also, try to make tools avaible that will help. And listen closely. Finally, have trust. When people come up new research, don’t say “that’s weird.” Instead, say “show me.” The second answer is the key to management of creative people. From skunk works to Carnegie Mellon in the 60s, it’s all about assembling the right people and then using a light touch.
fabiorojas
August 6, 2008 at 7:36 pm
I agree that the recruitment and retainment of productive junior faculty is important. I also second Fabio’s description of incentives for those that reach for the more student-oriented/risky side of academic work (be it advising and mentoring, undergraduate research opportunities, etc.).
Becher’s book on academic tribes and territories along with Biglan’s work during the 70s on the output of different academic areas comes to mind as another way to look at the issue of creating a community of scholars. There have been numerous articles written since then on the same issue, the latest is Fox and Mohapatra’s Journal of Higher Education article in fall of 2007 on the social-organizational characteristics where they look such things as workplace climate and the collaboration of research teams among other things.
If the college participates in the COACHE survey that looks at junior faculty and their perceptions of the work environment, that may hold a key that may be missing to assist the campus leader.
These are few things that come to mind…
hillbillysociologist
August 7, 2008 at 12:42 am
Give scholars a sense of security in knowing that they will not suffer political reprisals for dissent. The organizational prescription in this regard is clear: build checks and balances and separation of power into any seats of power within the organization. Political gridlock is a cheap price to pay for independence of mind.
Michael F. Martin
August 7, 2008 at 2:14 am
After having contemplated this for a bit, talked with a couple of scholars here in the Netherlands, and re-read the original letter, I’m coming around to the notion that structure is a red herring in this example. It’s the third paragraph of the message that really grabs me, the one about playing Beethoven’s notes. What the writer seems to be describing is joy. There’s very little in the literature about designing organizations to promote joy. Where org design is about predictability and repeatability in coordination and cooperation, the rewards of intrinsic motivation are… intrinsic. I just can’t think of a way to structure Coltrane’s classic quartet to produce the joy I think I hear in Coltrane’s phrasing. I don’t know how to configure Wilco to get the quality of creation Jeff Tweedy produces in each new iteration. If there is an optimal organization design to produce joy, that’s the article of the year.
What I made a less-than-eloquent pass at in the comment above is that the answer might be a lighter touch rather than design or incentives. One can use tools like the Organizational Culture Inventory to work out what the culture actually is and what it can become, but the sense of security Michael Martin mentions above is probably the best route to allowing the people in the department to flourish, whatever that means for them. The incentive might very well be featured work in top journals, but personal satisfaction and safety seems like an important waypoint.
josephlogan
August 7, 2008 at 8:09 am