Motivation

I was first brought to this idea when asked to evaluate my advisor for consideration of full professor at Cornell University.

This process seems a bit ridiculous. Is this nominal title and monetary raise a carrot which makes a professor do their job well? That is, produce good science, teach well, be a good mentor? Wouldn't this carrot stimulate work towards perceived indicators of good work, preventing any consideration of what "good" means here? Also, I've always wondered why require teaching, mentorship, and research, all from the same individual? Does this system just perpetuate a status hierarchy and give professors something to be anxious about? Also do you think increasing competition is a good thing in academia? Maybe open data would be more widespread if people's jobs didn't depend on them hoarding, "owning", the data they collect. This not even to mention the politics of it all, as you ask around if Ben deserves a raise. What you're really asking is if people like Ben, and want to keep him around / want to see him do well. Heaven forbid an instructor contradict the status-quo, lest they be disfavored by their peers. Do you have a quota? Does anything I say here matter? Just some thoughts, not carefully considered, but I'm genuinely curious of your opinion.

Literature hunt

• one option is thinking about flat organizations
• but is this applicable to the academic context
• theoretically what is involved here?