Academic careers and promotion: character and conduct deserve greater emphasis

‘Let the superior man never fail reverentially to order his own conduct, and let him be respectful to others and observant of propriety’. (Confucius; Analects, book 12, http://www.gradesaver.com/the-analects-of-confucius/e-text/section12/). This Editorial aims to examine a few questions about character and workplace conduct that some academics and others may wish to contemplate or discuss with colleagues. Given the competitive nature of promotion procedures and the limited positions the higher one ascends the academic ladder, it may be asked: what percentage of ‘achiever-survivors’ who began with honourable intentions remain committed to ethical behaviour towards others in challenging situations involving peers, superiors, and students? Career planning is regarded by many to be a rational, intentional, goal-oriented, and intrinsically useful activity (e.g. Billings 2008a,b,c); however, the human foibles of the planner, or the professional culture and context within which a career unfolds are often not considered. In fact, the best laid career plans will not be fulfilled for many reasons. First, different people have varying interpretations of the idea of ‘career’, and for many, a career coincides with the idea of an occupation or vocation, rather than a sense of driving towards something more prestigious, better remunerated, or on a more lofty position on the ladder. Other common assumptions built into career planning are less tangible – aspirations, desires, and vision – and can be in danger of coalescing with wishful thinking, hazy self-perception and unrealistic beliefs about self and the nature of academic institutions and their everyday exigencies. Contrary to developing and adhering to a plan, commonly professionals have been ‘lucky’ or found themselves ‘in the right place at the right time’. According to Moran et al. (2011), many senior nurses report that they had not planned their career, but had instead been open to opportunities. Taking up an unexpected opening may relate more to risk-taking aspects of personality, the congruence between professional skills and those demanded within the setting, or even the way in which senior personnel recruiting to the position present, describe, or sell the opportunity. Furthermore, a range of pragmatic down-to-earth factors are required for career progression, including the parameters of the worker's role within an adult partnership, whether the individual is directly responsible for raising children, the health status of family members in more than one generation, and flexible, supportive, family-friendly workplace facilities and staff (Moran et al. 2011). If a successful career is tantamount to rising to the top, or near-top, of the ladder – admittedly, a narrow definition of ‘success’ – then very few academics do so, in part because these positions are scarce. A relationship with a trusted mentor can be very helpful in terms of career progression (Billings 2008b), with research showing that those who enter mentorship programmes have ‘increased performance and promotion rate, early career advancement, greater upward mobility, higher income, greater job satisfaction, enhanced leadership ability and perceptions of greater success and influence in an organisation’ (Moran et al. 2011, p. 48). Some organizations have a commitment to mentoring, but it would be unusual for an academic institution to have structured mentoring opportunities available to all staff members from neophytes to department heads and research leaders and Faculty deans. Consequently, mentoring may involve self-directed connections whereby certain ambitious personnel seek out pivotal mentors, or mentoring is provided selectively to those who have shown significant ‘promise’ as defined by the organization or key individuals. In academia, career pathways are now commonly linked to research output (such as the number and size of grants received, or the quality of research-based publications) as well as outstanding contributions to teaching, committee work, administration, the profession, or broader community. When considering professorial positions, the expectations are even higher. A professor is expected to have produced – and continue to produce – a substantial body of work, with evidence of significant contributions to the discipline, have an established national and international academic profile, contribute meaningfully to the Faculty and wider University, as well as lead research projects, provide mentorship, and supervise higher degrees. Given the diversity and complexity of expectations, which may be impossible to fulfil completely, determining appointments may, at times, relate more to the Faculty profile, politics, interview demeanour, or even ‘group-think’ during the processing of applications. Academics’ priorities are as likely to be character-based as they are principle-based, and for well-rounded academics, the two may closely coincide. For other academics, there may be wide divergence. An understanding of what our job actually is can be open to interpretation, depending on the department, general guidelines, and the specific teaching and research requirements, among other considerations. Succinctly, academic responsibilities for most employees involve teaching, research, thinking, writing, administration, and committee work. To this list may be added pastoral care of students, unofficially mentoring new academics, supporting students with specific learning issues (e.g. coaching in mathematics-based subjects or explaining complex aspects of English for those who use it as a second language), engaging with health providers, and seeking input from clinicians about workplace needs relevant to undergraduate and postgraduate curricula. The opening Confucian quote arose from ancient Chinese humanist philosophy that was concerned with human virtues and how people treat each other in society. The patriarchal beliefs built into the system may be anomalous today, but the salience of positive, respectful human relations and practising good governance are not. The ‘superior person’, we could say, is someone with a well-developed, virtuous character, which includes having an open mind, being sincere, having purity of purpose, and being courageous (and more). Such a person of good character is obliged to act with propriety: character precedes propriety, as mere conformity to rules is an empty performance, and character is exemplified by good behaviour in interaction with others. Thus, within Confucianism, character and moral virtue are prerequisites for good relations and governance. Within the academic body, the emphases each of us places on students, intellectual concerns, and research will vary. Some staff will be more inclined to adhere to their own principles in making priorities, while others may feel more beholden to the demands made by others, especially those in positions of authority; these differences can occur even when they are in the same department and employed at the same level. Those who are true to their own ‘virtuous’ principles in keeping with Confucianism or secular humanism are more likely to have an open view of students and their educational needs, and, for example, to spend extra time working with them to deal with course challenges. Others who are more responsive to power may be committed to obedience even if it means, for instance, ‘teaching’ beyond the depth or breadth of their knowledge. In contemporary academia, both groups are likely to be overworked – stretching themselves for students, or doing too much administration or teaching at the distant reaches of their professional and experiential repertoire. Decisions or non-decisions made by academics over time – whether they are principled, strategic, following the least line of resistance, or simply haphazard – will determine whether people are likely to be promoted. There are likely to further needs and goals factored in when academics aim for top jobs: these may relate to money acquisition, power over others, bolstering ego, status within the broader society, compensation for feelings of intellectual inadequacy, an excessive belief in one's own capacity to effect change, etc. Some reach the apex by working diligently, doing what is expected at the time, seeking favour with those in positions of power. On the other hand, many may plan or act in similar ways, but do not reach the pinnacle they hoped or for which they aimed. Although top positions are, by definition, rare, a minority of academics may end up in senior positions – not intending to be number one in that department or Faculty, but finding they have accepted this role. Again, character and principles will determine the methods and behaviours used by both academics who have risen to the highest positions and those who have not. There is an expectation that people in senior academic positions should be of good character and have a ‘virtuous disposition because they inescapably influence the moral development’ of others (Osguthorpe 2008, p. 288). The belief that academics at all levels should be of good character is most likely held by students and their families, and quite possibly, this is most clearly articulated by consumers when something has gone wrong at ‘The University’, revealing that such expectations have not been fulfilled. Whether academics or other leaders ‘inescapably’ influence the moral development of young adults they teach and supervise is debatable, but if moral development is a long-term personal project, then at least these role models may precipitate reflection or discussion with peers about how professionals should conduct themselves in public positions. If Confucius was concerned about society as a whole, then the percentage of visibly virtuous people in academic positions is surely relevant to the character of academe at large and the health professionals who receive an education there. An observation some academics make is that the general style of interaction staff display towards each other is often mirrored in how they conduct themselves in classrooms with students. Broadly, those with a humanistic orientation enacted through mutual respect, good manners, an inclusive engagement with all comers, and an egalitarian modus operandi, tend to approach peers and students similarly. Such behaviours are congruent with Confucian interest in respect and good conduct. Respect for students and staff excludes ‘put-downs’ and diminishment. Good manners involve entering an arena with positive intentions and starting interactions politely and constructively. Dealing inclusively with all participants means that nobody is ignored and nobody has an especially cosy relationship, and treating people equally prevents the formation of in-groups and out-groups that impede whole-group learning and whole-department functionality. These modes of academic conduct ultimately devolve on character and moral behaviour. Furthermore, what we will not do is as important to virtue ethics and group dynamics as what we must do. Regardless of whether we admit to making ongoing subtle assessments of peers, bosses, superiors, and students, invariably we do observe, take note, and develop opinions about others’ behaviours. Hopefully, more of us do so with the backing of personal experience and evidence, rather than hearsay, rumour or even lies transmitted along the workplace grapevine. According to some, the ‘notion that we might be constantly appraising the moral behaviour of each other might seem in some way insulting or offensive, but ‘in reality’ that is what we are expected to do in the public interest’ (Begley 2011, p. 21). Unfortunately, it is likely that negative reports about others are perceived to have greater weight than neutral, balanced, or positive information (De Bruin & Van Lange 1999). Consequently, there is a requirement for academics with good character, good intentions, and a constructive approach to people and situations to be self-aware and alert, as even listening to and accepting gossip without passing such beliefs on to others can interfere with staff or students being given a fair hearing or receiving a just assessment. In summary, in this editorial, we have raised questions about how thoroughly academic institutions and interviewing personnel consider good character to be relevant to the quality of the culture and teaching–learning experience provided by their university. To assist in these considerations, we have drawn briefly on Confucian focus on conduct and propriety as well as humanism's virtue ethics. Both have interests that transcend individualism and go the heart of human relations within families, groups, and governing bodies. Implicit in this discussion are concerns that, in career planning and promotion criteria and processes, these matters – which, after all, constitute the very fabric of University teaching groups and research teams – are not given sufficient emphasis.