Will I manage to devote time today to
catching up with the reading piled on my desk? It's 8.45 am and my inbox
contains just a few outstanding items with no deadlines. My marking is done but
most of my colleagues are still embroiled in marking exam scripts so they have
no time to send emails. Why is the annual timetable constructed so oddly?
Marking student assessments is an activity of such great significance that
you'd expect it be accorded adequate time: instead we are forced to comply with
completely unrealistic deadlines which allow little time for reflection or,
possibly more importantly, moderation which ensures standardisation across
marking teams. Wouldn't it make more sense to ensure that every marking
deadline falls at least two weeks after the date of the examination? After more
than a quarter of a century working here, I still don't understand who makes
decisions about this or many other issues to do with the structure and
processes of the university. Or the rationale on which the decisions are taken.
Changes like restructuring seem to happen on a whim, no analysis of costs or
benefits is produced and no objective review of the impact is undertaken.
On Tuesday I visited Another University
where they appointed me visiting professor last year. It was a great pleasure
to go to their splendidly situated campus and to learn about how they are
building a research culture in accounting and finance. It seems much more
supportive than ours, with a higher level of trust in colleagues to get on with
research without the heavily bureaucratic system we have. I shall enjoy working
with them. Of course, they have many of the problems that we face, particularly
around leadership and management. Another strange paradox: business schools are
full of academics researching management problems but are almost invariably
badly managed. I suggested to our previous dean that he might like to read
Chris Grey's "A Very Short Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book
About Studying Organizations": to my surprise, he did so and thanked me.
But he left soon afterwards so we didn't benefit from the insights he said he'd
found in it.
Yesterday morning was mostly taken up with
following up issues from Tuesday's visit, including passing on an invitation to
present a paper to one of my colleagues who is studying banks, who would
benefit greatly from making contact with people at Another University with
similar interests. I also needed to deal with messages needing a swift reply,
from the editors of the two journals whose editorial boards I sit on, and I was
also asked to read an outline funding proposal. This was about mergers and
acquisitions, outside my comfort zone, but I had some reservations about the
quality of the proposal so sought advice from a colleague who is an expert in
the area. His very helpful and speedy response enabled me to feed back some
comments very quickly. While I'm aware of the email burden many colleagues
wrestle with, it makes my life very much easier when people respond quickly and
I try very hard to do the same. Which is partly why all this stuff gets in the
way....
Very pleasant lunch at pub with good friend
who is now in a senior management position and patiently listened to my rants.
Then a meeting of the Faculty grants panel, at which I think I talked far too
much. But that will be my last meeting as the next research lead will attend in
future. I wonder who that will be.
Today's planned reading;
1. "Fund Manager Self- Belief:
Sensemaking and story telling" - this paper was beautifully presented at
the BAFA conference and I was fascinated by the approach and talked to the
presenter afterwards and promised some comments but I haven't yet had time to
read it properly.
2"Who Cares? Corporate Governance in
today's equity markets" an OECD working paper which arrived some time ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment