Why researchers learn more quickly than senior civil servants

The environment you present your ideas in is a crucial determinant of how quickly you improve them. Researchers present in front of audiences who are highly critical, forcing them to make their ideas better. Senior civil servants are more likely to share their designs with sycophantic yes-people, creating the possibility of doubling down on bad ideas. Good governance depends on making senior civil servants confront skeptical crowds.

For all the latest headlines follow our Google News channel online or via the app.

If you have ever interacted with researchers – especially the academics who work in universities – you may have noticed that they tend to be a miserable bunch, with the possible exception of the thin layer of elites at the top of their field.

While there are many reasons for scholars’ melancholy nature, a key contributor is the process of peer review that they are subjected to on a near-daily basis. An academic researcher’s primary function is to produce scholarship that their peers judge to be “good.” This occurs through the process of refereeing papers when they are submitted to academic journals.

The anonymity of the referees often leads to uncharitable evaluations, and every academic can share many stories of mean-spirited assessments of their work by peers protected by the non-disclosure of their identity. Moreover, some academics are quite happy to disparage your work to your face, preferably in front of all your colleagues during conferences and seminars.

This tendency for negativity stems from the zero-sum nature of academic careers: there is a rigid hierarchy with fixed spots at the top (chairs at top universities, postings as editors of top journals). Moreover, the prestige pie is fixed: only one person can be the “authority” in a certain field, and the more I respect you, the less I respect others (in relative terms). This is in contrast to the business world, where a growing economy can allow all businesses to make more money at the same time, and one entrepreneur’s gain need not be another’s loss.

While in the research world, this phenomenon is bad for self esteem, it is good for forcing you to make your ideas better. Once you develop the thick skin required to survive as a researcher, you quickly realize that having the smartest people in your field criticize your work is an excellent mechanism for improving it.

Certainly, some of the complaints that referees make are personal and addressing them does not elevate the quality of your work, but once you separate the wheat from the chaff, you will be amazed at how much you benefit from peer criticism.

Consequently, by default, researchers are skeptical of their own ideas, let alone those of others, as they brace for the barrage of criticism they will receive from their colleagues. Society benefits from forcing this humility upon some of its most intelligent individuals.

For senior civil servants, the environment is very different. They tend to be a much happier bunch, and while the power and money help, the obsequious nature of the crowd whom they interact with is an important contributor. The smug look sported by the likes of former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a clear symptom.

In contrast to their academic counterparts, senior civil servants will usually present their ideas in one of two situations. First, to their underlings. Naturally, due to the hierarchy, these people are motivated to laud their superior’s musings whatever the quality. If they do have criticism that must be conveyed, it is done so in a manner that maximally protects the self esteem of the senior civil servant.

The second scenario is presenting ideas to their superior, who may be a minister or a head of government or state, typically in the presence of their peers. In this situation, the peers are not hierarchy-bound to applaud what they hear, and so there is the potential for criticism. However, these peers will invariably wait to see the mutual boss’ initial reaction, and then ride that wave, as they don’t want to be seen as openly disliking an idea that the prime minister or president likes. This fear of falling out of line was clearly in evidence in the height of Donald Trump’s presidency, when his subordinates were afraid to shoot down patently absurd policies that he personally liked.

Accordingly, all the senior civil servant has to do is ensure that their boss likes the idea, and everyone else will fall in line. If you work with your boss on a daily basis, it’s not too hard to ensure that your ideas are ones the boss finds pleasing. Alternatively, when you develop an idea that the boss probably dislikes, you can it and go back to the drawing board before presenting it before your colleagues.

Both scenarios are a recipe for stagnation, as the proposals that senior civil servants make never really get the grilling required for improvement. There is a real risk that, they present their ideas either to an echo chamber of obsequious sycophants, or to one that has been pre-vetted by the only person whose opinion matters, forcing even skeptical colleagues to feign approval. Six week UK Prime Minister Lizz Truss clearly fell into this trap when it came to her ill-fated economic reforms.

In democracies, this distinction between researchers and senior civil servants is somewhat undermined by the mechanisms of open political competition. While the civil servants may enjoy an easy crowd when presenting their ideas internally, eventually they have to present to opposition political parties who will take an adversarial position on principle.

But in non-democracies, senior civil servants can escape scrutiny for years. This is sometimes uncomfortably revealed when they travel abroad and have to present their subpar ideas to foreign media. Their poorly formulated proposals are met with near derision from the crowd, and this is amplified by the genuine look of surprise on the civil servant’s face, whose long-lasting residence in an intellectual echo chamber has undermined their ability to detect bad ideas.

It is human nature to dislike being criticized, but listening to intelligently-fashioned criticism remains one of the most effective paths toward improvement. Researchers live in one extreme, where the benefits of constant criticism may even be outweighed by the adverse mental health effects.

However, in the case of senior civil servants, the frequent back-slapping can have grave consequences for the quality of governance. They would do well to heed the words of the American philosopher Waldo Emerson: “Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”

Omar Al-Ubaydli (@omareconomics) is a researcher at Derasat, Bahrain

Read more:

Woke science undermines the debate on affirmative action

Muslim religious scholars need to be trained in advanced artificial intelligence

Arab workplaces are anti-innovation exemplars