Help! The senior guy in my field acts like a total jerk sometimes. What should I do?

I wrote myself a letter, and answered it:

Dear WCI,

The senior guy in my field acts like a total jerk sometimes.  He's working in an area I care deeply about - gender and taxation. But he trivializes and sensationalizes critically important issues. For example, I just heard him give a talk about the optimal tax treatment of goods primarily consumed by women, and he repeatedly used  Coco Chanel perfume as an example. That makes it seem like gender-based taxation is about frivolous, unnecessary luxuries. It's not. O.k., he mentioned "tampon taxes" too, but that's not an interesting economic issue either. Because feminine paper is a small but absolutely essential purchase, taxing tampons is like imposing a lump-sum tax of about $1 a month on menstruating women. It's a salient political issue, and a sensational one too, but it's not economically meaningful.

The big issues in gender and taxation are gender-based income taxes (as opposed to gender-based consumption taxes), and empirical public policy questions, like which parent to target with benefits if you want more money spent on children. There is good work out there - but this guy didn't reference it once!

As well, his model assumed that all time spent outside the labour market was "leisure" and thus welfare-enhancing. So any policy that reduced the amount of time women had to work made women better off (though reducing women's hourly wage rate made women worse off, because they had less power within the household.) That's just ridiculous. Especially when people have young children, time at home is hardly leisure. Plus the model "black-boxed" the division of power within the household. 

The icing on the cake was that the talk was sprinkled with gratuitous remarks about Chinese people. I've heard him speak before, and he does this every time. 

What should I do? He's a journal editor, and highly likely to be refereeing my papers for the foreseeable future. I frequently encounter him at conferences. Directly confronting him would be career suicide. But at the same time, his influence is moving an entire field of research in an unproductive direction. A model of the household without children, household production, or any kind of bargaining is a fundamentally flawed way of understanding gender and taxation. What should I do?

Yours,

Quietly Seething.

Dear Quietly,

Whatever you do, deliberate before acting, and play to win. There is no point in making a career-limiting move that does not further your ultimate goal. So the first question to ask is: what do you want to achieve?

Is your objective to prevent this guy from saying offensive things in public?  Reasoning with him, and trying to explain why it's inappropriate to speak this way would, as you said, be career suicide. He could write you off as a politically correct SJW, ignore your request, and possibly punish you for stepping out of line.

Moreover, it wouldn't work.  Stories are more effective than lectures.  You have a better chance of persuading someone if you can frame the issue in terms of their moral principles, rather than your own. If this guy's guiding principle is professional self-advancement, you could subtly suggest his language makes him seem old and dated, as in, "I love the Coco Chanel example - the way you talk reminds me so much of my dad."  It might work, and if it does, you've helped build more friendlier and more collegial academic environment. Though, to be honest, I don't think I'd ever have felt comfortable telling a senior guy they reminded me of my dad [Updated].

Yet if this guy changes the way he acts in public, without changing the way he thinks about the world, or the decisions he makes, are you any further ahead? He's in a position to act as a gate-keeper, and there's a serious danger that only his cronies and acolytes will be let through the gate. Preventing this guy from saying offensive things in public, without changing the way he acts in private, risks changing an overt danger into a hidden one.

Are you sure that this guy's private persona is as jerk-like as his public one? You mention his failure to cite other people's work, and his unattractive modelling assumptions. These are bad signs. But in this business you never really know who your friends are. I'm thinking of a self-proclaimed Marxist-Feminist with wandering hands, and a friendly and supportive senior guy, who once got very friendly. I'm also thinking of a colleague who is a hard-core conservative, yet consistently votes for female candidates in hiring or tenure committee meetings. 

It's worth saying to some people who know this guy, "The tone of Prof ___'s keynote was a bit off - I think some people in the audience felt a little uncomfortable - is he usually like that?" There is a danger of coming across as too gossipy, but overall it's a fairly low-risk strategy. Academics love to gossip. The frank and honest exchange of information is our lifeblood. [Updated]. You'll learn something useful. Moreover, news of this guy's bad behaviour will start to spread. That can have positive effects. No one wants to invite a keynote speaker who might say something offensive. Plus if the rumours get back to him, professional pride might induce him to change his behaviour.

If you learn that this guy is a jerk in private, as well as in public, what can you do? You may be tempted to wait and hope things get better. Unfortunately, our discipline has a remarkable ability to reproduce itself. Senior people hire and promote miniature versions of themselves. Once this guy ages out, there's a good chance his carefully chosen and groomed successor will be just as bad.

You can avoid him, and advise others to do the same, but that limits your opportunities, and is of marginal use. Indeed, tacit acceptance of this kind of behaviour, and an absence of critical voices and alternative perspectives, is one reason why it can continue. So that's why it's worthwhile firmly and politely pushing back, even if it seems like a sisyphean task. [updated]

You can deliberately avoid citing his work, and reference the work of more sensible people instead. You can encourage others to do likewise. This strategy is effective, but not without downside risk - either this jerk, or one of his acolytes, might be referee #2 on your next paper.

In situations like this, collective action can be the safest and most effective way to spread information, shift social norms, and press for change. You could latch onto an existing social movement, or start your own. The all-male panels and all white panels campaigns show how just a handful of people, acting together, can raise awareness. Even econjobrumors had its moment of glory, when it outed Bruno Frey's self-plagiarism.  Professional networks, like the Canadian Women Economists Network, can provide you with moral and professional support, and advocate for institutional reform.

Institutional structures matter because professional decisions - like who to invite to give keynote addresses at conferences, who to ask to be president of the Canadian Economics Association, or who to recruit to edit a journal - are often made in an ad hoc fashion. For conferences, the keynote speakers are often  chosen by one person acting alone. Even when two or three people are involved in decision-making, the conversation is literally not that different from: "Who'd be good?" "Oh, I don't know - what about Fred? I was chatting to John the other day, and he said Fred was doing really well." "Yeah, he's just got that paper out in the AER, and another in the JPE. Let's ask Fred." Success begets success, and bad behaviour doesn't matter.

Sometimes decisions are made without consultation because of malicious intent. But sometimes it's just because academic economists either can't figure out how to consult with other people, or have never even thought about doing so. You yourself can do things to create a more consultative structure. It might not take anything more than saying: "hey, let's invite everyone who's interested in getting involved in organizing next year's conference to get together during the coffee break." If decisions are made in a more open and transparent way, then perhaps there might be some hope of getting a better speaker for next year's keynote address.  

In short, there's no easy answer to your question, Professor Seething.  Whatever you do, try to live by these three basic rules (1) Cover your ass (2) Look after students, junior colleagues, and support staff (3) Enjoy life.

 

Comments

[Jon]

This was very interesting, thanks for sharing this. I agree it's a real dilemma, but I think you're on the track. Good luck!

[Frances Woolley]

Jon - thanks so much! I've couched this in gender terms, but I think it's an issue for everyone.

[Linda Welling]

Frances - well done!

[Frances Woolley]

Linda - thanks for commenting, and for reading, and for listening.

[Frank Restly]

Frances,

Not sure how well it would go over in a professional paper, but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Begin a paper agreeing with everything the gentleman adheres to and then extend his own arguments to there illogical conclusion.

I have always been a fan of satire. One of my favorites has always been Johnathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". It was required reading for a class I took in college on persuasive writing.

[Jonathan Wiley]

As a general rule, I think the best "second opinions" are those who have points of view as dissimilar from our own as possible. Of course, they have to be able to discuss ideas in a logical and non-confrontational manner, but among those who can, the ones different from you are the most useful. Maybe if people looked at the interactions and decisions that you describe from that angle, diversity (or not enforcing a lack of diversity) would seem more valuable.

[anon]

This is a weird post. I think that keeping things professional usually works best, whereas spreading rumors about "what this guy is like in private" does not strike me as a very professional move. If you think that using Coco Chanel perfume as an example, or treating intra-household bargaining as a black-box, gives a misleading impression of the issue, just raise that point firmly but respectfully, and in a non-moralistic tone (you could even poke some light fun at the choice of Choco Chanel, as your answer suggested) and move on - people in the audience will surely be able to make up their own opinion. You're appealing to the "moral principle" of making better models, which people will almost certainly agree with! This is what the prevailing academic norms dictate in such cases, and this example does not seem to be all that different.

[Frances Woolley]

anon:

"I think that keeping things professional usually works best"

This is a serious point, and perhaps one that I should have spent more time talking about. Why don't I suggest raising the point "firmly but respectfully"?

At the talk I did point to the large body of literature that finds, as Hoddinott and Haddad put it, "relative to women, men spend a greater proportion of the income they earn on goods such as alcohol, cigarettes, status consumer goods, and ‘female companionship’. By contrast, women are more likely to purchase goods for children and for general household consumption" And thus it wasn't really meaningful to separate gender-taxation of commodities from broader public health issues (though I probably didn't put it quite that clearly). The response was something along the lines of "men don't spend more than women on alcohol; my daughter has a well stocked liquor cabinet."

In my experience, if a junior person challenges a senior, higher-status-in-the-profession person, one of two things will happen. If they questioner is not not firm enough, they will be ignored and/or firmly put down down. This is the econ seminar culture. If the questioner persists, and tries to be both really firm and really respectful, they will be regarded as difficult, obstructive, shrill, etc.

So, yes, raising the point firmly and respectfully is a good thing to do. It's not going to change the world, but it's still worth doing. You never know who's listening, and who you might convince.

[Majromax]

> If the questioner persists, and tries to be both really firm and really respectful, they will be regarded as difficult, obstructive, shrill, etc.

Of course, this is also an area where women are held to a higher standard of collegiality than men. It creates a real Catch-22 in situations such as the one described.

[Frances Woolley]

Jonathan: "I think the best "second opinions" are those who have points of view as dissimilar from our own as possible"

A point that's become very relevant over the past few months and will continue to be relevant for the next four or eight years! It's much more comfortable to stay within one's own bubble than to try to find common ground with people who have different views.

Within academia, we have disciplinary bubbles, field bubbles, sub-field bubbles, methodological bubbles, bubbles around little strands of the literature. But we don't see them as bubbles, we see them as specializations. And often it's too much effort to reach out to someone who doesn't understand your modelling assumptions, or how your model works, or what the big bubble-specific issues are. Moreover, the gains from reaching out are not immediately apparent.

Much of the best research is bubble-bursting - but it takes courage and skill and a whole bunch of other stuff to break out of the bubble.

[Frances Woolley]

Frank - econ is so much harder to satirize because of the math. It's been done - I remember a paper in the Journal of Irreproducible Results once about "assuming optimally" but haven't been able to find it again. But, yeah, it would be really hard to satirize this stuff. Though perhaps that's just a blog post challenge!

[Frances Woolley]

Thanks for all of the feedback so far - I've updated the post a bit to reflect your comments.

[Frank Restly]

"Frank - econ is so much harder to satirize because of the math."

And what, mathematics can't be funny? Ever heard of the statistician that drowned crossing the river - it was three feet deep on average.

And yes, it was a blog post challenge.

[anon]

> In my experience, if a junior person challenges a senior, higher-status-in-the-profession person, ... If the questioner persists, and tries to be both really firm and really respectful, they will be regarded as difficult, obstructive, shrill, etc.

Well, I think you're right that this is ultimately about status. But the question then becomes - should we _really_ care that this person is so much higher-status than us, despite their rudeness? Yes, this is sad and disappointing, but it's also a common occurrence - almost a stereotype, in all sorts of organizations. The thing is, if you really want to try and change that senior speaker's opinion, the best tactic is to give him a way to 'save face' and keep his own status _unchanged_, by quickly correcting himself or even just minimizing the import of his mistakes. Maybe he'll agree that the Choco Chanel thing was just a funny caricature and not to be taken seriously, or that he should really stop being so unfair to Chinese people in his talks. You might perhaps see this as still being "offensive" and in fact it is, but it's also the best way of genuinely and fully affecting their behavior, beyond that one occurrence.

Use the carrot, not the stick - this is the kind of 'respect' that we should probably have in mind, and it does not at all preclude being firm about the factual/relevant issues.

[Frances Woolley]

Anon: "the best tactic is to give him a way to 'save face' and keep his own status _unchanged_,"

Yup, when you want someone to give you something, you have to give them a reason to say yes.

But ultimately even if you can get someone change the way they speak, by giving them a way to save face, it isn't necessarily going to change their view of the world. And this really is the issue that's bugging Quietly Seething - not the unpleasant speech, but the fact that the literature is being moved in an unproductive direction.

[Frances Woolley]

Frank - a challenge indeed!

[Oliver]

If the questioner persists, and tries to be both really firm and really respectful, they will be regarded as difficult, obstructive, shrill, etc.
Particularly if the questioner happens to be a woman...

Women, know your limits ;-):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

Myybe feminism should be left to men. We're impartial...

[Frances Woolley]

Oliver - love the link, thank you.

[rsj]

It's not really clear whether the offending person is blocking the requestor's career path in some way, or is merely their *existence* as an editor something that causes the asker to seethe?

In which case, it's better to not look too much out the window as there are all sorts of people in positions of power that the poster is going to be offended by, and she'll need to start a whispering campaign against each one of them to get them fired or removed from her sight of view.

[Tel]

Well I could bring up this concept where the world contains a diversity of opinions, and by definition this means not everyone will agree with everyone else.

[Jonathan Wiley]

Anon: This is a weird post. I think that keeping things professional usually works best, whereas spreading rumors about "what this guy is like in private" does not strike me as a very professional move.

You feel that this post is weird and some other people seem to think it's not so weird. I think that difference in reaction is linked to the concepts that Frances is trying to address. What I mean is that by trying to understand why another person has another reaction, we can broaden our understanding of the world. In this particular case, gender is the salient root of the difference, but it other cases it could be a million other things.

[Patrick]

I have a slightly different take. Trying to get along and play the game is fine, but it's defensive. A complete strategy requires offense as well. FWIW, in my experience the usual way of dealing with this sort of person is to engineer their own self-destruction. Invite influential Chinese people to one of his talks, or influential people who 'get' the issues you enumerate, and then bait him with a question you know will illicit a dismissive response.

Eventually he'll annoy or insult a critical mass of the wrong people and he'll be removed.

[Troll me]

Plotting death, destruction and other things sounds dumb. Someone might feel moral justified in returning fire in a variety of ways.

If he is doing bad research, ask questions that he will have a difficult time answering without drawing attention to the research failures.

If he's an ass, there's no special need to spread it, but if the subject of "him" comes up, you can just say something like "he's straight out of the 1950s. I can't believe people like that even exist any more".

And if this academic cannot take a direct and frontal critique straight to his face (no need to be mean), then what the hell is he doing in academia in the first place?

Or, if you don't think you will ultimately approach the situation responsibly in a way that will not come back to bite you badly later, then drop it COMPLETELY as a personal issue (probably the best bet anyways) and focus on the more general issues of bad methods and backwards perspectives and never ever even bother with which specific individuals are doing that.

Debate ideas. Debate methods. Don't get personal. imo