On the Future of Teams Research: A Letter to Team-Would

Abstract

This article is a satirical letter to Team-would, the great-nephew of C.S. Lewis’ infamous devil Screwtape. Whereas Screwtape was tasked with corrupting a specific young man, Team-would is tasked with corrupting academics – especially teams researchers. The article suggests that this task can be accomplished in three easy steps: 1) entrap; 2) distract; and 3) obfuscate. Like other satirical pieces, this article is crafted to serve as constructive social criticism that challenges existing norms (e.g., selection and socialization) and structures (e.g., reward and task structures). It also strives to make uncomfortable topics easier to discuss (e.g., by introducing the Sufficiency Serpent and Generalizability Gremlin). Ultimately, we can choose whether to hike uphill and advance team science in service to society, or to follow the slippery slope toward an incoherent system that exists only to sustain itself.

Introduction

The following article is a satirical letter to Team-would. Team-would is the great-nephew of C.S. Lewis’ (1942) infamous devil Screwtape. However, instead of corrupting a specific young man, Team-would has been tasked with corrupting academics – especially teams researchers. Like other satirical pieces, this article is crafted to act as constructive social criticism that challenges existing norms and structures, encourages readers to think critically, and makes uncomfortable topics easier to discuss. I hope you find a point that makes you laugh, a point that makes you think, and a point that makes you change a behavior or policy. It is unclear whether the next decade will be a great time to be a teams researcher or a terrible time – but what is clear is that we are nearing a fork in the road and must decide whether to hike up the more challenging path or default to “. . . the gradual one – the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts” (Lewis, 1942, Letter XII).

My dear Team-would,

These are wonderful times of innovation and global impact. The speed and scope of our reach are unprecedented. Yet we must continue dismantling the academic system. You have been trying too hard to generate creative ways to tempt individuals. However, by targeting the system, you can render it impotent in three easy steps: entrap, distract, and obfuscate. I will lay out these steps for you and close with some cautionary notes for the particularly problematic population – teams scholars.

Step 1: Entrap

Set the trap by raising barriers to entry and exit – this will help keep many good people out and suffocate those who slip in. You can raise the barriers to entry by requiring people to work exorbitant hours for poverty wages for 5+ years, with narrow and uncertain job prospects on the other side. It is important that this prospecting period involves intense pressure under vague criteria, enabling deeply ingrained socialization and the dismantling of personal identity in favor of a hyper-specialized professional identity that will keep them in small, insular camps. The training should be so specialized that even those who wish to leave can not apply those skills elsewhere. In short, to render academics impotent and inspire their unwavering allegiance to the status quo at whatever time they become successful, you must ensure they have few skills that are useful outside the academic system.

Step 2: Distract

Now that you have trapped them inside, create a sanctuary for them, allowing them to ramble through curated pastures with no real threats. The predictable rhythm of mealtimes and showtimes will create a sense of complacency, and soon, comfort will hold more appeal than innovation. Over time, they will become far more interested in each other than in ideas.

Additionally, use a combination of administrative tasks and shiny objects to distract them. For the administrative tasks, ensure there is a wide variety. Call engaging in these tasks “service” and tell them it is an honor to do so. You won’t believe how much of their time they will spend writing all sorts of letters – recommendations, nominations, evaluations, decisions. Make running the academic system so onerous that their time is absorbed maintaining it, rather than generating output. Turning to the shiny objects, small interesting topics will often do the trick – no need to worry about their real-world relevance or importance. However, for some, you will need bigger objects. Make the large object reflective, so it is hard to see from any one angle and unwieldy, so no single person can tackle it alone. Encourage them to admire the problem from all angles and to form large collectives to study it (e.g., centers, multi-university grants). Because few academics have extensive leadership training or entrepreneurial experience (see Step 1), this will create additional administrative burdens and hinder progress on the problem. If the socialization during their prospecting period was sufficient, they will believe that only they should lead such initiatives and dismiss the value of outsiders who could help accelerate progress.

Step 3: Obfuscate

After the academics are sufficiently distracted, it is time to infuse the academic system with uncertainty and inequity, moving it from burdensome to unintelligible. Start with the reward system. Reward a very narrow set of tasks significantly more than others, promoting an all-or-nothing mentality – and reward the parasites who offer little value to projects the same as the prophets who lead them. Make the process long and onerous, with failure being the most likely outcome, and scant options on the other side of rejection. Consider requiring several rounds of expensive data collection that few can afford, only to reject the project in a later round because of a dislike for some peripheral aspect of the study. This will crush their souls and shift their focus to the reward system rather than the science.

Additionally, ensure there is adequate ambiguity in the evaluation process to create confusion, but not so much that it destabilizes its legitimacy. If you need help with this step, call on the greater silencers – the Sufficiency Serpent and the Generalizability Gremlin. The Sufficiency Serpent spreads vague and wildly varying ideas of sufficiency (e.g., sufficient theoretical contribution, sufficient evidence). This serpent is particularly skilled at undermining innovative work by inappropriately applying standards developed under completely different circumstances (e.g., standards for an online experiment examining individual students to a field experiment examining global virtual teams). The Generalizability Gremlin is a true powerhouse that can be used to reject any work regardless of sufficiency. He convinces academics that there is a singular form of “real work” and that everything else should be rejected. Healthcare teams – reject. Sports teams – reject. Military teams – reject. Despite substantial research on how and why context matters, the Generalizability Gremlin claims that anything that can’t be replicated with a context-void online experiment is flawed – or fabricated! This will destroy the very fabric of science, which is woven one study at a time and relies on the accrual of knowledge across multiple contexts.

A Note of Caution

Although these three steps are likely to be highly effective, do be cautious in the process. No single individual is likely to dismantle this system, but a well-organized and courageous group could change its course. Particularly, those who know how to organize and appreciate what different individuals can contribute. They are likely to see value in differences (e.g., different approaches, methods, technologies) and how they can be incorporated into a stronger whole. They also understand how boundaries and bridges work. When you find a bridge among camps, disciplines, or into practice, burn it! Make this type of work almost impossible to conduct, much less publish, and push any of the bridge builders into administrative positions or out of academia. If you effectively completed the first three steps, other academics will help you rid their beloved system of the rabble rousers who dare to engage in activities outside of department lunches.

So be patient, dear Team-would, over time, the academic system could become so insular and incoherent that it exists only to sustain itself, rather than advancing science in service to society. This process only requires three easy steps – and the Sufficiency Serpent confirmed the correct number is three.