I’m a numbers guy. Pure Mathematics PhD. I want the raw spreadsheet. I want to start a story with “1000 delegates, 300 papers, 25 countries…”

But as we set academic KPIs, we have to be careful.

If we say “Publish 2 articles in Q1 or Q2 journals this year to meet expectations, 3 to exceed expectations and 4 for outstanding performance”…

We’re driving our colleagues to publish more papers in Q2 journals.

Rather than identify deeply challenging research problems and do battle with them to find the significance and originality that impact and reputation rely on.

We’re driving our colleagues to assume that all expectations are the same for everyone.

Rather than meeting the individual where they are, identifying the right balance of activity and expectations to drive their career AND university success, and then supporting them with what THEY need.

Setting up systems that do this well, with equity at their heart, and with Department Chairs or Deans equipped to make strong, individualised qualitative judgements (that will stand scrutiny just as well as straightforward “counting metrics”) is really hard.

But we have to try.

Or we’ll be grinding our colleagues into the ground. And have them doing the wrong things in the process.