Re: [apps-review] Suggested changes for Applications Area Review Team

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 14:14 -0700 Dave CROCKER
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/22/2011 2:09 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> Finally, a formal term may well help reduce burn-out -
>> instead of "Can I do this position for another day?", the
>> question becomes "Can I do this position for another term?"
>> which is a lot easier to consider.
> 
> 
> This is a deceptively important point.  As I recall, there's
> all sorts of 'psychology of decision making' research to back
> it up.' For those who know the reference to the frog in water
> that is gradually heated, this is a bit like that.
> 
> Making a decision to continue on a daily basis makes it more
> likely that there will be burnout than having to make it once
> every 2 years.

Actually, while the principle is correct (and certainly
supported by the literature to which you refer), I don't think
the "daily versus two years" inference is quite right (or
supported by the literature).    The problem with relatively
long-ish terms is that people who feel like they have signed up
for them tend to want to "keep the commitment" and tough it out,
even after burnout has clearly set in.   For examples of that,
we need look no further than a succession of ADs  who have
served extremely well for a term or two, then burned out six
months or a year into an additional term but continued to serve
(and to get harder and harder to work with) for the full
two-year period.

If you had said something that amounted to "review every six
months", I'd agree.  But, in terms of burnout risk, two years is
a long enough cycle to cause a problem different from the one
you are trying to prevent but no less of a risk.

   john