I met a guy who has done a fantastic job of building up a department of economics at a major university. He is an impressive administrator, who clearly has both an absolute advantage and a comparative advantage at academic administration. I said that he will surely become a dean, then probably a university president, and would do a great job at both. When I told him this he replied “maybe so,” but said that he won’t become either because he doesn’t want that kind of lifestyle.
Unlike in international trade or the allocation of productive labor in an organization, when we decide how to spend our time, our personal preferences matter. Our preferences do interact with monetary incentives, but those are apparently not enough in this case to induce this man to change his lifestyle.
One can’t argue with taste; but it is a shame, given his obvious and scarce skills, that his preferences are so strong in another direction. The general problem is how to create incentives for people with these skills without providing more economic rent for mediocre people who would love to, and so often do, fill these jobs.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
The easy answer is Communism. You’re taking the job because we said so. It’s in society’s interest so it doesn’t matter whether you like it or not.
The other option is, of course, to make the deal sweeter for them. Either offer them more money (if you think the extra money is worth it for their extra quality) or change the job description to make it more palatable to them–perhaps sacrificing some of the more symbolic duties of the post for more meat-and-potatoes administrative duties. In the end, though, there is nothing you can do in a free market economy to get them to take a job they really don’t want. In a bad job market you could potentially tell them “take this promotion or else you’re fired” (assuming they’re not tenured, which they probably are), but even then you are betting that some other school won’t be willing to take them on as department head, which seems a poor bet if he is really so good at his current job.
Maybe:
1. More latitude over working conditions (i.e. let them live where they want, additional resources (budgets, people, time)
2. Retainer (i.e. paid retainer for help with specific task as they arise)
3. Limited engagements (i.e. do this for a year and walk with break-out cash)
I think the person you are talking about is being humble. He’ll probably take the position if offered. The prestige that comes with being a dean or a university President is enough an incentive for an able person to accept these positions.
It seems that workplaces should move away from only considering monetary reward as an incentive for someone to take a job. In this case, what is your acquaintance’s dislike for the lifestyle of a dean or a university president? Perhaps he’s wary of having to work extended hours, or of his job creeping into his family time. On such a case, couldn’t the university offer him a contract with limited hours in exchange for an inflated salary? If the person is good enough this could be more effective than hiring a less skilled administrator willing to put in more time
I see this all the time in non-academic jobs. Many types of jobs require the kind of dedication that does not go along well with having a life outside of the job, like spending time with ones family or having non-job-related interests.
Isn’t it obvious? Reduce the lifestyle negatives.
Assuming work hours is the major issue: Is a highly competent candidate that works 8-5, M-F (or whatever a normal University schedule is) better than a barely competent candidate that is a workaholic?
Smart people realize that no amount of money is worth losing a lifestyle they enjoy, so stop making the job require lifestyle sacrifices and you’ll get more smart, capable candidates.
One of the “disadvantages” of our labor and market system is that we allow individuals to choose their own path. As such, some individuals can become “greedy” and base their decisions on their own desires, and those decisions may not benefit society as well as other decisions.
A few years back, a relative went to a funeral of a man in his 30′s who had died in a skydiving accident. This young man was smart, well educated, ambitious, and was going places. And he liked skydiving. Most at the funeral were commenting on “at least he died doing something he loved.” An older gentleman sneered at the well-wishers, stating that his death was greedy. He complained that the young man was greedy in partaking in such a dangerous sport when society had put so many resources into his growth and education, and he owed society to live a long productive life.
Overall, we’ve taken the most effective route. Yes, we “let” people be wasteful, but the sum of the individual gains from each person who chooses their own path greatly exceeds the costs of those who chose paths that did not benefit society as much as other paths might have.
(Please forgive the use of “quotations” above – it is intended to show that I am not really serious about those terms. Sadly, I am not a skilled enough writer to make those intentions clear without this cheat.)
What I love about this particular instance is that the jump from dept. head to Dean or President in academia means adding fundraising to your responsibilities. Most academics want nothing to do with this.
This is one of the reasons you see administrators instead of acadmics becoming presidents at many colleges and universities now.