Flattery in Academia: When Praise Becomes a Performance
Academic honesty survives on thoughtful disagreement and open debate. Flattery that may open the momentary doors but it slams the intellectual growth down. Academia does not need more admirers rather it needs more truth-tellers.
Flattery in Academia: When Praise Becomes a Performance
Prof. Dinesh K. & Dr. Nidhi Suthar
Flattery in academia is a quiet art. It rarely looks like flattery. It comes disguised as respect, collegiality or enthusiasm for someone’s “seminal” contribution. Yet beneath that polite surface lies a power dynamic that distorts how ideas are exchanged and how reputations are built.
Academic systems are hierarchical by design. Titles, tenure and gatekeeping roles make certain voices louder than others. In such spaces, flattery often functions as a survival tool. Junior scholars learn early that genuine critique can be risky, while strategic praise feels safe. A flattering comment in a seminar, a glowing review on a senior’s draft or a deferential nod at a conference can secure protection or at least prevent retaliation. With time, such silent obedience turns into culture.
The expense is implicit yet grave. When scholars engage in praise rather than giving truthful feedback then ideas will not go anywhere. Critical debate softens into routine agreement. The powerful stop growing because they are rarely questioned. The ambitious stop thinking freely because they fear standing out. Flattery becomes the lubricant and the lock of the academic machine. It maintains the motion but not the actual movement.
Academic Flattery Characteristics
Inserting influential names in publications: Inserting the names of influential people without their actual contributions.
Over-agreeing: Echoing senior faculty opinions in meetings, classrooms or reviews regardless of personal belief.
Performative praise: Writing over-the-top praises or quotes intended to gratify and not to acknowledge.
Strategic silence: Not asking critical questions during presentation or review so as to preserve harmony between professionals.
Token partnerships: Asking significant names to projects just to be noticed or get undue favours.
Reciprocal complimenting: This involves the exchange of positive remarks and compliments between peers or within networks.
Conference choreography: Panel organization that presents the same inner circle but leaves out the voices of opposition.
Conformity due to fear: Adhering to poor arguments or old concepts to avoid conflict.
Institutional mimicry: Replicating the opinions, tone or strategies of already established scholars rather than coming up with an original position.
Grant politeness: Modifying criticism during the review of a project aims to ensure further cooperation or approval.
Collegiality involves being respectful and not submissive. Academic honesty survives on thoughtful disagreement and open debate. Praise should reflect merit not manipulation.
Flattery that may open the momentary doors, but it slams the intellectual growth down. Academia does not need more admirers; rather, it needs more truth-tellers.
Photo Credit: Google Gemini
About Authors
Prof. Dinesh K is a seasoned professional with extensive expertise in the military, academia, business and charity sectors. He holds a PhD from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee and made history as the first soldier to secure doctoral admission offers from the prestigious IIT and IIM. He is a former CEO of Pomento and currently the David De Cremer Chair Professor of the Future of Work at Woxsen University, where he also leads the Strategic Enforcement and Technology Intelligence Lab and AI and Analytics Research Cluster. He can be contacted at linktr.ee/realdrdj
Dr. Nidhi Suthar is a seasoned academician and a businesswoman. She is a management professor at Woxsen University.