I remember the point in my graduate training when I realized that I was capable of reading and understanding scientific articles outside my field, even those that involved methods and terminology I was not familiar with. This was quite a revelation to me at the time because I was under the misapprehension that, once I completed my training, I would only be able to critically review papers in my own field or closely related fields.
What changed my mind was a course I took (plant biochemistry) in which the professor assigned published articles on a variety of topics to us to read and discuss. Quite a few of the papers involved molecular and other techniques that were as mysterious to me as the process of flying might be to an elephant. Being a conscientious student, however, I endeavored to teach myself how to read and understand scientific papers about unfamiliar topics. To make a long story short, I developed a procedure not unlike the one recently posted by Jennifer Raff, a Research Fellow in Anthropology at the University of Texas (which I'll get to in a moment).
With my method, I was able to effectively critique all the assigned papers and to enthusiastically participate in class discussions (we were graded on our class participation). I discovered that not only could I hold my own with the rest of the class (mostly biochemistry grad students who were more familiar with such articles), I was able to point out critical flaws in the studies that no one else saw. My strong background in statistics was particularly useful in poking holes in experimental designs (to my surprise, most of the assigned papers reported no statistics whatsoever, not even standard error bars). When the professor began calling on me for my assessment of a paper's experimental approach and whether the conclusions were supported by the data, I knew I would never wonder again whether I could understand any scientific paper and whether its findings were valid.
If someone with scientific research training can feel inadequate when faced with an unfamiliar topic, imagine how non-scientists must feel–particularly science writers who are assigned the task of writing a newspaper or magazine article about a new discovery reported in a scientific journal. To help such folks, Jennifer Raff has written a nice blog post called "How to read and understand a scientific article: a guide for non-scientists".
Her post is not only a good guide for non-scientists, it is an excellent primer for science students and even scientific researchers wanting to improve their skills at reviewing papers.
In this series of posts, I'm talking about various ways women in science (as well as other minorities) can increase their online visibility. In case you are wondering why this is important, see this post, this post, and this video. In brief, male scientists tend to have a greater online presence than female scientists. I'm talking about personal websites, profiles on science networking sites (e.g., ResearchGate, Google Scholar Citations, Epernicus), science blogs, Twitter and Facebook (used specifically to spread the word about scientific accomplishments), writing articles for Wikipedia (and being the subject of articles), to name a few things.
It's not clear why the gender difference exists, but the lower visibility of women can have a range of negative effects....from perpetuating the idea that women cannot be successful in science...to discouraging girls and young women from envisioning a career in science. In the past, women in science were overlooked or actively excluded by authors of textbooks, organizers of science conferences, and editors of journals. Because such platforms were controlled by others, women had no voice in promoting their contributions to science and little recourse when their work was overlooked. Even today, major science journals discriminate against women, although apparently not consciously (see this surprising admission by the editors at Nature published 4 days ago).
Today, we have many options and opportunities to show how women are contributing to science. The internet has helped to put us on equal footing with male colleagues in having a voice in describing our contributions to science. We should take advantage of it, not shy away. Various efforts are in fact underway to encourage more women in science to improve their online visibility...from editing Wikipedia articles to establishing blogs chronicling their experiences in science.
Some may be reluctant, thinking that they need IT skills to create an online presence. However, it's ridiculously easy to set up a scientific profile on a networking site, a blog, or a personal website where you can showcase your publications, your ongoing science projects, and your research group. If you've got a Facebook page, you already have the know-how to set up a profile on ResearchGate, Google Scholar Citations, or similar sites.
In the last post, I described Google Scholar Citations as one place to establish an online profile. In this post, I'll focus on ResearchGate, which is designed like a social networking site....for scientists. Their website claims over 2.2 million members. On their homepage, the interactive piechart indicates that medicine and biology have the most members and the most publications. To see how the site works, you are forced to create an account. So, I'll give you a brief tour that will give you a peek inside without having to sign up.
Once you log into ResearchGate, it automatically identifies publications that you've authored and asks you to check off those that are yours. Once it identifies you, ResearchGate then searches for other pubs as well as the full-text files and uploads them if available. You can add a photo and other information to your profile. Your main contributions page will look like the screenshot below (using the top-cited ecologist from the previous post as an example):
At the top of the page is your "RG Score", which is calculated "based on how other researchers interact with your content, how often, and who they are. The higher their score, the more yours will increase." Selecting the RG Score will take you to a page with additional analytics of your interactions and how you compare to other ResearchGate members.
Below the profile are two tabs: contributions and info. Your publications are listed under the contributions tab. To the right is a running tally of total publications and numbers of articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, and other items. Below that is a listing of followers and people you are following. Your co-authors are also listed at the bottom of the page.
Selecting the pub title or the document image will open up another page (below) where additional information is presented about that article, including the abstract, full-text article (if available), datasets, additional text files, and media. You can upload a pdf of your published article...if you have permission to do so. ResearchGate seems to add these automatically if they are available somewhere on the internet. On my profile, I've additionally uploaded "research briefs" (described previously) for each publication; these can be viewed full-screen online or downloaded (and you can see on your analytics page how many times your pubs are viewed or downloaded).
Topics for discussion are listed under the Info tab; here, people can ask questions and discuss topics. There are general topics such as "climate change" and "botany", which thousands of people are following, but you can add specialized topics of interest to you. Anyone can post a question, and others reply, providing, in some cases, links to relevant articles or simply their opinion. You can see examples of questions in the screenshot below.
Another option is that members can start a "project" with "benches", which allows you invite others to share files and post comments...this would be convenient for a research group with members scattered around the world.
Overall, I found ResearchGate easy to navigate and to upload and organize my publications and supporting materials. If you prefer your profile to be private and only interact with a select set of colleagues, you can do this by changing the privacy settings. ResearchGate differs from Google Scholar Citations in that it quantifies a scientist's reputation based on a combination of factors, including publications (and their impact factor) as well as how many others are following that scientist and their interactions with others with high RG scores. This aspect is interesting because it means that someone with fewer pubs or lower-impact pubs, e.g., early career folks, can raise their RG score by being more social and networking with colleagues, something that women often excel at. If you're already skilled at socializing on Facebook, then you'll likely be at an advantage here. Several of my colleagues have profiles on ResearchGate, and from what I can tell, the site has a more equal representation of women (about 48 % according to this reference) compared to Google Scholar Citations. I also like the option of uploading full-text articles, media, and datasets to share with others as well as a way to track views of your profile or pubs.
On the downside, ResearchGate does not fully explain how they calculate the RG Score (or the contribution "total impact")...at least I couldn't find it. Also, the emphasis on ranking scientific standing promotes competitiveness, which is can be off-putting, especially to women. ResearchGate also has been criticized for sending spam to members' coauthors (inviting them to join). You are also encouraged to invite your co-authors to join. But that's how Facebook and other social networking sites attract members; all you have to do is ignore the invitation if you receive one and don't want to join. If any of your co-authors has a profile and articles in ResearchGate, however, then you're already in their system, and anyone searching for your name will likely find a page listing some of your publications.
One additional worry might be that such sites will end up being another online time-sink (as Facebook is for some). I suppose that might be a possibility, but it doesn't seem likely (for me at least). One could choose to establish a profile on a site like ResearchGate and only periodically visit to add new publications, much like updating a CV. But for those who like to socialize or want to expand their professional network, this type of site might be a good option.
In addition to ResearchGate, there are other science networking sites such as linkedin.com, and epernicus.com. Some people have profiles on multiple sites, which increases their overall visibility. Of course, there are other ways to increase the online visibility of women in science. In coming posts, I'll talk a bit about those and my experiences with them.
The SpotOn Blog is developing a toolkit of useful resources for female scientists wanting to raise their online profiles (note that some of these resources are useful for male scientists as well). This effort is a really good one because it encourages women to get their names, their work, and their stories online. As I've tried to emphasize on this blog, women must be their own advocates and make sure their voices are heard. The Web is a great place to promote your accomplishments, advertise your skills, and generally make yourself more visible.
The resource pack has links organized into the following categories:
Important websites where every female scientist should have a profile Other websites where it could be interesting for a female scientist to have a profile/be listed Women in science on Twitter Good tips about science communication Where to create my blog Good places to get a post hosted Online communities
Everyone is invited to add links to useful blog posts, websites, twitter lists, and other online resources.
In the last post, I talked about the "elevator speech" and why it's important to have one. I described an experience that made me realize few students are trained to explain their research in terms that the average person can understand and appreciate. Such an ability is not only good for an individual scientist (e.g., making a good impression on a potential employer or talking to the press), but it's good for science and the public's impression of scientists. When scientists are unable to explain their work in everyday terms or relate it to the average person's experience, then the public may conclude that the research area is esoteric or not relevant to them.
During fieldwork, I've frequently come into contact with the public. I've been approached by local fishermen, land managers, tourists, and various bystanders who ask what I'm doing and why. I always take the time to talk to them and explain the importance of my work. And I always answer carefully because you never know when the questioner might be someone of influence (member of Congress, local politician, land owner), which has happened to colleagues. I'm especially circumspect if they happen to be armed (which has occurred to me a few times).
I was confident about myself, but wondered about my research group. So a number of years ago I decided to test them to see what they might say to a member of the public about our work. I routinely held lab meetings and required semi-annual progress reports by group members. Each person (student, technician, post-doc) would get up and give a short presentation about their project, and then I and other team members would ask questions or provide constructive criticism. At one of these progress reviews, I told the group that I wanted to do something slightly different. After the last person's presentation, I said, "OK. You've explained your work in terms that we understand. I want you to pretend that you are out in the marsh doing your research and a local fisherman has stopped you and asked what you are doing. How would you explain your work in everyday language?"
Well, you can probably guess what happened. If you read the last post, you may have guessed that everyone proceeded to spout off an incomprehensible explanation, even more convoluted and abstruse than their scientific presentation. It was as if the challenge of explaining things to a non-specialist caused a brain malfunction. This outcome turned out to be highly entertaining, and before long, we were all in stitches. The succeeding speakers, who had laughed uproariously at the first person's attempt, did no better. The more they tried to explain, the worse it got.
Despite the hilarity, I was horrified at what my team might be saying to members of the public they encountered in the course of their work. At the end of the meeting, I told the group that I wanted them to think about this and by the next progress review to have a short, simple explanation of their work to present to the group.
I could see that they all expected a repeat of the first exercise: to stand up and say a couple of sentences. They would be ready for that...no problem. So I came up with a slightly different plan. I enlisted the help of one of the administrative staff, a woman who agreed to dress up and act like a local fisherwoman, which would create a more realistic situation. When the next progress meeting convened, I asked the group if they had their speeches ready. They all eagerly responded that they were ready and confident. I told them that I had invited a local fisherwoman to help with the exercise. A few of them looked stunned, but soon began laughing when they saw it was a staff member.
However, she played her part perfectly.
When the first person started explaining their project on sea-level rise, she immediately interrupted and said she did not understand what sea-level rise was. Did they mean vitamin C? She proceeded to ask questions of each speaker, forcing them to explain unfamiliar terms and asking why they were studying those particular topics. She soon had everyone flustered and stammering. It was another eye-opening experience. Whereas the first exercise revealed the lack of a good elevator speech, the second one showed that just having a canned elevator speech is not sufficient in a real world situation, with real people who ask difficult questions.
Some of my research group really liked the exercise and went on to become quite good at explaining their science to lay audiences. Others were less enthusiastic and did not seem to understand the reason or the need for the exercise. My goal was to get them (and me) to start looking at our research from an outsider's viewpoint and how best to explain it. Turns out, it is very difficult to forget what we know about a topic and see it through the eyes of the non-expert.
How good are you at explaining your work? How do you know? A good place to start is with your friends and family (assuming they are not in science). You can not only practice on them, you can ask for their feedback as to how you are doing. At family gatherings or similar events, you will run into people who will ask what you've been doing lately. You can then try out your elevator speech, tailored for the non-specialist. If your speech is short and intriguing, it will stimulate questions. With experience, you'll learn what works and what doesn't. You'll eventually develop responses appropriate for different situations and audiences.
Then, when you run into that Important Scientist or Potential Future Employer at a conference and she asks you about your work, you will know exactly what to say.
In the last post, I talked about factors that may (or may not) increase the citations of your papers. Some of the bibliometric studies report correlations that have led to dubious recommendations about how an individual researcher can increase their own citation rate. For example, one study found a correlation between numbers of references in a paper and the subsequent citations that paper garners. A Nature News article took that finding and suggested that researchers might improve their citation rate by including more references in their papers. Such strategies rarely work because the observed relationship may not be due to cause and effect and, in any case, reflects statistical outcomes involving thousands of papers.
So what does work? In this post, I'll be talking about some strategies that are more likely to attract attention to your publications and that simultaneously provide other benefits.
Why Worry About Citations?
But first, some of you may be wondering why anyone would worry about how many citations they have. Citations provide an indication, along with other metrics such as the h-index, about what impact your work has on your field of science. Citations are important because most search committees and tenure review panels use citation information (e.g., in Thompson-Reuter's ISI Web of Science or Google Scholar Citations) to assess a candidate's credentials and potential for success. Whether you like it or not, think citation metrics are valid or not, they will likely be used at some point in your science career to assess your qualifications for a future job or promotion. Not knowing your citation rate or h-index is like a student not knowing their GPA. Without that information, you have no way of gauging how you stack up against the competition or how much you may need to improve.
As long as review panels emphasize such metrics, we will have to be at least cognizant of, if not proactive about, our citations. Being proactive does not mean trying to "game" the system, as some of the bibliometric studies seem to suggest. Instead, it's much better to seek valid ways to promote the visibility of your work, which will lead people to your publications and hopefully to cite them. I'm going to take the results of one of these bibliometric studies and show how you can take the concept and apply it in a more useful way to promote your work.
Some evidence suggests that open-access papers garner more citations than papers requiring a subscription to access. The implication is that when more people can easily acquire and read your paper, the more likely they are to cite something in that paper. However, many scientists lack the funds to pay for open-access for all their publications. Some may think that a less expensive option is to offer their papers as pdfs on their personal websites. There are two problems with this option. First is that it's unlikely that your website (and your papers) will show up on the first page of an internet search of your topic of research, unless you are working in a really obscure field. Second, and more importantly, unless you have the journal publisher's permission, posting pdfs of your published papers on your website is copyright infringement. When you signed that copyright agreement with the publisher of the journal, you gave over that right to the publisher.
Is there anything else you can do to attract attention to your papers, perhaps increasing citations of your work? The answer is yes. Some people post the unformatted manuscript version on their own website or in an article repository. Through these versions, others can access the content of the work without paying the subscription fee to the journal. However, there is another way, which is the topic of this post.
A Better Idea
You can create an attractive, informative, and interesting brief, which describes the essence of a paper, along with some key photographs or other images. The image above illustrates an example of a template I've used to create a one-page brief for a number of my past publications. I used Pages, which is an Apple application, to create this template, but PC users can use Microsoft Publisher or a similar program. These applications have a number of templates to choose from and come in a range of visually pleasing designs. They are very easy to use and to modify for your purposes. They can be one pagers or more, but generally shorter is better.
The briefs that I've created for my publications typically contain the abstract or a summary of the paper along with a sentence or two stating the take-home message plus several photographs or figures. Note that it's important not to use any graphs or other figures from the published paper unless you get permission from the publisher. However, I've found it easy to pick one of the many unpublished photos or other images from my media library to illustrate my briefs. Most journals will allow an author to post the abstract of a paper on their website because these are usually publicly available anyway (as long as you provide the journal citation along with the abstract). So adding the abstract to your brief is usually acceptable (however, if you are not the author, using an abstract this way is not advisable). If you think using the abstract verbatim might be challenged by a publisher or is just too technical, then it's relatively easy to write another, less technical summary. Within the brief, I provide the citation information and create a hyperlink to the journal page where the full paper is published. I also include links to my websites and my email address where someone can contact me for a reprint of the technical paper.
Click on the above image to see the additional instructions for creating a brief with this template.
You may be thinking that this is a lot of effort that takes too much time. However, I found that once I created the template, that I could complete a research brief in five to ten minutes, depending on how long it took me to find appropriate photographs. The process involved four steps:
1. I find three photographs to illustrate the paper (you might choose to show only one photo). I have an extensive media library of photographs I've accrued over the past 40 years, so there's no problem with choices. I usually only need to modify the size of the image so that the brief is not too large. Then, the images can be dragged and dropped into the photo placeholders. This takes only a few minutes.
2. I add the paper title, authors, and journal citation in the appropriate places (along with the hyperlink). A couple of minutes.
3. I copy and paste the paper's abstract into the main text box and resize to fit. Another minute or two.
4. I then think of a sentence or two to summarize the significance of the work or the take-home message and type that into the appropriate text box. That may take a few minutes.
And that's it.
Once the brief is finished, it can be exported as a pdf or jpg, which can then be posted on a personal website. I've created briefs for around twenty of my recent publications and posted these on my professional profile website. On the webpage where my publications are listed, I've put a thumbnail of the research brief alongside the relevant citation. When the viewer clicks on the thumbnail, the brief opens up in a high resolution image that can be read online. I also provide a link that allows the brief to be downloaded as a pdf.
What Are the Advantages?
The beauty of this approach is that images or pdfs (as opposed to text) can get your brief listed higher on a search engine ranking. For example, if there are a lot of text-based listings for the topic of your research, your paper is likely listed on page 41 of a Google search. On the other hand, if there are no or only a few images associated with your research topic, then your brief (posted as a jpg file) will more likely show up on the Google Image page.
Even if you don't want to go to the effort of creating a research brief for every one of your journal articles, just posting a thumbnail photo alongside each text citation will get your work noticed by search engines looking for images about a topic. You want to be sure, however, to include appropriate keywords in the file name as well as any other tags or alternate titles associated with that image so that Google can associate it with you and your research.
Another idea is to post an image of a conference poster, which offers similar information as your publication, but in a non-copyrighted format. You can create a one-page flyer, similar to the ones people often offer as poster take-aways, and add it as a thumbnail image next to the journal citation in your publication list. Because it is visual and clickable, people will have immediate access to the key information that is in the journal publication. Again, you want to include somewhere on the poster image a link to the journal article, your professional website, and email address.
By the way, videos about your research are very effective in getting a high ranking by search engines, especially when your topic has mostly text-based listings. I've created and posted several videos about my research on YouTube and professional multimedia galleries. When a search is conducted for the topic of my research, the Web listings do not include links to any of my technical papers on the first page, but the only videos listed on the topic are mine and show up on the first page of a Google search. So anyone (especially students) searching for information on the topic of my research will see the link to my video, likely click on it (because it is visual and potentially interesting), and ultimately be led to my technical papers, which are listed at the end of the video and in the text description accompanying the video. On my webpage listing of publications, I have a link to these videos alongside those relevant citations. At this point, so few scientists use videos to describe their work, that this strategy will put you in a league of your own.
The feedback I've gotten, especially from students, is that they really like these one-page summaries and videos. They bring the dry, sometimes esoteric, information in the technical paper alive. The photos and video footage appeal to the current generation of students who are accustomed to acquiring their information from audiovisual media. They obviously appeal also to visual learners and to those students and scientists in other fields who want to know more about a topic, but not enough to read the technical paper.
So in addition to making your publications more visible to those likely to cite it, this approach will also help you reach a broader audience. Explaining your research in a way that is interesting and understandable by non-technical audiences will help promote the value of science to the general public and to familiarize the public with the scientists behind the research.
Another advantage of developing audiovisual communication products to accompany your technical articles is that they can fulfill the "broader impacts" criterion required by some funding agencies (e.g., NSF). In addition to having a clear plan to address the "broader impacts" criterion, successful proposals include evidence that the PI has previously developed materials that, for example, explain the significance of their work to broader audiences such as the general public or policymakers. Having created semi- or non-technical fact sheets, podcasts, interactive graphics, and videos to explain your technical work shows review panels that you have the capability of meeting the broader impacts criterion. I'll talk more about this aspect in future posts.
You may have noticed that some people are incorporating mobile barcodes (QR (quick response) codes) into their presentations and posters. Instead of handing out flyers or reprints that people invariably lose (or throw away) on the way home, you can insert a custom barcode on a corner of your poster, which when scanned with a smartphone, will direct the user to your website or other URL where they can access the information of interest (your profile, a reprint, a detailed method, a pdf of your poster or presentation).
This option not only saves a few trees, it leads people to other information about you and your work. The image inserted into this post is a barcode I generated at one of the websites that provides the service for free. When scanned with a barcode scanner, this takes someone directly to this blog.
You can also download a barcode reader for your smartphone. Then you're all set to provide a direct link on your poster to additional information about you or your work and to access similar information provided by others via barcodes on their posters. On your professional website (you have one, right?), you simply set up a page that contains the relevant information and use the page URL to generate the unique barcode.
You can also use barcodes on your business card or your CV to direct people to your website. Another use for barcodes at conferences is to direct job hunters to a website with detailed information about applying. Instead of posting a flyer listing a long URL that people may not copy correctly, add a barcode that they can scan with their phone. Just generate a unique code for the webpage advertising the job, fellowship, or other item of interest and add it to the flyer.
Not everyone has a smartphone, however. To help these people out, you can use a shortened URL instead of a barcode. Note the text just below the barcode in the above image. This is a shortened URL that is automatically generated along with the barcode. If you copy and paste that text into your search engine address line, it takes you to my blog. You can also generate a short URL at sites such as Google url shortener. Here is a short URL for my last post: http://goo.gl/arVsx. This shortened version of the original URL (http://www.womeninwetlands.blogspot.com/2012/08/self-plagiarism.html) is much easier for someone to copy and to tweet.
Have any of you readers used barcodes yet? If so, how have you used them?
Those of you familiar with rhythm and blues singer, Bettye LaVette, will recognize the title of this post as the lyrics from the song, "Joy", written for her by Lucinda Williams. I was sitting in the audience listening to LaVette singing this song when it hit me that these lyrics described something I've been feeling lately....about science.
It may sound strange that I had this reaction to this song, which reflects LaVette's early career struggles in Detroit, New York, and Memphis. LaVette has been singing for a long time now (she's in her 60s), but only recently has been "discovered", earning a Grammy nomination for "Best Contemporary Blues Album" and and an award for "Best Contemporary Blues Female Artist". But there are many parallels between the competitive worlds of music and science in finding success and simultaneously keeping one's "joy".
LaVette has been in the music business for over forty years, much of it struggling to gain respect and recognition for her work. If you listen to her perform today, you see why critics call her "the greatest soul singer in American music". LaVette is a consummate performer. She's not just technically good; she reaches out and grabs the audience emotionally. Her voice literally oozes raw emotion, gritty and defiant. The video link above does not do justice to the actual, live experience, but gives some idea about her style. As I listened to her performance, I recognized (without knowing anything about her history) the years of practice and focused effort required to attain the level of expertise I was witnessing. I knew I was in the presence of someone unique, someone who had struggled to become the best. She made it seem effortless, of course. That's the hallmark of an artist at the top of her profession.
Many talented women working in competitive fields are often overlooked. As we all know, this is the story for women in science. Actually, more than overlooked. Many of us struggled to even be allowed to practice science. Even without the early discrimination, however, women would have had a difficult time (and still do). Science is a hard profession. It's especially hard when our work goes unrecognized, and the joy we once felt at doing science is slowly, inexorably ground out of us. The things that attracted us to it in the first place (curiosity, passion, concern for the environment, a desire to help others) are gradually bled out of us in the struggle to find research funds, to publish, to fit into a male-dominated world, and to gain a modicum of respect.
This is what LaVette sings about in "Joy". Of her early years trying to make it in a hard industry. First in Detroit, then New York, and later in West Memphis and Muscle Shoals (Alabama). The song's lyrics describe how she lost her joy and looked for it in different places; in the end, she sings that "I don't want you anymore...cause you took my joy" and finally "you took my joy...I want it back". The song describes the loss of joy, the subsequent search for it, the despair at ever finding it, the dismissal of what led to the loss of joy, and then the angry demand for getting her joy back.
I can only imagine the struggles a young, black woman went through during the early 60s in America and in the highly competitive world of music. She put out her first single in 1962, but did not cut her first album until 1982--twenty years later. And twenty more years went by before she began to receive major awards and recognition commensurate with her talent. How many of you could continue in this way, for so long, for so little? But she clearly kept at it, honing her craft. During the performance I saw, LaVette talked ironically about her recent "discovery" by the music industry and the awards and nominations that are now being showered on her. I think there are a number of women, in many laboratories and offices around the world, who are shaking their heads at similar ironies.
How can such obvious talent be overlooked for so long? I've talked about "talent" in previous blog posts and how it is not something one is necessarily born with, but instead is the result of "deliberate practice" conducted over thousands of hours. Perhaps a person is borne with a suite of physical, intellectual, and emotional attributes that predisposes them to be musicians, artists, or scientists. But it still takes enormous amounts of time and focused energy to acquire the necessary technical skills and confidence to outperform everyone else with those inherent attributes. To observers, their performance seems effortless; hence, the perception that it did not require much effort or practice to achieve. We may intellectually recognize that a famous musician or athlete has to spend a lot of time practicing her craft, but emotionally we believe that they must have a special talent that no one else has.
I think people believe in "natural talent" because they don't want to consider having to invest all that time and effort on something and then fail to succeed at it. It's easier to say, "Well, I tried, but I just wasn't as talented as Bob or Sue (who outperformed us)." Unfortunately for these people, the belief that talent, not hard work and practice, is all that is required to succeed will doom them to mediocrity, if not outright failure. Many other people, especially young people, want success and fame now, in their twenties, certainly by their thirties. Why should it wait until they are old and can't enjoy it? It's much easier to watch someone like LaVette perform and think, "I could do that, only if I had the talent." Or luck. That's the other belief about "sudden" success. One only has to watch the early tryouts for American Idol to see that hundreds of thousands of young people believe they have the talent to be performers, yet have exerted little effort at developing their skills. The naivete is simply breathtaking.
The truth is that to become really good at something, even if you have some basic "talent" for it, requires a lot of work, sacrifice, and time. My guess is that even for the best, it is about ten percent talent and ninety percent drive, hard work, and endless (deliberate) practice. Maybe a few, exceedingly lucky people hit it big early in their career, but if you look at the history of most early achievers or so-called prodigies, you find that they have spent at least ten years at hard practice before they were "discovered".
If so much time and effort are required to attain a high level of skill, how can one possibly keep going without reward or acknowledgment for so long? That has been the lot of LaVette in the music field and is also the story of many women in science. We plug along while watching less talented men sail past us. But we are catching up. A few women are getting the recognition they deserve. And the struggle has given us something that those, who have not had to work hard, lack. We have put more effort into developing our talents, creating our unique voices, and learning to persevere. We've had to, to survive. LaVette's style, for example, would not be so emotionally charged, so compelling, or so distinctive without that long, hard experience getting to where she is today. I think the same is true for women in science. We've had to work harder and smarter than male colleagues, but it has made us unique.
There is a message here for women in science, which is why I'm describing Bettye LaVette's story. It's not that we should keep struggling because success will eventually come. That might be one eventuality of perseverance at a career and a welcome reward at the end. It might be one lesson to learn from her story. No, the message is about not losing one's joy in the pursuit of one's dream. From the moment we make the decision to embark on a science career (or any career), we begin to give up some of those early ideals, passions, dreams, and other emotions that attracted us in the first place. We begin to compromise as we encounter the realities in the process of training, getting a job, and keeping that job. Some of us manage to hang on to a few of our early dreams and passions, but I doubt that there are many mature scientists out there who are completely satisfied with their scientific emotional well-being. All one has to do is ask, "Do you still feel the same joy and excitement (about your work) as you did when you first dreamed about being a scientist?"
In the beginning, many of us are simply driven by the need to know and are completely satisfied with finding the answer (as well as the process of looking for it). We don't need an award to feel good about figuring something out. But somehow, we gradually move away from that simple satisfaction to wanting more as we advance through school and into the working world. For some, it's to beat the competition to publication, or to gain international standing in the scientific community, or to win prestigious awards or positions on panels, or all of these. These achievements are all false goals that bring only temporary satisfaction and, worse, feed the desire for bigger and better accolades. We get focused on numbers of publications and citations, our H-index, landing a big grant, or getting our next paper published in a Glamor Science Mag. These are the measures of "success" by which others judge us and may be important for us to advance in a science career, but we should take care that the pursuit of such things does not take over our emotional well-being. If we do, we risk losing that original joy of seeking knowledge and making discoveries.
When I was a child, I experienced the simple pleasures of discovery and learning. I saw that scientists could continue seeking knowledge and experiencing that joy of discovery...and make a career of it. What a deal! I recognized that this aspect set a science career apart from many other types of careers one might choose from. I could actually do work that I loved to do and be paid for it. Interestingly, this emotional reward that scientists enjoy is the same for musicians and artists. Their work is their passion; their passion is their work. This is another interesting parallel that the Bettye LaVette story has reminded me of: how closely related science and art are from an emotional (and creative) standpoint.
What I did not realize, when starting out, was how difficult it would be to sustain that original joy; how career setbacks, professional jealousies, work-life pressures, struggle for respect and recognition, and other factors could dampen and bury my joy. I imagine that that is what LaVette is singing about. In the process of doing what she loves (singing), she lost her joy. The business (and politics) of music must interfere greatly with the sheer joy of performing music. And the same is true of science. Women in science may find themselves singing the same song...if they are not careful.
So after almost forty years in science, I can relate to the refrain, "they took my joy....I want it back". I don't just want it back; like Bettye LeVette, I'm demanding it back.
You finally have your own lab and are ready to hire one or more technicians and/or a lab manager plus post-docs and students. Do you hire someone who is like you or completely different (assuming candidates of equal qualifications)?
Some scientists seem to hire clones of themselves. Perhaps they assume that it will be easier to interact with someone who is more like themselves or that their work habits will be more to their liking. With a large team, the thinking might be that a homogeneous group will work better together, be more productive, and efficient. Early in my career, I favored people who were similar to me in terms of work habits, organization, and personality. I discovered, however, that a more diverse group or partnership is better at problem solving and more creative overall than one with very similar personalities and skills.
When I started out as a PI, I had one assistant/technician, and the two of us worked side-by-side doing fieldwork and labwork. I felt most comfortable working with another woman whose personality and work habits were similar to mine. In other words, a clone of myself. My research often took us on field trips of a week or more to distant locations where we would be spending 24/7 together. I knew that I wanted someone who (like me) was hard-working, uncomplaining, quiet, well-organized, and generally task-oriented. After technical qualifications, personality and work ethic were important considerations for me. Anyone who has done fieldwork knows that personality clashes or disagreements over work habits can frequently arise and cause much misery, especially for the project leader. Such clashes can, of course, occur in the lab or office setting, but are magnified during travel, living in close quarters, and in conjunction with various logistical and other travel-related problems, which add to the overall stress. Fieldwork is difficult enough without having to deal with someone who has to be constantly cajoled into getting up early or working late to finish a task or who complains about everything. If my research had been totally lab-based, I could see (maybe) working with someone whose personality was, let's say, abrasive, as long as they did the work. However, I knew that the person I selected as an assistant also needed to be a good travel companion and would be easy to get along with.
My point is that my early decisions about a research assistant were driven by a narrow focus on personality and anticipated working conditions (in addition to the obvious technical qualifications). It did not occur to me then that there might be advantages to having someone quite different from me as an assistant. This early situation also differed from later in my career when I had a larger research group with up to ten people (employees, students, volunteers). With a larger group, there was a greater opportunity to work with people who were very different from me in personality and problem-solving skills.
When we consider diversity in relation to the workforce, it is usually from a legal, EEO standpoint: race, religion, age, gender. However, that is not what I'm referring to here. I'm talking about diversity in interpersonal skills, work habits, and personality traits that influence important skills such as problem solving. When you are hiring someone, you are concerned with two main aspects: their technical qualifications and how they will fit into (and contribute to) the work environment in your lab. As employers, we tend to focus on the technical aspects and neglect to fully examine how that person will complement the existing team. If we do consider the latter, it may be to seek out someone like us, rather than someone very different. This approach can, of course, get us into trouble if it leads us to exclude certain protected groups that happen to differ from us. Aside from the legal ramifications, this approach is short-sighted in terms of developing a team that has diverse problem-solving or interpersonal skills and consequently has a broader range than a more homogeneous group.
I did not begin thinking seriously about diversity with respect to my research group until a problem arose with a postdoc. This postdoc caused a lot of bad feelings within my research group, which included students and several master's level technicians. Her main problem was "PhDitis"--she felt that she was superior to anyone lacking a Ph.D., regardless of their experience and skills. At the time, I had several excellent technicians who had master's degrees, but with years of job experience. Some were experts in certain lab analyses....techniques that this postdoc had never performed herself. Yet she still felt that she knew better than they did...and often expressed this sentiment. As you might imagine, there was quite a bit of grumbling. I had tried talking to this postdoc about how skilled my technicians were and that they really responded better when their expertise was appreciated and acknowledged. Unfortunately, these words fell on deaf ears. So I came up with another approach.
After doing a bit of reading about team diversity, I assigned my group a paper on the topic (which, unfortunately, I can no longer find--this was some years ago) to be discussed at our weekly lab meeting. I also asked each person to take an online test (similar to this one) that would identify their "personality type"--according to a Myers-Briggs typology. When we met, we listed everyone's personality type and discussed the makeup of our group, whether our personalities were complimentary or duplicative, and which personalities our group was missing. This exercise was intended to be a fun way to get everyone to understand and appreciate what each person brought to the group. I don't recall the exact breakdown, but we had quite a diversity of personality types.
Most everyone seemed to find the exercise enjoyable and interesting (and a welcome departure from our usual lab meetings). Most everyone understood why I organized this particular lab meeting and expressed a positive reaction to my added comments about how each person, regardless of background or educational achievement, was important to the success of the research we conducted. There was one exception. You can guess who did not recognize the reason for this meeting and who argued about the relative contributions of individuals to a team effort.
Although I failed to change the post-doc's mind about the value of team members with different educational backgrounds, I developed a deeper appreciation of diversity and the potential benefits to a research group and to me as a PI. When I later considered applicants for positions in my group, I especially looked for well-qualified people who were complimentary to me in personality. I'm more introverted and tend to be a perfectionist, for example. So I began hiring assistants who were outgoing and had interpersonal skills that I lacked. A PI who is naturally gregarious but disorganized might benefit, for example, from hiring someone who was highly organized, efficient, and more introverted. Someone else might be a "big-picture" kind of thinker and would benefit from hiring a person who is more detail-oriented. If you are a PI who tends to be "low-key" and modest (and reluctant to self-promote), you might benefit from an assistant who talks a lot about your research successes, someone who essentially does your bragging for you. These are just a few examples. You can probably think of more...that especially relate to you and your situation.
Everyone has one or more short-comings in terms of work habits and/or personality. Even if you have a well-rounded personality and good work habits, it's unlikely that you will possess ALL the problem-solving or interpersonal skills to cope with every professional situation. For example, previous posts have talked about leadership styles here and here, which can differ dramatically in terms of interpersonal skills. Leaders tend to fall into two types: those with good interpersonal skills and a focus on their followers' needs and those who are more task-oriented. The first type of leader has mostly communal qualities: nurturing, sensitive, sympathetic, warm, collegial; the second type has agentic qualities: aggressive, dominant, ambitious, controlling. If you fall into one of these categories, it's likely that you lack the qualities of the other type of leader (although it's possible to combine some qualities of both). Some of these traits might be changed with effort, but others are hard-wired and resistant to change.
Recognizing my limitations (e.g., interpersonal skills) was a prerequisite to identifying the type of assistant who might enhance my team. It's not easy to examine one's limitations, but the effort can pay off in the long-run.
We are discussing a hypothetical scenario involving Jennifer, a scientist working for a consulting company, who has a problem with her co-worker Bob (see previous two posts). Jennifer has discovered that Bob is communicating on her behalf with the manager of a refuge where she is leading an important project. The refuge manager feels more comfortable communicating with Bob, even though Bob is not part of Jennifer's project. Instead of calling or emailing Jennifer, who is the project lead, the manager is contacting Bob, with whom he is better acquainted and has dealt with in the past.
Jennifer initially thought that Bob was just trying to be helpful....but now is not so sure.
I posed the possibility that Bob might have an ulterior motive for his actions, evident by his persistence in intercepting and responding to messages about Jennifer's project. In the last post, I noted that Jennifer failed to deal effectively with Bob in the beginning. In addition to straightening things out with the refuge manager, she should have confronted Bob and asked him not to respond to any more messages on her behalf...to instead forward emails or otherwise direct any communications to her. Instead, she made the mistake of thanking Bob for the forwarded messages, which apparently encouraged him to continue.
Let's assume that the situation has not improved, and Bob is still interjecting himself into Jennifer's affairs, even after being asked to stop. This is a warning sign that Bob is probably trying to undermine Jennifer.
What should Jennifer do? Storm into Bob's office and demand that he butt out? That's not likely to work, especially if Bob is deliberately trying to sabotage Jennifer's project. Even if Bob is simply a bumbling idiot who doesn't realize the damage he might be doing to Jennifer, her tirade will likely backfire. Should she go to her boss and complain? No, that will just send the message that she can't take care of the problem by herself.
Jennifer takes some time to think about her options and comes up with a three-pronged approach for dealing with Bob and his interference in her project:
1. First, she stops responding to or acting upon any emails or other messages from the refuge forwarded to her by Bob. She does not thank Bob or contact the refuge manager about whatever the email was about. By no longer acknowledging Bob or acting on these forwarded messages, Jennifer takes the first step in removing Bob as Gatekeeper of the information flow between her and the refuge. Bob no longer gets any feedback that his interference is working. The refuge manager, no longer getting responses to messages sent via Bob, begins to have second thoughts about communicating with Bob instead of Jennifer.
2. Second, Jennifer sends email progress reports to the refuge manager each month, enthusiastically highlighting significant findings. And, most importantly, she copies her boss at the consulting company on these emails (not Bob). This action accomplishes several things. She shows her boss that she's keeping the client updated about the project (which will counter any hints by Bob that she's having communication problems). Her boss responds to these messages with, "Great work, Jennifer! Thanks for keeping us all informed." Her emails regularly remind the refuge manager of who is in charge of this project and that the consulting company is supportive of her in this role. In addition, she creates written documentation of her communications with the refuge (in case the refuge manager later complains). Finally, her regular email correspondence prompts the refuge manager to begin responding directly to her once it's obvious that she is the one with knowledge about the project, not Bob.
3. Finally, Jennifer develops another line of communication with the refuge. She befriends the refuge manager's administrative assistant who readily agrees to provide Jennifer with a heads-up about any goings-on that relate to her project. The assistant sees and hears everything and, having had her own run-ins with the "good ole boys", is more than happy to help Jennifer out. This action might be useful if the manager continues to be obstinate about keeping Jennifer informed about refuge activities involving her project.
In the end, Jennifer successfully completes her project. Her boss is very pleased with how she kept the client (and him) informed about the project. He is confident that he can put her in charge of larger projects in the future.
And what about Bob? Well, he tried to tell Jennifer's boss about her communication difficulties with the refuge. However, things didn't turn out quite as he imagined. The boss, instead of asking questions about Jennifer, began quizzing Bob about his role in the situation and why he was wasting time monitoring Jennifer's activities. Bob ended up being reprimanded for interfering with Jennifer's project and was put on probation.
In the last post, I described a hypothetical situation in which a female project leader (Jennifer) is having difficulty with some of her male colleagues. Instead of contacting her directly with some important information affecting her project, the manager of a refuge where she is conducting a study has contacted someone else in Jennifer's organization who has no involvement in the project (Bob). To make matters worse, Bob is attempting to "help" her by answering these emails (instead of simply forwarding the messages to her and informing the sender of his error).
Over the years, I've experienced variations of this annoying situation. Female colleagues have also mentioned this problem. The details change, but the underlying theme is the same. Instead of contacting the woman who should be receiving the message directly, the message sender instead talks or writes to another man who may be the woman's supervisor, employee, student, collaborator, husband, or the guy in the next office. The man who receives the message typically forwards the message, sometimes immediately, sometimes not. He may inform the sender of his error, or not.
So what's going on here?
First, I think that people want to deal with people with whom they feel most comfortable. They prefer communicating with someone who is similar to themselves. This is the reason the refuge manager in the hypothetical scenario persists in contacting someone he knows and feels at ease with. Similarly, the instances I've personally encountered involved men who seemed to be more comfortable communicating with other men and who were uncomfortable interacting with a woman (of equal status). In these cases, it's male workers who feel more at ease interacting with other males, especially concerning more "masculine" endeavors. We can imagine other situations in which the gender roles are reversed or which involve other contrasting types of people.
I imagine that there are also those men who, because of their stereotypical thinking, feel that their message cannot be understood by a woman and needs to be communicated to a man (who will understand and might have more experience communicating with the woman in question). There are fewer of these dinosaurs nowadays, but they still exist.
Second, this situation is exacerbated by an intermediary who tries to help out by responding to the message. This man may be trying to be helpful or he may be doing something else entirely. In our hypothetical scenario, Jennifer's colleague, Bob, is receiving messages about Jennifer's project and instead of simply forwarding them to her, is responding on her behalf. We don't have enough information to know whether Bob is trying to be helpful or has an ulterior motive for his actions. Regardless of his motives, however, by responding to the message (instead of informing the sender of his error), Bob has set himself up as Gatekeeper of communications between Jennifer and the refuge manager.
This type of situation may be a minor annoyance or it might be a Problem. If Bob is trying to help, it's just a brief irritation. On the other hand, Bob may be taking advantage of the situation to undermine her. Jennifer is a new employee in a consulting company, where competition among employees may be intense. Bob may be trying to insert himself into a project that he wanted to lead, but instead was given to Jennifer. She is new, so may not be fully aware of office politics or have had time to identify the sharks.
Jennifer responded initially by contacting the refuge manager directly to say that she had received the information (but did not point out his error in contacting Bob). I think this action was appropriate, given the circumstances. She sent a clear message to the refuge manager that she was the rightful recipient of the information (which hints that they should contact her directly in the future). This was the minimum action that someone in Jennifer's situation should have taken.
However, Jennifer did not address Bob's actions. She should have asked him not to respond to any future messages from the refuge on her behalf and to simply forward the messages to her. Actually, this step was critical not only to insuring that Bob could not interfere, but so that the refuge manager would have no other option except to contact her directly. As long as Bob was available, the refuge manager could ignore Jennifer's request for direct communication. Also, by dealing with Bob in such a direct way, she would also gain some insight into his motives for interfering in the first place (critical information for Jennifer to survive in her new workplace). If Bob persists in his role as Gatekeeper, then Jennifer will know that he is not simply trying to "help" her.
If Bob continues to intercept messages meant for Jennifer, then she has a much bigger problem on her hands....one that will take some creative thinking to resolve. In the next post, I'll consider how Jennifer might handle Bob's persistent interference.
Image Credit: Still image from "Cool Hand Luke" (1967), Jalem Productions
Jennifer is a newly-hired scientist at a consulting company. Because she has extensive experience in her field, she is immediately put in charge of a project to assess long-term impacts of the BP oil spill on bird populations within a wildlife refuge. The work entails interactions with refuge personnel, who are all male and might be best characterized as "good ole boys". She initially meets with the refuge managers to finalize details of the project and her team's schedule. Time passes, and the project is going well and staying on schedule.
Then Jennifer receives a puzzling message from a coworker, Bob. One of the refuge managers has sent him an email concerning activities that might interfere with Jennifer's fieldwork. Bob is not part of this project, but has worked with this refuge in the past on other projects. Instead of just forwarding the message to Jennifer and telling the refuge manager that he's contacted the wrong person, Bob replies for Jennifer saying that he'll make sure her team is informed. Jennifer feels unsettled, but can't quite put her finger on what's bothering her about this.
She decides that it was just a simple mistake, and sends a brief email to the refuge manager that she appreciates the heads-up and will modify her sampling schedule accordingly (and does not mention his faux pas). A couple of weeks later, however, her field technician mentions that Bob has been getting and responding to additional emails from the refuge manager about her project.
What is going on here? Should Jennifer be concerned? Should she take some action? If so, what should she do? In the next post, I'll analyze this situation and offer some possible responses.
Image Source: modified photo from Library of Congress Prints and Photographs
We are talking about leadership style choices for women. More specifically, I'm considering leadership qualities that are more consistent with the feminine stereotype (nurturing, cooperative, modest) versus the male stereotype (assertive, dominant, outspoken). In previous posts, I've examined the two extremes: Leading from the Heart (traditional female qualities) and Command and Control (traditional male qualities). In this post, I look at a leadership style that combines both traditionally masculine with feminine qualities: the Chimera.
By definition, a chimera is a composite creature, sometimes having disparate parts (lion's head, goat's body) or composed of genetically distinct tissues. I've stretched the definition somewhat to describe the female (or male) leader who displays both traditionally female and traditionally male behaviors. One might argue that it's an inappropriate choice, since chimeras are typically viewed as being grotesque creatures that don't fit in. I'm taking a different view...one in which such a composite combines the best qualities from two disparate sources and creates a new whole that works well.
This woman has adopted a mixture of strong leadership qualities that are stereotypically male, while retaining some communal qualities. By being assertive, ambitious, and outspoken, she sends the message that she's capable of going toe-to-toe with the boys. However, having a few communal qualities (cooperative, nurturing) will show her to be in synch with her traditional gender role. Many successful female leaders fall into this category. As I noted above, however, this approach does not always put a woman on equal footing with a man whose natural gender-based tendencies are congruent with strong leadership qualities.
There is also another set of leadership styles, often referred to as transactional vs. transformational. The transformational leader sets high standards of behavior and establishes herself as a role model by gaining the trust and confidence of her team. She frequently discusses past achievements with her subordinates and offers new ideas for achieving even higher goals. This type of leader mentors subordinates and encourages them to advance to the point that they outgrow their current position and move on to a higher level position elsewhere. This leader often retains strong ties with these mentees, eventually becoming colleagues and developing long-term working relationships. The transactional leader, by contrast, manages subordinates by setting up defined responsibilities, monitoring their work, and using a reward/punishment approach to make corrections.
A woman who exhibits the transformational type of leadership behavior might be much more successful at being perceived as a strong leader, compared to the transactional approach. This would be true, of course, for men as well. However, it might be an added quality that helps a woman overcome the disadvantages of the gender-leader inconsistency. Research suggests that women, more than men, adopt aspects of the transformational style, including: 1) motivating their followers to feel respect and pride in being associated with them, 2) exhibiting excitement and optimism about future goals, and 3) mentoring. Perhaps women can use these in place of aggressive or competitive behavior to demonstrate strong leadership.
Well, there you have it. The topic of leadership styles is obviously complex, and I've only skimmed the surface. However, the material I've covered has helped me to better understand what the issues are for women in selecting a leadership style and some of the options that might work better than others. Every person's situation is different, so that the choice of leadership style must be tailored to the particular circumstances. This point also means that a leader must be prepared to change styles as conditions change. Moving to a new job, transitioning through career stages, or interacting with different groups of people all require periodic reassessment of leadership modes. Those leaders who insist on using the same style no matter what will likely run into trouble at some point.
If you are in a leadership position and are having difficulties, it might be beneficial to reassess your leadership behavior. If you are a woman, it is especially important to determine what your organizational expectations are for its leaders and how gender roles are viewed in your workplace. This is where female role models may be especially important. Those women who have successfully established themselves as leaders in their fields will have adopted those specific behaviors that work. By observing them and how they lead will be invaluable to younger women struggling to develop their own styles.
I'm discussing three leadership options for women. In the last post, I described a leader who exhibits traditionally female qualities (nurturing, cooperative): Leading from the Heart. In this post, I will consider a leader who has for the most part adopted (or naturally has) masculine characteristics congruent with strong leadership (assertive, competitive, aggressive, etc.): Command and Control.
I know several women, both in academic and non-academic settings, who favor this style. Although they are successful in the science profession and may be strong leaders, they are not always viewed in a completely positive light. Some of them seem to have difficulties gaining the respect of subordinates, peers, and/or superiors. According to experts, the problem may lie in the inconsistency between gender role expectations and leadership expectations. A woman who is assertive and outspoken may be seen as presumptuous and over-confident. If she has mostly discarded all feminine features, she is especially criticized for having violated her gender role and is seen as a flawed person, regardless of how successful she is professionally. Although this probably explains some of the reactions to such women, I'm not so sure this is the whole story.
I’ve particularly intrigued as to why such women are frequently challenged (or disrespected) by subordinates (male and female). I don’t have enough in-depth information to be certain, but I can speculate about some possibilities. I suspect that a woman who is assertive, aggressive, and competitive, but whose work is not of the highest quality (evidenced, for example, by publishing in low-tier journals or not bringing in large grants) would be viewed as having an over-inflated ego. The same might be true of a young female who has not yet established a strong professional status, but behaves as if she has. The fact that she is acting in a contra-gender fashion might add further to the negative perception. (A man, by contrast, might not be downgraded as much for having an over-inflated ego).
In decision-making, a leader may behave democratically and allow subordinates to express opinions or make decisions autocratically and discourage any input from subordinates. If a woman is highly regarded by peers and successful, then behaving autocratically would seem to be justified (to a degree, but not as much as for a male). On the other hand, a woman who is perceived as having a too-high opinion of herself would have special difficulties with subordinates. If she’s not that successful and also ignores her subordinates’ input by being autocratic, then she will likely not be seen as a capable leader. Eventually, her demands are seen as irritating and repressive, and subordinates begin to rebel, challenging her decisions... at first behind her back, then face-to-face.
An autocratic approach could also sully interactions with peers--other scientists. In joint projects as PI, she might insist on making all the decisions and not invite co-PIs to participate (or veto their opinions, if they do not coincide with hers). You can imagine how well this would go over with her colleagues. I've seen this situation on several occasions involving lead PIs who were female. They treat co-PIs the same way they treat their staff: assigning tasks, monitoring their work, and excluding them from the decision-making process even though they may have co-designed the project and are responsible for a major aspect of it. I suspect that such women either think this behavior is expected of them as a leader or they are over-compensating for low self-esteem.
In any case, adopting the Command and Control style of leadership can be problematic for a woman, especially in interactions with colleagues. Perhaps a senior woman who has reached the top of her profession might successfully implement this style of leadership, but I would expect that even she would experience some resistance.
In the last post, I promised to muse about the different leadership choices women may make.
Women more often exhibit communal qualities (nurturing, cooperative, supportive) and are generally concerned with the welfare of others. Men more often exhibit agentic qualities (assertive, aggressive, confident, attention-seeking), characteristics traditionally ascribed to a strong leader. A woman seeking a leadership style may behave in a mostly feminine fashion (Leading from the Heart), in a masculine manner (Command and Control), or in a mixed style (Chimera).
In the following posts, I will try to explore a bit more deeply each of these options, looking at why they work or don't work well for women. In this post, I take a closer look at the leader who exhibits mostly traditionally female qualities. This person may be male or female, but the female will be behaving in a manner consistent with the feminine stereotype.
This leader is concerned with the welfare of subordinates and may exhibit few qualities expected in a strong leader. She may be timid, backs down when challenged, is tentative rather than confident (in stating an opinion or giving orders), is usually soft-spoken, rarely speaks up in meetings, and is more happy being in the background. On the other hand, she is empathetic, concerned, honest, collaborative, encouraging, and supportive--attributes that make her good at team-building and mentoring. Such a woman may struggle with her leadership role, especially if she finds herself in an organization that favors the Command and Control type of leader and/or where there are few other leaders like her.
However, there is a growing recognition that the take-charge, autocratic type of leader is not compatible with the 21st century world where people from diverse backgrounds have to work together and where complex problems require teams of people who can all contribute creative ideas. The networking skills of the female leader may prove to be an asset in the future, rather than a liability. A woman in science, especially in academia, also will be training or mentoring others, which requires many communal qualities. A female scientist in a non-academic setting will likely have a staff who look to her for encouragement, vision, and emotional support.
I can think of several women who fall into this category. Not surprisingly, in many science settings such women still are not generally viewed as leadership material and are undervalued. Will this change in the future, as networking and other communal skills become more appreciated or in demand? Is this a viable choice for a woman in science now? Is this style more likely to be successful in academia compared to other settings? I don't have answers to these questions, but I do think that this style might work for some women in some circumstances.
In the next post, I consider the Command and Control style of leadership.
Jane is a PI at a research laboratory and has been asked by the lab director to be team leader for a new, high-profile project. The other team members are mostly male, some of whom have served as team leaders for previous projects. Jane has never been selected before, but was tapped in this case because she is the acknowledged expert on the topic of this new project. Jane is very excited about this new challenge and dives right in, setting up meetings and organizing plans for tackling the project.
She wants to show that she's a capable leader by taking charge and being decisive. In the first meeting with her team, she lays out her plan for the project, assigning different members to tasks based on their respective areas of expertise. As she is going through her plan, she notices several people frowning and others who are making inaudible, but clearly critical comments to their neighbors. When she finishes, no one says anything...they just sit and stare. The atmosphere in the room is definitely hostile. Later, Jane learns that her team members have complained to the director that she is too "bossy" and "dictatorial". Jane is mystified by this reaction because on other projects male team leaders typically set forth the overall plan and assigned roles in exactly the same way she did.
What happened to Jane in this hypothetical scenario is not uncommon. Women who display traits normally associated with strong leaders (assertive, independent, dominant, out-spoken) are criticized as being "bossy" or, worse, the other "b word". In contrast, if a woman behaves in a more feminine way (soft-spoken, hesitant, nurturing), she is judged to be a poor leader. A recent paper Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms explores the classic no-win situation that women leaders may experience. This work is summarized in The Glass Hammer, a website for women executives.
The problem lies in the inconsistent expectations for leaders and for feminine behavior. Leaders are expected to behave in a dominant fashion, be assertive and outspoken--characteristics that are consistent with stereotypical male behavior. A man behaving like a leader is more readily accepted. However, a woman who displays normal leadership qualities is viewed as being presumptuous; her behavior clashes with the feminine stereotype. This Catch-22 situation is sometimes referred to as the Double Bind.
These leadership stereotypes work against women, sometimes in a subtle way, but can have a definite effect on a woman's career. If an assertive, outspoken woman is passed over for a job or promotion because she's judged to be "overbearing", while a man with the same characteristics is hired, this is discrimination. Similarly, if a woman is seen as being less qualified for a leadership position because she's "too nice" and is not selected on this basis, this too is discrimination. The key here is that a decision is made based on gender stereotypes, not on actual capabilities. The fact that such an action would be considered discriminatory and illegal would probably come as a surprise to some people who hold such beliefs (e.g., based on traditional social values or religious beliefs). They may view women (and some men) with predominately communal attributes (cooperative, nurturing, caring) as being incapable of being strong leaders. However, anyone who makes hiring or promotion decisions based on such reasoning may find themselves in very hot water.
Not all women in science have problems in terms of leadership. For some, their leadership style may coincide with the expectations of the organization. In academic settings, communal behaviors are compatible with teaching and training, so that women may safely display such characteristics without detracting from their overall role as a leader. However, in other science jobs, mostly involving research and other competitive endeavors, there may be a greater expectation for a leader to be more aggressive, forceful, confident, and outspoken. It is in this setting that the organizational expectations for leader behavior and female behavior are major determinants of a woman's experience...and, ultimately, her career success. If the expectation in the organization is for the Command and Control type of leader and a woman's natural inclination is to be something else, there will be problems. Some men may also run into this conundrum and have similar difficulties being viewed as capable leaders.
A woman (or man) who is unaware of leadership pitfalls may fall prey to such biases. She may think that her problems with subordinates or superiors or her failure to advance in the organization are her fault. She may begin to question her capabilities, which leads to a loss of confidence and a downward spiral effect on her overall performance. By itself, leadership difficulties may not be overwhelming, but may tip the balance along with the added pressures to publish, bring in high-profile grants, and balance family and work. This is what I suspect contributes to the "leaky pipeline". I also think that subtle disadvantages for women and advantages for men compound over time, leading to greater disparity at each career transition. Women in STEM fields see others (men) who do not have to work as hard and/or seem not to have the same difficulties. The failure to meet expectations has an increasingly greater impact as a woman advances from student to professional. This is extremely discouraging.
When women are given opportunities to perform in a leadership role, they may find the position difficult or they may even completely fail...and never recognize why. Superiors, co-workers, and subordinates may unknowingly contribute to such failures because of their biases. Some women eventually decide they are just not cut out to be a scientist or engineer and quit.
The disadvantages from various sources accumulate over a career, until a breaking point is reached. Leadership bias is only one of several potential ways a woman may be disadvantaged. However, it's interesting that leadership skills increase in importance with each step up the career ladder from student to post-doc to assistant professor/junior scientist to tenured professor/senior scientist and beyond. Lacking any formal leadership training (and the natural acceptance afforded men in leadership roles), a woman is at a huge disadvantage. Without leadership skills (or savvy about avoiding gender-leader inconsistencies), a woman may become increasingly disadvantaged as she is faced with more and more leadership responsibilities at each career transition.
So, what can women do? One obvious answer is to be aware of leadership pitfalls and how inconsistencies between organizational expectations and gender roles may arise. Developing good leadership skills is also important. But what leadership styles work for women and why? In the next post, I consider three options women have to choose from in a leadership role.
