Catch Me If You Can

Imagine the following situation:

You are a PI in charge of a large project to conduct an environmental assessment of the potential impact of a large Energy Utility on an adjacent natural ecosystem.  With the sizable grant awarded to you, you hire a postdoctoral researcher, technicians, and graduate students to conduct the work.  It is the responsibility of the postdoc, in addition to conducting the field research in his specific area of expertise, to collate all the data from all tasks and to write the final report to the Energy Utility.  

Although this postdoc is fresh out of graduate school, he is an experienced teacher and administrator who returned to graduate school to get a Ph.D. later in life.  You feel very confident in his abilities, especially because of his maturity and past experience, which is a primary reason you hired him for this job.  He is gregarious and well-liked by all on the research team and appears to be a diligent worker.  Things seem to go well during the data acquisition phase; everyone is working hard, spending many hours in the field and laboratory.  As the project is nearing the final months, the postdoc announces that he has accepted an offer to return to his previous position (in another country) but, not to worry, he's almost finished writing the report.  You are not worried because you have high confidence in him and you've been working closely with the technicians and graduate students who are responsible for particular aspects of the report and have also been shown portions of the work supervised by the postdoc.  As often happens in large projects, there are delays.  When it becomes clear that the report cannot be finalized by the date the postdoc must leave, you acquire a no-cost extension for the project and the postdoc agrees to finish up the writing remotely.  

A day or two after the postdoc's departure, you receive a message from him saying that his briefcase containing all the data files and the only copy of the draft report was stolen in the airport.  He's very sorry about this, but he won't be able to meet his obligations.  You are stunned and try to contact him.  All your efforts to communicate fail.  You try not to panic, thinking that at worst, you will just reconstruct everything from the copies of the files he left.  You meet with the technicians and students and explain the situation.  

Your head technician begins delving into the files and discovers some puzzling things.  After several days, the technician comes to your office and tells you that he thinks the postdoc fabricated much of the data he was supposed to have collected personally.  The only data he's confident of is what he and the other technicians and students collected.  However, cross-checking the original datasheets from field notebooks and lab books indicates that the postdoc cooked some of the summary files (altered the data) so that everything will have to be reconstructed from the original datasheets.  And the data the postdoc collected will have to be discarded and either recollected or eliminated from the report. 

You begin to investigate further and discover that the postdoc never really received a Ph.D.--his graduate committee failed him when it became clear he had fabricated some of his dissertation research.  The letters of reference from the adviser and other faculty to you were all forged.  Because the letters were from well-respected professors at a credible university and department, you never bothered to check with the postdoc's graduate school to determine that he actually received his degree from that university....


In other words, you've been the victim of an elaborate con.

If you were the PI in this situation, what would you do?  If you were one of the students or technicians and saw something that made you suspicious, would you report it to the PI?  If you (PI or team member) later encountered this person at a conference or other venue, what would you do?

Lie to Me

In the previous post, I posed a hypothetical situation in which a post-doc, Jim, suffers from overconfidence in his abilities, and despite Jim's obvious deficiencies, the lab director thinks he's a valuable contributor to the research project you lead. 

If you've read previous posts, you will recognize that Jim (and possibly the lab director) suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. People with this condition are unskilled and incapable of accurately assessing their abilities as well as those of others. The reason is that the skills required to be competent are often the same skills required to evaluate that competence.  They tend to greatly overinflate their performances relative to those of others.  The more ignorant they are, the greater their confidence in themselves.

In the hypothetical situation described above, the project leader is caught between a rock (Jim) and a hard place (lab director).  You have laid out Jim's deficiencies, backed up with ample data, for both Jim and the director...only to have both of them ignore your logical argument and restate their illogical position about Jim's competence.  Their reaction is due to their overall inability to make logical judgments and to recognize that they have this problem.....a vicious cycle that is difficult to break. The more logic you throw at them, the more firmly they adhere to their mistaken opinion and confidence in that decision.

Most of us in science are pretty logical people; so when confronted with such illogical behavior, we go a little nuts.  We simply cannot understand how someone can totally ignore the evidence in front of them.  We make the mistake of thinking that if we just produce enough evidence or a clear-enough argument, that we'll prevail.  However, that is not going to happen with people like this. Think about religious zealots or climate deniers....nothing you say is going to change their minds.  You have to approach such people with a clear understanding of their psychology, not based on your preconceived notions that everyone is as logical as you are.


What does work?  Research has shown that training, for example in social reasoning, helps improve Dunning-Kruger folks' cognitive abilities.  How does that help you, as a project leader? You're not a psychologist; nor do you have time to be training someone who should already have skills in logic.  Quite a conundrum. I don't think there is a really good solution to this situation.

If I had control over this person's position, i.e., was Jim's supervisor, I would place him on probation and clearly outline what outcomes are expected for all tasks, set deadlines for those outcomes, and spell out the consequences of failure. The plan would be detailed in such a way as to leave no wiggle-room for Jim to blame external factors, if he fails.  Both of us must sign this performance plan, acknowledging our understanding of what's expected and the consequences.  If he protests, I would reply that since he is so confident in his abilities, he should have no problem meeting these basic expectations (which I have set up for all others on the team).  If Jim manages to improve and meets his responsibilities, then things will have been improved for the team, and everyone wins.  If Jim fails, then I have documentation to take steps to dismiss him; but I won't feel badly because I've been totally fair and upfront with him.

However, in the hypothetical situation posed, I would not have control over Jim's position, and I also have to deal with the director who suffers from the same cognitive deficit as Jim. In this situation, I would want to get Jim off my team so that his performance no longer harmed me or others.  Here is one possible tactic:  I would suggest to Jim that he should have his own project to run and that he should run the idea by the director.  I would support Jim's proposal when the director asks my opinion.  Convincing the director should not be difficult, given his lack of logic skills and being Jim's biggest fan.

The key will be to have Jim report directly to the director rather than to me.  If the director tries to make me oversee Jim's project, I have two possible responses: 1) I cannot be in charge of Jim's performance unless I'm made his official supervisor (in which case, I can put the previous plan in motion), 2) I state that I have my hands full leading my own project and cannot be expected to handle a second project, and/or 3) I remind him that making me responsible for Jim's project defeats the purpose of giving Jim his own project.  Hopefully, this would not be too much logic for the director to handle.

Assuming I can pull this off, I will no longer have Jim on my team.  Even if this means more work for the team...well, we already were having to redo his work. And the director will eventually see for himself Jim's incompetency. If not, then I might want to start looking for another job--because the director is probably not judging my performance well either.

Some might feel that the above plan is unfair or underhanded.  Actually, this problem with Jim is due entirely to Jim's incompetence and to the director's failure to deal with it.  The two people responsible for the problems the research project is experiencing (mistakes, slow progress, low morale) should have to deal with them, not me and not the other productive team members. The latter situation is what is unfair.  My plan takes the false beliefs of Jim and the director and forces the two of them to deal with the consequences.

So to summarize how to deal with someone suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect:

1. Don't make the mistake of assuming they think like you do. Trying to use logic doesn't work because they do not think logically.
2. Focus on their overinflated beliefs and take advantage of them in formulating your strategy.
3. Don't cover for them when their incompetency causes problems.
4. Find a way to make them responsible for the consequences of their incompetency.

Image Credit: Jon Wilkins 2011; Creative Commons; http://www.darwineatscake.com

Lost in Translation

What would you do if faced with the following situation?

You are part of a research team that is involved in a large project. One of the team members, a post-doc, is very enthusiastic and outgoing. Jim exudes confidence in his abilities and contributions to the project. Unfortunately, Jim is a total disaster in the lab, and his writing is abysmal.  Worse, he is blissfully unaware of his incompetence, despite repeatedly being shown his mistakes.  As project leader, it falls upon you to clean up Jim's mistakes, reassign work (that has been compromised) to other team members, and revise his reports.  Jim's manuscripts have to be completely rewritten from scratch, but he still expects to be listed as first author and behaves as if the revised version is his work.  The other team members have become resentful of Jim and complain to you often. 

You cannot replace Jim because you do not have the authority; only the lab director can dismiss someone.  The lab director is totally enamored with Jim, whose overconfident behavior has convinced the director that he is one of the most valuable members of the research team. The director is also a person who lacks the metacognitive skills (or time) to accurately assess Jim's real competency.  You have tried to convince the director that Jim's performance is substandard and is hurting the group's progress, but he remains adamant in his confidence that Jim is competent.  The director believes Jim has just made a couple of mistakes, which could happen to anyone.

What would you do?  See the next post for how I would respond. In the meantime, take a look at the video below for a nice explanation of the Dunning-Kruger effect...and see if it suggests any solutions.



 

After Hours Dilemma

The Problem:

What should a PI do if a new technician asks to be excused from working after hours? In this case, the technician has expressed a reluctance to work in an empty building. If the PI had made the expectation for after-hours work clear from the beginning, then the obligation to make allowances in this technician’s case is lessened. We’ll assume in this instance, however, that there was no explicit discussion during hiring. It may be that the problem did not occur to the technician until after she spent a few evenings alone in the lab. It’s also possible that she is simply looking for a way to avoid work.

Either way, the request by this new technician requires a careful response.  She cannot excuse the technician without giving the rest of the staff the same option.  Even if most of the staff would continue to come in anyway, the fact that one person does not will ultimately lead to general disgruntlement (someone will have to take over this technician’s after-hours duties).  Also, if the research depends on after-hours work, the PI cannot afford to allow it.  So it would be a mistake to give this new technician or anyone else permission to opt out of their duties. If the research can be accomplished without after-hours work, then another option might be investigated. But we’ll assume that’s not the case here.

The Solution:

The PI should begin by meeting with the technician and explain that work after hours is necessary for the success of the lab’s research program. She should acknowledge the technician's concerns about safety, but explain that she would like to come up with an alternative solution.

The PI should then ask the technician specifically what she is concerned about. The technician has stated only that she does not want to work alone in an empty building. Is she concerned about having an accident and no one to help, being the victim of an attack in an empty building or parking lot, or just what? Once the PI has a better idea of the specific concern, then she can ask the technician what would alleviate that concern (other than not working after hours). She should ask if the presence of other people would alleviate her anxiety or if better building security would help. The PI should ask what the technician might do to contribute to the solution (e.g., make use of a campus transport system or have a spouse or friend drop her off and pick her up on the days she must work late).

Once some other options are identified, then the PI and technician can work out the best solution together. It may be that some simple security changes would be sufficient to allay the technician’s fears.

If all else fails, the PI may have to implement a “buddy system” requirement for work after hours—for all employees and students. I realize this option sounds inconvenient and possibly unfeasible in some situations. But it may be the only solution in this particular case. Furthermore, this might be something to consider for the lab anyway--aside from the situation with this technician. Accidents can occur anywhere and any time, and less experienced staff or students may do some really dumb/dangerous things in the lab, particularly when supervisors are not around.

So, the answer to the question I posed initially is not completely straightforward. The PI is not legally obligated to excuse the technician from working after hours, since this was never promised during the interview. On the other hand, the PI failed to ensure that the technician understood the after-hours requirement for the position. So the PI bears some responsibility for the situation and therefore shouldn’t just turn down the request. The PI is also obligated to ensure the safety of her staff.  The correct response is to address the technician's concerns about safety and to find a solution that does not jeopardize the PI's research program.

In the future, the PI should ensure that new hires understand (and acknowledge) the duties and expectations of the job.

PI Precautions

This post continues the discussion about what a PI is obligated to do in the event her technician asks to be excused from working after hours.  See previous two posts for background.  In this post, I suggest some basic precautions that the PI should have taken. 

1. Job description. It is always a good idea to spell out in writing (even if your institution doesn’t require it) what the official duties are for each position in the lab and specifically what this work entails—working long hours, travel involving overnight stays, exposure to bad weather or hazardous conditions, etc. These specifics should be part of any job description and explained verbally to job candidates. To be doubly sure, a PI can request the new employee’s signature (or email response) on the job description, acknowledging that they understand the duties and have agreed to them. This precaution will avoid future disagreements over who said what and when.

2. Other staff. Applying policies unequally among staff is a good way to create a disgruntled lab group, or even stimulate an employment discrimination suit. The solution here is simple:  apply all policies equally.   This means that if a PI excuses one technician from working after hours, then the option must be extended to all of them. If research depends on staff being able to work after hours, then the PI would want to avoid having to offer this option. If this expectation is made clear to job applicants and expressly stated in the duties, then there will be less likelihood that employees will ask to be excused.

3. Safety. First, the PI must ensure that her lab and staff are meeting basic safety and OSHA regulations. This is to protect them and the PI (in the event of an incident).

a. At a minimum, the PI should have protocols in place for dealing with likely emergencies (chemical spills, fire, etc.)—and these protocols should be in writing (preferably in a binder readily accessible in the lab).

b. There should be emergency numbers posted prominently.

c. Standard safety equipment (coats, goggles, masks, eyewash station, etc.) should be available and in working order.

d. MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) should be available for all chemicals in the lab and compiled in a single place—for easy access.

e. I would also suggest holding regular lab group meetings to go over safety protocols (minimum once per year or whenever there is a large turnover of staff)—and document that you held this meeting.

f. If your staff does fieldwork, there should be a standard protocol such as filing a “float plan”, holding a “tailgate safety meeting” prior to departure, having emergency phone numbers in hand, cell phone or satellite phone, first aid kits, etc.

g. It’s a good idea for all staff to have taken first aid and CPR training. My agency requires it and annual refreshers. Many institutions arrange for such training through the Red Cross.

h. If your group handles especially hazardous materials or operates special machinery or vehicles, ensure that all have received official training and adhere to regulations.

If the PI has done all the above, then in the event of an incident, there will be less chance that the PI will be blamed for negligence. It’s not a guarantee, of course, but failure to have done these things can be used against the PI in the event of litigation. It is unwise to assume that an accident is unlikely or that a subordinate (or their family) is unlikely to sue in the event of injury or death. A PI must assume that accidents will happen no matter how benign the setting or how careful the staff.

In terms of building security, a PI cannot usually afford to install surveillance cameras or alarms, hire security guards, or implement elaborate building access restrictions. However, these are all suggestions that can be made to the institution—and the PI should be sure to document that she made these suggestions and what their response was.

All of the above suggestions are what should be done prior to being faced with the hypothetical issue of the fearful employee. But they don’t really provide a solution to this case. The next post provides a more specific solution.

Decisions, Decisions

This post is a follow-up to the previous post that described a hypothetical situation in which a PI has hired a new technician who later expresses a fear of working after hours in a nearly deserted building. Others of the staff regularly work outside of normal hours because of the nature of the research. I asked if the PI is obligated to excuse her from those duties.

The majority of readers (so far) think that the PI is not obligated to comply with this request (see poll at bottom of page).

In this post, I will begin to examine the issue, and in succeeding posts suggest some solutions to this specific situation.

There are several aspects to this issue. Let’s take a look at each one.

1. Job description. First, the PI must consider what this employee’s job description says and what was said when she was hired. If the employee expressed a concern about working after hours during the interview, and she was told that she would not be required to do so, then there is an implied contract.  The PI may be obligated to uphold this contract. If the PI (or HR) specified, on the other hand, that she would occasionally or routinely have to work after hours (or whatever the case might be), then she accepted the job under that agreement. 

2. Other staff.  The PI must apply any policy equally to all staff in her lab.  She cannot let one staff member be excused from some aspect of work and not extend the same possibility to everyone (exceptions might be for someone who is handicapped, for example, but this would have likely been discussed upon hiring). Failure to do this could lead to a discrimination lawsuit and land the PI in very hot water.

3. Safety. Even if the PI thinks that safety is not a real issue in the building or whatever the work situation entails, failure to take proper precautions could expose the PI (and institution) to legal problems if an accident occurs.  The PI is responsible for the safety of those staff she supervises (and anyone who spends time in her lab). Anyone working alone in an office, a lab, or in the field can have an accident (chemical spill, falls), suffer some health problem (allergic reaction, heart attack), or be the victim of a criminal act. Not only does the PI not want any harm to come to her staff on ethical/moral grounds, she also does not want to put herself into a position of liability. If an accident occurs, the first thing that the institution will investigate is whether the PI followed safety regulations (OSHA and institutional regulations) and did everything to ensure staff safety. If the PI hasn’t taken reasonable precautions, guess who is going to be blamed?

In the next post, I'll consider some options a PI may consider in dealing with this situation.

You Are Excused?

Hypothetical situation:

You are a PI and have hired a technician (female). Your lab's research occasionally requires work after hours and on weekends to monitor experiments or to complete critical analyses. After a few months, the new technician expresses fear at working in a nearly deserted building and asks to be excused from such work. The security at your workplace is not great, but there have never been any "incidents".  You have other staff who routinely perform after-hours research.  Are you obligated to agree to the new technician's personal preferences?

What do you think? Express your overall decision in the poll (for results, see bottom of page).  I'll provide my thoughts on the issue later.

How to Handle Sexual Harassment by a Subordinate

A reader wrote in a few weeks ago about a problem with an undergraduate assistant, sent as a comment on an older post. I am reproducing her statement here in case anyone would like to suggest a response or relate a similar experience.

"Hi, I was recently referred to this blog by a friend. I realize this is an older post, but I was hoping that someone might have some good advice. I am a woman PhD student and my research is in remote areas. I am a pretty small woman often mistaken for being a bit younger than I am and I have a pretty causal personality. Due to funding, I am only able to hire one field assistant and last year it was an undergraduate male. I wanted to have a relaxed work environment especially as we were camping. Unfortunately, my assistant began making inappropriate comments such as "you're a such a cute little boss" when I would outline his tasks. I found this pretty surprising (and inappropriate) and I wasn't sure what to do. I believe I indicated that I found this to be out of line, but such comments still occurred sometimes. This year, the top candidate for my technician position is again an undergraduate male. I was hoping someone might have advice about how to set the correct tone from the beginning and how to handle any comments over the line. While I prefer to be pretty casual and relaxed, I believe that I should be a little more formal this time?" Anonymous

Here's my take on this type of situation.

In some cases where subordinates overstep their roles and behave inappropriately (making sexist remarks, challenging their superior's authority, undermining the boss by making disparaging remarks to other employees, etc.), the problem may arise from the subordinate's problem with authority. It may also be inadvertently encouraged by the boss who tries to be "friends" with the employee. The worst case scenario is a combination of the two.

The potential employee with authority problems may be difficult to spot during interviews, but sometimes they might drop some clues in response to carefully crafted questions. You have two opportunities to deal with this type of person:

1. During the interview and hiring process, you can eliminate those candidates that do not appear to fit with the work situation (taking orders from a superior or working with a woman) and

2. On the first day of the job when their duties are explained. In the case of fieldwork in a remote setting, you can explain that because of safety and various other issues that your instructions must be followed. Be clear that any inappropriate behavior or failure to follow directions will result in their being sent home immediately. I take this approach with all undergraduate and graduate students and field assistants who accompany me on field trips or in field courses. Some PIs or field course instructors write out rules of conduct and safety precautions, which the student must sign in order to participate. You must follow through with the stated consequences. This can be inconvenient if it means making arrangements for their transport or cancellation of the trip. However, the consequences of ignoring warning signs can be much worse, especially if you are a lone female with a threatening male assistant.

The other situation involves the attempt to have a friendly, less formal relationship with subordinates. People usually have strong feelings about this-both for and against informal relationships. I personally think it's a mistake to set up a less than professional relationship with subordinates. The reason is that you cannot be truly friends with someone who is not your equal, and as a supervisor you have power over that other person no matter how friendly you are. By encouraging an informal relationship, a supervisor may eventually have serious behavioral issues to deal with in the future, but also puts the subordinate in a precarious and unfair situation. Your attempt at friendliness or informality may invite inappropriate behavior if the subordinate misinterprets your intentions. It's particularly important for females to consider the consequences of establishing an informal relationship with subordinates. It can be difficult enough establishing one's authority without inviting unwanted challenges from those who might take advantage of your good nature and desire to have a relaxed work environment.

Can you have enjoyable interactions with your research group and still retain a formal, professional relationship? Yes, definitely. I joke around with my group and we discuss general
topics of interest, have group lunches, etc.  However, I maintain a professional distance and socialize with my own peer group. 

Graduate students, post-docs, and technicians may have particular difficulty establishing authority over undergraduates or others because they are often not perceived as having any real power. If someone is helping you with your project and is being paid for their time, then you should speak up immediately if they fail to show respect for your position. You have to judge just how to react based on what they do or say.

Comments of a sexually harassing nature should be dealt with immediately and forcefully--not doing so can be a mistake if things escalate and you have to report it later.  There is no excuse for that type of behavior, especially if it continues after the harasser is warned.  The law is based on the victim's perception, not the harasser's.  So if you perceive a co-worker's or subordinate's actions as being threatening, then you are justified in reporting it.  If anyone tries to discourage you from reporting harassment, this is illegal and also grounds for complaint.  The US Equal Opportunity Employment office has useful information and guidance.

The situation described by "Anonymous" would not normally be terribly threatening (in an office or lab), but the remote field setting puts a different slant on things.  I doubt he realized that his comments, in combination with the remote setting actually may have created an intimidating/hostile environment, which meets the definition of sexual harassment.  The correct way to approach such a situation is to first tell him that his comments are inappropriate and upsetting to you.  If they continue, then this is a warning that this person does not view you as being in control, and it might be best to cancel or cut the trip short (first calling your supervisor to let him/her know what's going).  In the future, projecting a more authoritative, professional attitude (at least initially until you get to know your assistant better) might help in preventing a similar situation.

If anyone has had a similar experience and would like to tell how they handled it or what you think should be done in such a situation, please comment.

Dress Code

In a previous post about how female scientists are portrayed on TV and in popular film, I mentioned how the women of CSI are often dressed provocatively, which undermines the positive message of women in professional and high-ranking science positions.  I also described other instances in film where female (mostly young, attractive) scientists were dressed inappropriately.  We might think that such depictions are totally unrealistic, and in most cases this is true.  Scientists are not exactly known for their fashion sense, and some even might be described as being fashion-challenged.  Problems don't often arise, either with regard to provocative dress or too informal dress.  Most research institutes have no real dress code, and scientists and students tend to dress for comfort rather than for any other reason.

However, I have had to deal with students and staff who dressed inappropriately on occasion.

In one case, a female student came to her general exam dressed in a very low-cut top and short skirt.  All the other members of her committee were male, and I could only imagine the impression this was going to make.  I had instructed her beforehand to wear something suitable--not the usual graduate student garb.  She clearly did not understand and selected something that was more appropriate for a cocktail party.  I struggled momentarily with how to handle this.  On the one hand, I did not want to make her self-conscious right before her exam.  On the other, I knew her appearance would be distracting at best and send the wrong message at worst.  Fortunately, it was freezing in the conference room, and she was already shivering by the time I arrived (and admitted she was uncomfortable--from the cold, not embarrassment).  So I ran down the hall and borrowed the bulkiest sweater I could find from a secretary.  The student gladly wore it, and her committee never knew any different.  I had a talk with her before her final exam, and she followed my advice.

The other case was more refractory.  A female post-doc who was, let's say, very well proportioned routinely wore quite revealing outfits--short shorts, halter tops, etc.  I really did not care what she wore at work as long as it did not interfere with her job.  She was required to wear a lab coat and other protective clothing in the lab, but this code did not extend to other areas, such as our greenhouses.  Due to the heat and humidity, working in the greenhouse or outdoors in shorts made sense.  But she carried it to the extreme.  The male facility workers were quite happy, whereas the women who worked in the admin. office were mostly scandalized.  She identified with the movies Erin Brockavich and Legally Blonde, which gives a good idea of her attitude toward dress codes.  She often stated that it was important to her to remain feminine and sexy while being a scientist.

I eventually got a phone call requesting that I have a talk with her (she had been sent home twice by the administrative office to change into more appropriate attire).  I resisted for a while because I had not exactly been conservative in my dress in my younger days (mini-skirt era) and understood her attitude.

I finally came up with a plan though.

She was scheduled to give a presentation at a conference, so I took the opportunity to discuss appropriate attire for a meeting and generally how one's appearance can influence other's views of us as professionals.  I suggested that she invest in a good suit--fashionable but conservative.  She balked, insisting that it should not matter if she dressed attractively (i.e., sexy).

I was ready for this argument.

I asked her if she preferred her audience to listen to her scientific message or instead be judged on her physical attributes.  I suggested that the audience might be distracted by her outfit and pay more attention to her appearance than to her presentation....and ultimately conclude that she was not very professional.  She was very keen on being accepted by fellow scientists, so this question made her see herself as they might view her.  She finally acquiesced and ended up wearing a stylish suit and looking very professional during her talk.  I complimented her on her appearance, as did others.  She was excited about how her talk went (she also followed some other advice I gave), and this attitude lasted for a while.  Unfortunately, she eventually reverted to some of her previous habits.

Dress is a very personal choice, but we have to consider how our appearance influences other people's opinion of us.  I was very rebellious in my younger days and would have laughed at such a statement.  The transition (in dress) from graduate student/post-doc to faculty or other science positions is often difficult, particularly for women.  I now believe that part of one's strategy for being accepted as a professional is to dress appropriately for your position.

There is a saying about dressing for the job you want, not the job you have.

If you are constantly mistaken for a graduate student, it may be partly due to how you dress.  For women, if you dress too well, you may be mistaken for secretarial staff.  For scientists and other professionals, I think the goal should be to dress so that no one notices your appearance as being out of the ordinary (either too fashionable, age-inappropriate, or sloppy and unprofessional).

A few quotes to ponder:

"The finest clothing made is a person's skin, but, of course, society demands something more than this."  ~Mark Twain

"I base most of my fashion sense on what doesn't itch."  ~Gilda Radner

"It is an interesting question how far men would retain their relative rank if they were divested of their clothes."  ~Henry David Thoreau

"Clothes can suggest, persuade, connote, insinuate, or indeed lie, and apply subtle pressure while their wearer is speaking frankly and straightforwardly of other matters."  ~Anne Hollander

"Those hot pants of hers were so damned tight, I could hardly breathe."  ~Benny Hill