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.
I've mentioned what is known as an "elevator speech" previously in the context of having a short description of a presentation you might be giving at a conference. I suggested that it would be worthwhile to have a one or two sentence description of your presentation to use in conversations during mixers or in the event you meet a potential employer or representative of a funding agency.
Having a well-thought-out speech that describes your work in brief, clear, simple terms is essential in a fast-paced, short-attention-span world. Most people, particularly those outside your area of specialty, are not going to want to listen to you hem and haw about what your work is all about. Few people are able to provide an off-the-cuff description of a complex topic in a way that the non-specialist will fully understand or appreciate. The rest of us need to plan and practice.
I recall distinctly when the idea of an elevator speech occurred to me (although I did not think of it in exactly those terms and had never heard that phrase before). I was working as a research associate and was returning from a field trip with a professor and one of his graduate students. It was late, around 9:00 pm, and we were passing through a swampy area locally known as a popular dumping ground for serial killers, when our vehicle suddenly conked out. There was little traffic, and in any case, no one was going to offer assistance to three scruffy looking people dressed in old, muddy clothes. We were about six miles from the next populated area likely to have a telephone (this was way, way before cell phones). It took us a couple of hours, but we finally made it to a public telephone and called a tow truck. Once we got our vehicle hooked up, we all piled into the tow truck cab and headed back to campus.
During the drive, the tow truck driver asked us where we were coming from and what we were doing out in that area. The professor explained that we were from the university and were returning from a field trip to conduct some research. The driver then asked what kind of research. The graduate student, who was quite full of himself, launched into a description of his research project, which was the reason for our field trip. He explained that we were studying "anaerobic metabolism in Species name" and proceeded to talk about enzyme assays, adenine nucleotides, and various soil chemistry parameters. You can imagine the puzzled look on the tow truck driver's face. The professor just shook his head and said, "We are trying to understand why our coastal wetlands are disappearing." The truck driver flashed him a look of relief and said, "Oh, right. Now I understand. That's really great what you are doing. I do a lot of fishing at the coast and know that the marshes are really important."
That interaction stuck with me. In the next post, I'll describe how I tried to train my own staff and students in the art of talking to non-specialists.
A few weeks ago I attended a scientific conference and participated in an undergraduate mentoring program run by our science society. The program targets underrepresented groups to increase diversity of people who might consider wetland science as a field.
It was a rewarding experience, but a lot of work. The mentors were each paired with a student, sometimes according to common interests, but not always. Although there were some planned workshops for the students and an overall schedule of such activities, the mentor-mentee pairs were left to their own devices to work out daily interactions. Not having done this before (mentoring at a conference), I wasn't exactly sure how much "shadowing" and meetings to suggest. My mentee was the youngest participant (freshman) and very shy and seemed quite overwhelmed by the meeting. I did not want to push her too much, but did not want to let her hide and not participate.
We met once or twice a day to compare notes and had lunch together a couple of times. I followed her for half of a day to sessions she was interested in and she shadowed me to the session I presented in. During the first evening social and poster session, she stayed with me and I introduced her to various people ranging from non-threatening students to the most well-known scientists in our field. Because she seemed so shy and intimidated, I spent most of that time having her meet and talk to graduate students who were friendly and willing to spend time with us.
Overall, I think she was confused by the presentations and upset because she could not understand what they were talking about. I assured her that she was not alone (in being confused by speakers), but I don't think she believed me. Some of the other mentors said the same thing about their charges, so perhaps they were a bit too inexperienced to get much out of the presentations. Maybe a really mature freshman might be different, but it seemed to me that the older students were getting much more out of the meeting and the chance to meet scientists and graduate students and to understand science talks.
Several of the older students in this program presented posters of an undergraduate research project they had conducted. I was extremely impressed with them and the poise and confidence they exhibited during their poster session. I spent some time talking to several and also watching their interactions with other scientists. This was clearly a great opportunity for them to present a poster at an international meeting and see what that experience is like before they get to graduate school.
In previous posts (starting here), I talked about con artists and social manipulators. I'd like to elaborate on one of the types of con artists that are listed in Gavin DeBecker's book, The Gift of Fear. The Loan Shark is someone who does you a favor so that when s/he asks you for a return favor, you find it difficult, if not impossible, to refuse.
Here's a hypothetical situation. You are invited to participate in an event, and your expenses are paid by your host. You had never met your host before, but during this event you got to know them a bit better and were not favorably impressed. At the end of the event, your host approaches you and asks you to write a letter of support for a prestigious fellowship.
Here's another hypothetical situation: A colleague nominates you for a prestigious fellowship or award, which you receive. A short time later, this person asks you to recommend them for the same award. What do you do if you think they don't deserve it? If you think they deserve it but resent being manipulated?
Do you:
1. Agree and write a glowing recommendation because you owe them.
2. Agree and write a lukewarm recommendation because you suspect they will retaliate if you decline.
3. Decline and make up some lame excuse.
4. Decline and tell them exactly why.
If you find yourself in such circumstances, it's important first to recognize that you've been manipulated and that the people you are dealing with are not ethical. In both situations, you've been deliberately put into their debt so that you cannot easily refuse their request; you know this because they've asked for a favor in return. Even if you cannot satisfactorily extricate yourself from this situation, you will be forewarned regarding any future interactions (and avoid them like the plague).
Reading the above options, some people will say that #4 is the only choice. However, if you've ever been in such a situation and actually face-to-face with someone, you know it's difficult to actually decline such a request in person. This is what the manipulator is counting on. You've been backed into a corner and to fail to comply makes you the bad guy. Some people, however, will feel that they do owe a debt and should reciprocate. In some cultures, such reciprocity is not only common but expected. Others may feel they have to do whatever it takes to protect themselves and pick #2. There is no easy choice, which is why it's a dilemma.
It's also instructive to recognize that you stepped into this trap by accepting their support/nomination in the first place. How do you distinguish between people who genuinely wish to help you and those who are looking for a way to help themselves? There may be few or no clues, especially if you have not had any extensive interactions with them previously. One clue is how ambitious the other person is, especially in relation to their qualifications. The greater the discrepancy, the greater the likelihood they use tactics such as loan-sharking to get their way. It's wise to be cautious in accepting favors, especially if you do not know the other person well.
In the case of the manipulative host, you are actually not in their debt if you performed whatever the invitation entailed. You've already reciprocated by showing up and doing whatever you were invited to dom whether it was to serve on an advisory panel, give an invited lecture, or collaborate on a project. There should be no additional obligation to the person who invited you. Consequently, you may accept/decline the request based on other criteria, such as whether you know them and their work well enough to make an informed recommendation. If you decline, though, there is the likelihood that they will react badly.
In the other case, it's likely that the person who has to ask to be nominated is not qualified. Otherwise, you or someone else would think to nominate them without any prompting. If they are not qualified, then you will have a very difficult time writing an honest letter of support. If they do happen to be qualified for the award, do you then take into account the fact that they put you in their debt or do you just forget about it and write something based only on their qualifications? Again, there is no easy answer.
Such ethical dilemmas are not uncommon in science, and you may find yourself at some point in your career struggling to deal with similar situations.
In the previous two posts, I described strategies or behaviors used by con artists and social manipulators to gain someone's confidence or to control other people.These are techniques described in greater detail by Gavin De Becker in his book, The Gift of Fear. This is a book I frequently recommend to young women...not to make them overly fearful or suspicious, but to encourage them to trust their instincts when dealing with other people.
In this post, I finish up with the descriptions of these techniques (see previous two posts for the others).
Typecasting
In this strategy, the con artist labels a woman or other victim in a slightly critical way: snob, stuck-up, not a team player, lone wolf, etc. The idea is that the victim will then be compelled to disprove this charge. On the street, a stranger might use this method to get a woman to talk to him by accusing her of being a "snob" or something similarly negative. (as I write this, I wonder how many men have ever had this particular experience?). The defense in that situation is to simply walk away. If someone at work does this, the solution may be a bit more complicated (see previous posts).
Loan Sharking
The Loan Shark does you a favor, not because he's a nice guy, but because he wants you in his debt. Then, when he asks you for something later, you will find it more difficult to refuse. There are some kindly strangers out there who will offer their help; the problem is those people who are not so kindly. Again, you can distinguish between the two by how they respond to refusal. The social manipulator will react badly to your refusal to accept his "favor".
Promises, Promises
In this strategy, the con artist offers an unsolicited promise. "If you listen to my ideas, I promise I'll leave you alone." "If you'll let me into your office, I promise I'll be brief." De Becker warns that you should be suspicious of any unsolicited promise, regardless of the context. He says that a promise is not a guarantee of anything....but is instead a way to convince you of something. A promise seems to be offering something, but in reality it is not. The defense is to say to yourself that the promise is a warning sign and to carefully consider what you are being asked to do. Perhaps it will cost you only time; but perhaps it will cost you more to ignore the warning signs in other situations.
Not Taking "No" for an Answer
Have you ever had this experience? You tell someone that no, you do not need their help or advice or whatever, but they proceed to give it anyway? Of all the signs one should pay attention to, this is the one that De Becker emphasizes. He says that "no" is a "a word that must never be negotiated, because the person who chooses not to hear it is trying to control you". Criminals apparently go through a "victim selection" process involving an "interview" in which they test the victim to see if they can be controlled. One of those tests is to ignore the victim's protests to see how they react. Again, I can think of coworkers who routinely ignore me (or try to) when I've said no to something they've suggested. They may not be up to something criminal, but they are certainly trying to control me.
Well, those are a few ways to spot a con artist or social manipulator. I hope you never run into someone like this, but some of you will at some point in your career. It may be a stranger on the street or someone at work. It could be a coworker, a superior, or a subordinate who uses one or more of these techniques to control you. By being aware, we can avoid being taken in by such strategies.
In the last post, I began describing some of the strategies that con artists and social manipulators use to control victims. These behaviors are described in detail in Gavin De Becker's book, The Gift of Fear. I read this book many years ago and have recommended it to women ever since. In this post, I describe two more techniques used by social manipulators.
Charming Stranger
De Becker has little good to say about charm. He believes that charm is "almost always a directed instrument, which, like rapport building, has motive. To charm is to compel, to control by allure or attraction." Charming people do not all necessarily have sinister motives, but because it is a strategy used by con artists and social manipulators, it is prudent to be aware of it. De Becker particularly warns women to rebuff unwanted approaches. He specifically makes the point that women are expected to respond to any and all communications from men (and those who are not willing and compliant are viewed as being cold and uncooperative). He's mostly talking about strangers, but it's worth considering in a work situation when someone is being overly insistent.
Details, Details
Another trick that people use to try to deceive others is a simple technique, which De Becker describes as "too many details". You've probably encountered this with students or others who were trying to convince you of something. When someone is speaking the truth, they don't feel the need to elaborate, because they know what they've said is verifiable. The liar, on the other hand, may sound credible to you, but not to himself. Consequently, he keeps on talking, adding more and more details to his story. I've experienced this a number of times with certain people. If I just stare at them, without comment, their detailing gets more and more elaborate. The situations De Becker describes involve women being accosted by male strangers who throw so many details and information at them, they become confused and overwhelmed. Which is the intended outcome, of course. The defense is to simply be aware of the situation and to ask yourself why this person is offering so much information.
In the next post, I will finish up with the list of strategies used by social manipulators.
In the last post, I described a situation in which a postdoctoral scientist fabricated data, lied about his degree (didn't have one), jeopardized a major research project, and disappeared leaving the PI in a pickle. Although this event actually happened in a lab where I once worked, it is not common. Nonetheless, it's worth examining because it reveals something about how vulnerable we are to people who are unscrupulous.
I suggested that this postdoc was a con artist. He fooled everyone into thinking that he was trustworthy, hardworking, and qualified for the job he was hired to do. How do you spot someone who is skilled at social manipulation? It's not easy, as victims will probably attest. According to Gavin De Becker, a security consultant and author of the book The Gift of Fear, con artists and social manipulators use similar tactics and therefore exhibit similar behavior in their interactions with others.
Forced Teaming
De Becker uses the David Mamet film House of Games (see previous post) to discuss how con artists work and, in particular, use a behavior known as "forced teaming". Forced teaming is a strategy designed to establish a premature trust between strangers: being stuck in an elevator or waiting for a bus. The con artist uses this manipulation to create a sense of "togetherness", which is actually false because it is intentionally created by the manipulator. In House of Games, one of the cons depicted involves forced teaming: two men waiting at a Western Union office for a money order. The two commiserate over their respective predicaments involving money, and the con artist says to the other man, "Hey, if my money comes in first, I'll split it with you so you can buy your bus ticket in time; you can send the money to me later when you get your money. I'm sure you'd do the same for me." Of course, the con artist has no money order coming in, so the other man's money is the only one to arrive; he insists on giving a portion to the con artist. Note that the con artist, played by Joe Mantegna, is actually setting up his female companion, a psychologist played by Lindsay Crouse, for a bigger con by showing her some of his techniques. Here's the scene from that film:
In a work situation, a social manipulator might use phrases such as "We're some team!" or "How are we going to handle this situation?" or "I see you are in the same boat as I am; we need to work together." I can think of at least three people I have known in my career who used this manipulation to try to impose a relationship (with me) that I did not want. Now, some instances in which someone voices such statements might be totally innocent. Your gut will tell you whether they are being helpful or manipulative: if you feel uncomfortable and want to have nothing to do with them (but don't want to appear to be rude), be alert. A key test is how that person reacts to a clear refusal to follow along with a fictitious shared experience or problem. If you politely decline to play along and simply say that you are not in need of help or advice but the other person persists, even trying to make you feel guilty, then you are dealing with a manipulator.
Outside of work, I've encountered strangers (male) who tried "force-teaming" on me and then turned nasty when I politely declined their insistence that we are having a "shared experience". Women are particularly vulnerable to this strategy because we hate to be accused of being rude.
In the next post, I will continue with the warning signs of social manipulators and con artists.
In the last post, I described a nightmare situation for any PI. A trusted postdoc has turned out to be a fraud and has skipped town after fabricating data for a major project of yours. The postdoc also turns out to have lied about his Ph.D. degree--he never received it.
At this point, you may be thinking about all the things the PI could have done to avoid landing in this situation, and I could go through these points one by one. However, at this stage in the situation, none of that is going to help. Also, one could argue that taking all possible precautions does not guarantee that such a situation will never happen. Especially if you are dealing with a real con artist.
The term, "con", comes from confidence, which is what a con artist gains from his victims and allows him to succeed. Such people are highly skilled at social manipulation and understand how to gain people's confidence. Fortunately, there are not that many con artists who end up in the field of science. However, scientists may on occasion encounter such people, either people within the field of science or people peripheral to science.
For the latter situation, there is a very interesting film called House of Games, written and directed by David Mamet. You may be more familiar with Mamet's other films, such as The Spanish Prisoner. Both films are about confidence men (and women). House of Games, however, features a female psychologist, Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) who becomes the target of a group of grifters led by Mike (Joe Mantegna).
Margaret has published a successful book, which has led to professional recognition, modest fame, and a small fortune. It's this book and consequent fortune that have attracted the attention of this gang of con artists. Their leader, Mike, designs an elaborate con to ensnare Margaret and eventually relieve her of her money. They play on her professional interests and desire to find another subject to research and write about...one that may lead to another successful book.
The set-up is initiated by a young, small-time gambler, who goes to Margaret for treatment. He tells her that he owes a large sum of money and will be killed unless he pays (which he can't). Margaret decides to intervene and visits the man the gambler owes. Turns out that it's Mike, the con man. Mike agrees to forgive the young gambler's debt if Margaret agrees to accompany him to a poker game as his girlfriend and help him spot the "tells" of the other card players. Margaret immediately sees an entry into an underworld that she can exploit for her own professional goals.
Margaret falls headlong into the trap set by this gang of grifters and eventually loses a large sum of money. The con is so clever that Margaret does not realize she's been conned...at first. By chance, she discovers the ruse and proceeds to turn the tables on Mike. I won't reveal all that transpires, except to say that the film is intriguing on many levels and carefully crafted to keep you guessing until the end. It's not as well done as Mamet's later films, and one could quibble about the acting, especially Lindsay Crouse (see previous posts about female stereotypes in film).
My point in describing this little film is that it is a cautionary tale about a successful female professional who is taken in by unscrupulous people, even though she knows she's dealing with people who are basically criminals. Despite that knowledge, she's still fooled by Mike, who cleverly gains her confidence. And that's all it takes.
How likely is it that a science professional might be victimized by a con artist? Although the Mamet film is fictional, the postdoc story I described in the previous post is not. The situation I described happened to my adviser (I was one of the graduate students working on the project). I also was fooled once by a student worker who was falsifying his time sheets and forging signatures on them. Fortunately for me, the student worker's actions did not threaten my entire research program or my job. These experiences tell me that such situations are not that unusual in science, although perhaps not as prevalent as in other professions.
In this series of posts, I've been talking about introverts, people who are contemplative, reserved, and quiet, and how such people are often viewed as being maladjusted. I am particularly aware of this phenomenon since I am an introvert. Being married to an extrovert (35 years), I've also got a pretty good handle on the other half and what makes them tick.
Here is what I've observed over the years. I need lots of time to myself, quiet time, without other people, without incessant talking, without blasting music, without traffic or other city noises....QUIET. When there is a lot going on around me, I cannot concentrate, I cannot relax, I cannot recharge. After being around people, especially loud people, I need quiet time to recover. My husband is the opposite. He is energized by other people, the more the better. He needs the stimulation of being around other people and lots of activity and noise to be happy. He can appreciate a quiet evening alone, but after only a day or so, becomes anxious and needs to socialize.
Going to a party is quite a different experience for the two of us. I usually dread it, much like someone would anticipate a visit to a dentist to have a root canal (we feel we should do it, but it's not going to be fun); he looks forward to it like a kid anticipating Disney World. I'm anxious; he's giddy. Once there, I'm usually fine and can carry on a decent, even enjoyable conversation with people. On the way home, he usually points this out to me saying, "See, you had a good time." Yes, but I pay for it. I'm drained emotionally and mentally. It may take several hours or even days to recover. It really doesn't matter whether the stress is positive or negative; both are draining and take a toll. The fact is, I often prefer to stay home, curled up with a good book in front of the fireplace. I would have a much better time and would not be emotionally drained at the end of the evening.
As a couple, we've learned to compromise over our different needs for socializing. I make an effort to do what he likes, and he does the same for me. We spend quiet evenings together over a nice meal or watch a movie (at home–I finally quit going to the theater after acknowledging how much I hated the crowds). We also go out to dinner with friends or have friends over; we go to plays or concerts (in small, intimate theaters). He also does a lot of socializing without me...spending time at coffee houses, having lunch with his buddies, talking on the phone. These extra activities help him feel socially connected. I happily stay home and read or carry on some other solitary hobby. When we travel, we take turns going to remote, natural areas to camp, hike, canoe, or swim and to cities with museums, restaurants, and bustling crowds. Sometimes, we manage both extremes during the same trip.
However, there is always an element of judgement regarding whose nature is "best". My way is somehow viewed as being inferior, deficient, flawed, or maladjusted. According to some, the extrovert is the ideal; it's what we should all be striving for–at least in the US this seems to be the case. Apparently, many people who are naturally introverted also believe this and fake a more outgoing nature. Even though they feel uncomfortable in social situations, they force themselves into social settings and can even fool other people into thinking they are extroverts. Consider the poll I ran on this blog a while back (see very bottom of the page), asking scientists and non-scientists to rate themselves on a social scale: Social Butterfly, Congenial Comrade, Split Personality, Wallflower, Social Outcast. I included, at the last minute, another category: Impostor (socially awkward, but able to fake social aptitude). This category was selected most often, by both scientists and non-scientists.
Trying to "pass" as an extrovert may be a common behavior for some introverts, according to Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. We feel pressured to spend more time socializing than is comfortable. The pressure to be more social can be greatest from those closest to us--spouses, parents, or friends.
What this bias does to introverts and to society as a whole is explored in Cain's book. If you are interested in hearing her TED talk about these ideas, see the video link below.
In this series of posts, we are talking about introverts and the problems they face in a society that idolizes extroversion. In the last post, I began analyzing a hypothetical situation that a young scientist and introvert, Jennifer, is facing. Her supervisor has called her into his office and accused her of "hiding in her shell" and not being a "team player". I explained that his words were in fact a verbal attack, which requires a specific response to counter effectively. I pointed out that the specific charges Jennifer's boss has leveled at her (hiding, not a team player) constituted the "bait". Jennifer fell for the bait and responded by defending her "quietness" and desire to work things out on her own before sharing with others. This was a mistake because it opened the door for further unfair characterizations (lone wolf).
In this post, I will reveal the "presupposition" contained in the supervisor's attack. The presupposition is the real attack, but is one that usually remains unspoken by the attacker. The victim of a verbal attack should address only the presupposition and ignore the bait. In this case, the presupposition is that Jennifer's innate nature (introversion) is not compatible with the job she was hired to do (scientist). This is a more complex presupposition than we've considered in previous examples and is perhaps a bit more challenging to counter. But let's try.
How can we state a response that addresses the charge (Jennifer's apparent lack of essential skills) and also effectively counters a bias against introverted people? Successful responses to a presupposition should be stated in the form of a question. Jennifer might say,
"When did you begin thinking that work involving individual contemplation and concentration was not good?"
Such a response ignores the bait and restates Jennifer's mode of working in positive terms (individual contemplation and concentration)--in direct contrast to the negative, inappropriate terms her supervisor used (hiding, not a team player). Her supervisor will likely be caught off guard by her response (in fact, I would bet on it). People who use verbal attacks to control other people are often completely thrown off their tracks by this because they are accustomed to defensive responses. They usually either completely abandon the attack or they are forced to provide a more specific example, which is easier for the victim to counter. Let's assume instead that Jennifer's supervisor is a bit faster on his feet and replies:
"Unnhh. I didn't mean that I think solitary work, concentration, and thought were not good. I just think you are too quiet."
Now the supervisor is on the defensive and may continue in this vein for a bit--protesting that he was only talking about her quietness. He's brought up her quietness as a negative again, however. Her response might be:
"I'm glad to hear that you appreciate the fact that many scientific tasks require quiet contemplation, without distractions, to most efficiently accomplish them. Why then would someone who works well this way be criticized for it?"
Jennifer has now directly challenged the idea that "quietness" is a sign of failure and pointedly asked why she is being criticized for it. Her supervisor might respond,
"Well, when you are so quiet at meetings, your coworkers will think you are hiding something from them or that you don't have any ideas at all."
Now the supervisor is being forced to be more specific and to justify his original charge with examples. In reply, Jennifer might ask which coworkers think this? Her supervisor will not likely name anyone (whom Jennifer can later easily ask). By now, it should be clear that it's not really Jennifer's coworkers who have a problem with Jennifer's quietness; it's her supervisor. She should key in on this and continue to ask for reasons why someone who is quiet might be "hiding something" or might not have "any ideas at all". Jennifer can continue guiding the conversation toward more specifics and ask for clear justifications for his criticism. The key is that she should not apologize for her quietness or for her way of working and processing information. If she responds in a quietly forceful, but professional, manner, she will get her point across.
Hopefully, over time, her supervisor will come to appreciate Jennifer's introspective nature. If not, she may need to find another position that is more in line with her natural way of thinking and working.
In this series of posts, I'm discussing introverts, and to kick off the series I described a hypothetical situation in which a young scientist, Jennifer, is being pressured by her supervisor to be more verbal and a "team player". He further chastises her for keeping her ideas to herself and not sharing her thoughts with other coworkers. Jennifer is shocked because she's naturally a quiet, cautious person who likes to develop her ideas before presenting them to others. Unlike her coworkers who "think out loud", Jennifer prefers to work out her thoughts in private and then, when she's ready, she shares them with others.
So let's analyze the situation in light of the foregoing posts describing the differences between extroverts and introverts and the modern idealization of extroversion as the preferred model of behavior in the workplace.
Jennifer's supervisor says to her, "You're doing really good work, but I'm wondering when you are going to come out of your shell. We need people who are good team players and actively participate in staff meetings and share ideas with everyone."
First of all, we see that this supervisor is using specific language to describe Jennifer's behavior: "come out of your shell" and "team player". Snails and turtles have shells in which they hide from predators. The snail analogy applied to human behavior implies that such people are hiding from the world. Jennifer's boss is characterizing her as a person who is hiding inside a shell, which implies that she is maladjusted, deficient in social skills, or is unwilling to communicate. The "team player" reference is one of those overused sports analogies, which became popular in the business world (and later adopted by other professions). By accusing someone of not being "a team player", you are saying that that person is not supporting the team goals.
One problem with these analogies is that they characterize people in black and white terms; in other words, stereotypes. Such black and white terms are inappropriate, insulting, and often untrue. In the modern business world, the worst criticism one can level at someone is not that they are incompetent, but that they are not a "team player". The charge of not being a "team player" is particularly effective when leveled at women who are traditionally not participants in team sports (or at men who are not as athletic or as aggressive as other males in the office). Jennifer's not playing well with others. Bill's not sharing his toys. She's more interested in herself than in others. He's not helping the team. Such characterizations serve to further isolate people who are different from the larger group.
The other problem is that such terms reflect a bias towards extroverts--that any other behavior is wrong or counterproductive. The implication is that solitary work and the skills associated with it are not only not of value, they are suspect. In fact, there is nothing inherently wrong with solitary work. Nor is there any evidence that teamwork can lead to a superior outcome. Clearly, some problems require intense concentration and solitary contemplation to find a solution. Even team members working on a joint project must often carry out some tasks separately.
So how did Jennifer respond to these charges? She said, "I'm not hiding...I'm just quiet and like to work things out by myself. When I'm sure I've got a good idea and some preliminary plans, then I share my thoughts with others."
If you've read my previous posts on how to counter a verbal attack, you will have some inkling as to what was wrong with Jennifer's reply and how she should have responded. The supervisor's statements were verbal attacks. Verbal attacks contain two components: the bait and the presupposition. The bait is the obvious attack, which usually involves a charge of some kind. In this case, the bait is the charge that Jennifer is hiding in her shell and is also not a team player. The presupposition is the unspoken charge, but is the real attack. Jennifer fell for the bait and responded to it. When the victim goes for the bait, it opens the door for further attacks:
Her supervisor looks askance and replies, "I'm not a big fan of the lone wolf style of working. People get suspicious when someone keeps all their thoughts to themselves."
What should Jennifer have done? As I described previously, the only way to handle a verbal attack is to ignore the bait and address only the presupposition.In the next post, I'll describe what the presupposition was in this verbal attack and how Jennifer could have responded.
In the previous post I described a hypothetical situation in which Jennifer, a marine biologist in her first job, has run into a problem. Her boss has expressed his concern over her lack of participation in meetings and for not being a "team player". Jennifer is stunned because she is simply a quiet person who does not say the first thing that pops into her head, unlike her coworkers who blather on about anything and everything, often nonsense. The situation Jennifer finds herself in is not uncommon for people who are naturally quiet, introspective, and cautious in their interactions with other people.
I just finished reading Quiet: the Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking by Susan Cain. According to Cain, there are many people, perhaps as much as half the population (the data are not clear on this), who are introverts. Introverts are people who prefer quiet, minimally stimulating environments, which is different from shy people who fear negative judgement (although a person may be both an introvert and shy). Such people often experience bias in a world that seems to have embraced the idea that people should work in teams and without office walls...and that those who don't enthusiastically participate are flawed. She makes the case that many schools and workplaces, particularly in the US, increasingly emphasize "groupthink" and idealize the gregarious, verbally confident person. People who are naturally quiet and contemplative and prefer solitude to work out their ideas are considered to be less than ideal or even maladjusted.
Prior to Susan Cain's book, there was an essay I read many years ago in "The Best American Science and Nature Writing" (2004) called Caring for Your Introvert by Jonathan Rauch. He describes introverts as people who need lots of time alone. He quite nicely captures their reluctance to go to parties, awkwardness (and aversion to) "small talk" and "pleasantries", and the appearance of being aloof or "too serious" (often untrue). Rauch describes himself as an introvert, albeit one with good social skills. He can fake it....just as many introverts can. He loves long, intimate, intellectual conversations. Extroverts, on the other hand, seem to revel in superficial banter. Not that there's anything wrong with that....it's just a different preference and way of interacting with other people.
Rauch asks the question, "Are introverts misunderstood?" His answer: "Wildly." Introverts keep their thoughts to themselves mostly, whereas extroverts are "open books". They do their thinking out loud, voicing every thought that pops into their heads. The introvert, on the other hand, is mentally sorting through a lot of material and perhaps will share what they decide is most relevant and insightful, leaving the less clear or premature ideas unspoken. It's not that introverts are hiding anything; they just don't see the point in spewing their thoughts out, unformed and messy, in a constant deluge. The upshot is that extroverts have no clue as to what introversion is all about. They come to various incorrect conclusions about introverts because their understanding is based on superficialities (and introverts don't help by being inscrutable most of the time).
Extroverts, by being overly verbal and apparently open with their thoughts, give the impression that they are holding nothing back. The observer finds this behavior to be guileless, genuine, straightforward, truthful, and open. I don't think this is necessarily an accurate assessment (more about this later), but this is the typical impression an extrovert conveys. So it's no surprise that the introvert's behavior is seen as being cool, standoffish, judgmental, secretive, solitary, or bashful. Such an impression may stimulate in the observer feelings of being judged, excluded, or dismissed. They become uncomfortable, wondering what this quiet person is really thinking. Is she thinking I'm stupid, incompetent, or unworthy? Why doesn't she say what's she's thinking? It must be bad...that's the only reason someone would keep quiet for so long....
You can see how quickly people can jump to incorrect conclusions when they do not understand what underlies other people's behavior. The fact that perhaps half of the human population is misreading the other half is cause for concern.
Rauch asks, "Are introverts oppressed?" His answer is yes, undoubtedly. His thesis is that extroverts dominate our modern society (at least in the US), and their influence has gradually led to the adoption of extroversion as the ideal. Extroverts, who prevail in social life, politics, and business, have ultimately set our social expectations of what's acceptable and what's not. The outcome of this celebration of extroversion is bias against people who are naturally introverted. More troubling is the move to "socialize" introverts; to force them to change their behavior, either through direct pressure to attain extrovert skills or indirectly through social pressure to conform to the extrovert ideal (the party animal). This argument is also made by Cain in her book, except she goes into much greater detail, backed up by extensive research into the topic.
An interesting observation made in Rauch's essay is the distinction between how introverted men and women are judged. Often, the male introvert is characterized as the "strong, silent type". Think Gary Cooper in Frank Capra's classic, Meet John Doe. He's quiet, but still admired for being strong-willed and talking only when he has something of substance to say. Quiet women lack such an alternative persona; they are more likely viewed as being haughty, withdrawn, or shy. Never in a positive light. When I googled "strong, silent type and women", I did not find examples of female Gary Coopers. Instead, I found links to descriptions of why women prefer the strong, silent type of man.
So we have Jennifer, who is a strong, smart, quiet woman with good ideas and excellent skills. Yet she is not only undervalued by her boss and coworkers, she is being pressured to change her inherent nature. In the next post, I'll examine what is wrong with this belief that Jennifer and other introverts need to change and become "team players" and what she can do to protect herself from such misguided thinking.
After receiving a Ph.D. in marine science, Jennifer started working for a government science agency. She's a quietly confident person who prefers to think before she speaks, unlike many of her co-workers who jabber endlessly during meetings, never really saying anything of substance. She's noticed that the people who do the most talking are often viewed as being the smartest or most productive workers, even though much of what they say is nonsense.
At her six-month performance review, Jennifer's supervisor says, "You're doing really good work, but I'm wondering when you are going to come out of your shell. We need people who are good team players and actively participate in staff meetings and share ideas with everyone." Jennifer is shocked and dumfounded. She stammers, "I'm not hiding...I'm just quiet and like to work things out by myself. When I'm sure I've got a good idea and some preliminary plans, then I share my thoughts with others." Her supervisor looks askance and replies, "I'm not a big fan of the lone wolf style of working. People get suspicious when someone keeps all their thoughts to themselves."
Jennifer stumbles out of her supervisor's office in a daze. She went in thinking that she would be praised for the excellent work she's doing. Now she's wondering if she has a future here.
What went wrong? What should Jennifer have done or said? Should she try to change her naturally quiet, introspective nature to better fit in with this workplace atmosphere?
In the next series of posts, I'd like to explore the idea of how people like Jennifer are undervalued and even discriminated against. I will dissect this hypothetical situation and try to provide some ideas as to how Jennifer might have handled her supervisor and what she might further do to address this problem.
We all want it, but do we always give it to others? I was reminded recently of the importance of respect in dealing with other people, especially those we may not know well. Impressions based on how someone looks, what others may have told us, or an unconscious (or conscious) bias are more the norm. It’s human nature. When we meet someone for the first time, we immediately begin forming a mental image, looking for clues about their morals, intelligence, and other inherent traits, and filling in the gaps based on our past experiences with other people bearing similar superficial features. This approach is, of course, a dangerous one.
One of the things I admired the most about my father was that he was unfailingly respectful of other people, even when they were treating him with contempt. He was an uneducated man, a dirt-poor farmer who grew up in the rural Mississippi countryside. It was presumed (incorrectly) that he was unintelligent, unmannered, and bigoted, based solely on his situation (I also experienced similar presumptions when I first ventured to other parts of the country and the world). As a child, I watched more educated or wealthier people treat my father with disrespect. Yet, I never saw him get angry or raise his voice to anyone (not even his children when they let snakes loose in the house [a pest control experiment]). He listened respectfully and responded politely to others who clearly thought themselves to be his superior and made a point of emphasizing the difference.
As a teenager I was embarrassed by my parents (who wasn’t?), but the lesson of his respectful nature did sink in, and I’ve later come to appreciate just how important it is. I’ve tried hard to follow my father’s model, but it’s difficult, especially when other people are disrespectful of me. Some would argue that such people are not deserving of respect. However, it’s not really about them; what’s important is your behavior and whether you choose to take the high road or get down in the mud with your attacker. And I use the term, “attacker”, because disrespectful acts are definitely attacks. I’ve talked a bit in past posts about “verbal attacks” and ways to handle them (here and here). But often we don’t recognize when we are being attacked, especially when it involves subtle disrespect.
In any case, I know my father would say that to maintain one’s own self-respect, it’s essential to preserve your respectful treatment of others. I’m not advocating here that you should not defend yourself against unfair treatment. Just that you do so without showing disrespect for the other person.
Image Credit: The Farmer by Fred Neveu. I really like this painting, which perfectly captures the affable, hardworking character of a dying breed of family farmers.
In episode 11 of the 4th season of the television series, Mad Men, Peggy gives a presentation to Playtex executives. Before she gets to the conference room, one of her male colleagues (she had earlier rebuffed) notices that her lipstick is smeared on her teeth. He doesn't warn her. She gives her presentation, failing to notice that people are trying to alert her to the lipstick problem. Later, someone breaks the news to her. Her colleague just smiles.
If you are unfamiliar with this TV series, it is set in the 1960's New York and focuses on an advertising agency. Although the show revolves around Don Draper (the main ad man), there are lots of episodes and scenes that deal with women working in a male-dominated world.
I was reminded of this show and the scene described above during a conversation with a colleague.
I was talking with this male colleague about a women-in-science group that I sometimes attend. He inquired about what we were discussing this semester, and I mentioned that one topic I hoped to address was leadership styles. He soon began talking about several university administrators who happened to be women and mentioned something that he observed one of them doing at meetings. Apparently, this woman would walk into the conference room, sit down, open her purse, and begin to carefully apply lipstick. When finished with her makeup, she would call the meeting to order.
My initial response was something along the lines of, "Hmmm. That's interesting. I wonder why she did that? Most women would apply lipstick (those who wear it) in private." We were interrupted by the arrival of some other people, so I did not have a chance to question this colleague further about why he mentioned this particular example during a discussion of women in leadership positions.
I later thought more carefully about this conversation...not about why a woman in a high position would call attention to the fact that she was a woman by conspicuously applying makeup (I suspect she was oblivious to how this looked to others), but how my colleague interpreted this behavior.
One might dismiss the lipstick observation as an offhand, unimportant remark. However, it clearly made an impression on this colleague, who was obviously critical of this woman and offered this up as an example of her poor judgement. It reminded me of critical comments made about a woman's physical appearance or other attributes that have no bearing on their professional capabilities.
This colleague is married to a professional woman who is very successful and highly regarded. Consequently, I figured that he was making a statement about how women need to be careful (in dress and behavior) to avoid calling negative attention to their gender in professional settings. Perhaps he was leading up to a suggestion that our discussion group counsel the younger members about inappropriate behavior? Or maybe he did think that this woman's lipstick habit indicated an overall incompetence in chairing meetings? I'm not sure.
Women can call attention to their gender unintentionally, especially when nervous. Some women play with their hair or jewelry, which is acceptable in a social setting, but might send unintended signals in a professional setting. Men seem to be particularly alert (consciously or subconsciously) to sexual signals. Lipstick, which has an interesting history by the way, is a sexual signal (although its sexual connotations are not always recognized). I think this is why my colleague noticed it, but I doubt that he realized why it was so memorable. I also doubt that the female administrator was aware of this either (and would probably be mortified if someone pointed it out to her).
I know that some women dismiss such concerns about dress and behavior, saying that they should be judged on their professional capabilities rather than their wardrobe or personal quirks. However, the fact that this senior male faculty member had noticed the lipstick application, remembered it years later, and pointed it out to me (in the context of women in leadership positions) suggests that women are still being judged inappropriately, even by men who are generally supportive of women.
Photo Credit: AMC, Mad Men, still image of Peggy Olson (Elisabeth Moss)
An article recently asked this question based on the observation that fewer than 10% of UK professors are female. The problem posed is the familiar one of retention of women in science after graduation, rather than engagement of girls at earlier stages. Statistics quoted for the UK are similar to those in the US: around half of science students are female (even higher for biology). So, there seems to be less of a problem attracting young females to science. After graduation, however, the numbers shrink as women, facing the realities of balancing a career in a highly competitive field with family obligations and other interests, begin to drop out. The article goes on to discuss what might be done to help women stay in science.
Viewing women in science as endangered is an interesting way to look for solutions. Using the endangered species model as a guide, we can immediately focus on the habitat as a critical factor in species survival. Just as an endangered plant or animal requires certain environmental conditions to maintain a healthy population, women in science also require a supportive environment to not only survive, but to thrive. For example: sufficient resources and space (habitat) as well as ways to support recruitment and minimize losses are necessary to have a viable population. From an individual's standpoint, it means everything one needs to compete with others successfully. It's not a perfect analogy, but perhaps useful to ponder how one's work environment, especially support from superiors, staff, and colleagues, can be a major factor in whether a woman chooses to remain in her career or drop out.
Just the other day, I was talking with another member of a Women in Science group at a university where I am an adjunct. I've been attending the meetings of this group off and on for over a year and providing some insights about being a woman in science, basically saying that there will be bumps in the road, but it gets better if you stick it out. One or two other senior female faculty had also been attending and providing the same type of message, in various ways. This was not a planned strategy on our part...it just came across that way.
I had been wondering if the students and postdocs who belonged to this group were getting anything out of our meetings (I had never really gotten any direct feedback from them, positive or negative). Anyway, she had been talking to one of the students who belonged to the group and who had told her that these meetings had greatly influenced her. The student had been having some problems and was thinking that she was not cut out for a career in science. Hearing from some senior female scientists and seeing how we had succeeded convinced her to persevere. It seemed that hearing stories about what issues we had faced and how we dealt with them essentially sent the message that they were not alone in their experience, i.e., it was normal to occasionally feel inadequate or uncertain about a science career, but it would pass.
It's important to have a support group, whether you are having problems or not. Perhaps you are supremely confident in your capabilities and are sailing through your graduate program or postdoc training. However, you never know what might change tomorrow to throw a wrench into your plans. I find that those students who have rarely (or never) faced real difficulties are the least prepared to deal with a major setback. They are so accustomed to things always going their way, that they are left confused and shaken when things go wrong. Instead, those who have had to work hard expect difficulties and usually have developed good coping mechanisms and especially a support network.
Having a support group can be a life saver in such instances. I didn't, and struggled to maintain my confidence and to see my way forward when those obstacles occurred. Even my spouse (a science professor), who provided emotional support, really didn't understand from his perspective as a male in a male-dominated field. Consequently, much of his encouragement missed the mark. He really could not grasp what it is like to be marginalized or even actively discouraged by superiors and coworkers. He was always accepted as rightfully belonging to the science club, assumed to be competent (or had the potential), expected to be ambitious and to advance up the career ladder. He's never really understood what it was like not to have that kind of underpinning.
I'm convinced that it takes someone who has had similar experiences to provide you with the right kind of support or encouragement. Peers (male or female), who are not experiencing problems, may even be dismissive or critical of you, believing that the fault lies in your inability to deal with everyday issues (or even that your behavior is the source of the problem). This attitude, whether voiced or not, can be extremely damaging...perhaps more so than the problem itself.
Anyone who is facing a problem, especially one that shakes an individual's confidence, needs reassurance that they can overcome it. Yes, in some cases, the victim is part of the problem and needs to do some serious reassessment of their interpersonal dealings. But the way to help them (if you are their friend) is to assure them that others have had this same problem, but succeeded in dealing with it....by doing x, y, or z. Hearing a true story from someone who lived through it is a safe way to get the message across without blatantly blaming the victim, which will only make them more defensive.
In recounting such a story, a veteran might say, "I didn't realize initially how I was viewed by colleagues, but once I did, it seemed obvious that they would continue treating me badly as long as I continued my behavior. I finally realized that they had no incentive to change, but I did. Once I modified how I (fill in the blank), their attitude toward me began to change."
Stories are excellent ways to teach others. They convey real (or sometimes imagined) situations and describe how the heroine overcomes obstacles and goes on to a successful career in science. Perhaps we need more of such stories, including the emotional and gritty details, to help prepare those starting out to expect and conquer impediments....and eventually, women in science will be taken off the endangered species list.
In the last post, I provided two hypothetical scenarios illustrating a type of gender bias known as The Maternal Wall. In both cases, the perpetrator (of bias) used a "verbal attack" to express criticism of the target or victim of bias. I've previously discussed how to recognize and defend yourself against "verbal attacks". So I thought it would be worthwhile to take each of these examples and show how one might handle such situations.
In the first hypothetical example, Joan has a problem with her department chair who assumes that when she is not in her office, it is because she is taking care of family business. In the interaction I described, her boss asked if her kids were sick, because he had not seen her all week. In reality, Joan was attending a conference, which the chair knew about beforehand. Apparently, the chair is in the habit of making such statements to Joan. Such interactions are known as verbal attacks (you know you are the victim of one when your gut tightens and you feel defensive). In this example, however, the verbal attack involves gender bias (against an employee who is a mother).
There is a very effective method for dealing with verbal attacks, which I will apply to this example. Verbal attacks contain two parts: the "bait", which is the obvious attack, and the presupposition, which is the less obvious attack. In Joan's case, the bait is the charge that she was out of the office because her kids were sick. The presupposition, however, is that Joan is not doing her job.
The best response to a verbal attack is to ignore the "bait" and respond only to the presupposition. Here is a revised version of Joan's conversation with her chair:
Ben asks, “Joan, are your kids sick? I haven’t seen you the past few days.”
Joan calmly replies, “Ben, when did you start thinking that I was not doing my job?
Startled, Ben says, “What? I didn't say you weren't doing your job!"
Joan says, "Well, I'm often out of my office for various work-related activities, such as teaching my classes, attending conferences, and doing my fieldwork....as are all the other professors in the department. Yet, I seem to be the only one you assume is out of the office for personal reasons. Why is that?"
Ben, now completely flummoxed, replies, "Uh, Ahh. That's not what I think....uhhh....I'm sure you are doing your job...." [clears throat and begins looking around for the nearest exit]
There might be other ways for Joan to respond, but the point is not to fall for the bait and instead directly address the underlying attack. The attacker is usually so accustomed to getting a defensive answer that s/he will be discombobulated, at least momentarily. Let's assume, however, that Ben quickly recovers and continues his plan of attack:
Recovering his composure, Ben says, "Actually, what I wanted to ask you about was whether you could pick up our seminar speaker at the airport at 5 pm this evening?”
Joan has plans to attend her son's softball game after school. She replies, with a hint of censure, "I have a previous commitment at that time. If you had given me more notice, I might have been able to work it into my schedule. Isn't this a bit late to be organizing the speaker's schedule?"
Ben frowns and replies, “Uhh, well, actually....I do have a schedule, but Joe, who was supposed to pick up the speaker, has a family emergency and can't do it. I guess I'll have to instead."
So in this example, Joan has completely turned the tables on Ben and put him on the defensive. She has also managed to extract the real story from Ben regarding why he's asking her at the last minute to pick up the seminar speaker. Interestingly, Joe has had to cancel because of family obligations, information that drives home the point that it's not only Joan who has a family.
Contrast this with the original reaction of Joan in which she went for the bait and set herself up for the additional "test" of her devotion to her job. You can see how the latter reaction would confirm Ben's biased thinking about Joan and encourage continued verbal attacks (i.e., Joan's defensive reaction to such attacks actually invites further attacks). By not going for the bait and directly addressing the presupposition, however, Joan has short-circuited Ben's specific attack, which will likely make him think twice about trying it in the future. A commenter yesterday recognized the mistake that Joan made in explaining that she couldn't pick up the seminar speaker because she had promised to go to her son's game. That response just reinforced the chair's bias toward her.
In the second scenario, Mike, a new father, is being teased by coworkers about taking family leave to care for a newborn. His responses to the gender bias and verbal attack were better than Joan's, but perhaps we can improve upon it. See if you can identify the "bait" and then come up with an alternative response that directly addresses the underlying presupposition. I'll follow up in the next post.
I wrote a post, Socially-Inept Scientists, some time ago about how scientists as a group might be less socially adept than the wider population. It seemed to strike a chord with readers and is the top-visited post. I followed up with a poll, which has been running for about 30 weeks, to determine how scientists vs. non-scientists view themselves in terms of social aptitude (see nav bar to right).
My earlier statement was not meant to imply that scientists are all lacking in social skills or to impugn those scientists who (like me) tend to be introverted. It was based more on my belief that scientists are often intensely focused on their work, a characteristic that often goes along with social awkwardness. Not always, but enough to be noticeable. In fact, our society has adopted a widely-used term to describe such people: nerds. The definition of a "nerd" is "an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit" Wikepedia. The description goes on to say "Nerds are generally considered to be awkward, shy and/or unattractive by most, although this is not always true."
When I was growing up in the 1950's, the terms used to describe such people were "drips", "squares", or "brains". These names were applied to those of us who made good grades and were interested in certain subjects that most everyone else found to be strange, complicated, and/or boring (science, math, physics). These are all derogatory terms that stereotype people, of course, and those branded with such a name were often the target of bullies. Nerd girls can be particularly vulnerable, as depicted in the film "Welcome to the Dollhouse".
We were not in the popular crowd, were not "cool", and typically existed at the margins of our teenage social web. We were often not very physically attractive or graceful (hence we did not date much and avoided sports). A few of us who had "normal" siblings or who managed to make friends with one of the "in crowd" were sometimes more readily accepted by our peers.
What happens to nerds when they grow up? Answer: they often become adult nerds. Some, like Bill Gates, go on to become multi-billionaires, but still never shed their nerdy persona. That's why those commercials featuring a "cool" guy (Hi, I'm a Mac) and a nerdy guy who looks a lot like Gates (Hi, I'm a PC) are so spot-on. One of these commercials, in case you missed this ad campaign by Apple, even pokes fun at the PC (nerd's) inability to communicate (with an attractive female):
So even Bill Gates, with all his success, is still depicted as a socially awkward person (although I doubt he stays awake at night worrying about this). In spite of the mean spirited theme of these commercials, most people find them amusing, especially Mac owners (a number of ad campaigns revolve around stereotypes or parodies of stereotyping, e.g., the Geico caveman commercials).
Anyway, all those other nerds in high school grew up and many became scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. Some, like me, overcame our social awkwardness (more or less). Others did not or even got worse. Of course, there were those who were not "nerds" growing up, but also became scientists. The point is that the scientist population receives a lot of those people who were "nerds" in childhood. Their single-mindedness and intense interest in intellectual topics predisposes them for careers in STEM fields. They are certainly less likely to become social workers or politicians.
Which brings us to the poll. The results are quite interesting (if unscientific). Note that many more scientists voted than non-scientists, so we must take these findings with a grain of salt, so to speak. Most of you (scientists and non-scientists) seem to be Impostors, i.e., socially awkward, but can fake social aptitude. In both cases, about 36% of respondents checked this category. Another 8 to 10% selected other socially-challenged categories (Wallflower and Social Outcast). More scientists (43%) than non-scientists (28%) selected one of the top two categories (Social Butterfly and Congenial Comrade). The third category, Split Personality, which should be considered in the socially-inept group, was selected by 11% of scientists and 22% of non-scientists.
So, what does this say about the social aptitude of scientists? Well, first, it's clear that over half of you (55%) think you have some problems. The other half think you are socially adept. Second, the pattern for scientists is fairly similar to that of non-scientists, with minor differences. This outcome suggests that the social skills of scientists are similar to that of the wider population. However, it's possible that the half who think they are socially-adept are over-estimating their social skills and the half who think they are socially-challenged are under-estimating their skills. We would have to poll your friends and colleagues to see if they agree with your self-assessment.
I found it most interesting that the majority of both scientists and non-scientists selected the Impostor choice. I added that category at the last moment, because as I was making up the choices I realized that none of the categories was what I would select for myself. In other words, Impostor is the category that best fits me. It's especially interesting in light of the recent posts I've written about the "impostor phenomenon", which women more than men tend to experience. Even though that's about feelings of inadequacy about one's professional skills, it could also encompass social skills.
I don't think we can make too much more out of the poll, given its limitations. But it was fun to see how people responded. I'll leave it up to those who study these things to tell us whether scientists on average differ from the rest of the world in social aptitude. In the meantime, if you are feeling socially-challenged, especially in professional settings, you can reread the original post, which has some suggestions that might help.
I'll be moving the poll to the bottom of the page after this post. Thanks to everyone who voted!
Image Credit: Modified image and a video from a commercial by TBWA\Media Arts Lab for Apple Inc.
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
De Becker has little good to say about charm. He believes that charm is "almost always a directed instrument, which, like rapport building, has motive. To charm is to compel, to control by allure or attraction." Charming people do not all necessarily have sinister motives, but because it is a strategy used by con artists and social manipulators, it is prudent to be aware of it. De Becker particularly warns women to rebuff unwanted approaches. He specifically makes the point that women are expected to respond to any and all communications from men (and those who are not willing and compliant are viewed as being cold and uncooperative). He's mostly talking about strangers, but it's worth considering in a work situation when someone is being overly insistent. 
An interesting observation made in Rauch's essay is the distinction between how introverted men and women are judged. Often, the male introvert is characterized as the "strong, silent type". Think Gary Cooper in Frank Capra's classic, Meet John Doe. He's quiet, but still admired for being strong-willed and talking only when he has something of substance to say. Quiet women lack such an alternative persona; they are more likely viewed as being haughty, withdrawn, or shy. Never in a positive light. When I googled "strong, silent type and women", I did not find examples of female Gary Coopers. Instead, I found links to descriptions of why women prefer the strong, silent type of man.
We all want it, but do we always give it to others? I was reminded recently of the importance of respect in dealing with other people, especially those we may not know well. Impressions based on how someone looks, what others may have told us, or an unconscious (or conscious) bias are more the norm. It’s human nature. When we meet someone for the first time, we immediately begin forming a mental image, looking for clues about their morals, intelligence, and other inherent traits, and filling in the gaps based on our past experiences with other people bearing similar superficial features. This approach is, of course, a dangerous one. 
