Following on from a number of posts about mentors or mentorship, I got thinking about my own experience of being on the receiving end of leadership. I should think that most of us who have had the fortune to work in academentia are familiar with Alexander Dent’s ‘Nine types’ series.
Nine different leadership styles is probably pushing it a bit, to be honest. According to Forbes publisher Rich Karlgaard there are four different successful types (H/T Noelle Chun):
- Visionary
- Empathetic
- Humble servitude
- Moral/ethical
Steve Jobs is probably the most obvious example of a ‘visionary’ leader. This is the chap who took a somewhat cultish computing platform and turned it into a–well, a cultish computing platform that was not just suddenly incredibly sexy but also successful. Karlgaard gives a submarine captain as an example of an empathetic leader, as well as the cofounder of Hewlett-Packard. In the military, the function of the team is paramount, so it makes sense that you understand your charges. The heir to Wal-Mart, S. Robson Walton, is apparently a humble servant (in contrast to his father), and Starbucks is held up as an ethically-led company.
All very interesting, and in stark contrast to my own list of scientific leadership styles (some, none, or all of which I have experienced):
- Micromanaging control freak
- Psychotic bitch queen from hell
- Incredibly bright but otherworldly professor
- Waste of oxygen who mucks around on internet all day
Can you think of any of your own mentors or PIs who have displayed any or all of these traits? Does this assessment hold true for science as well as business?
I’ve never had a bad mentor either in academia or out, which is a pretty amazing thing to be able to say. I’ve noticed that my mentor’s mentors have often been absolute pants, though, so I think it’s just been a lucky escape.
Maybe their experience was so bad they determined to do a lot better?
academentia
How can I never have heard this word before? Richard, did you invent it?
I’m pretty sure I didn’t, Scott—unfortunately. It’s on Urban Dictionary, but I can’t tell you when or where I first came across it.
I must say that your list of encountered types applies pretty well to me on some days.
Overall, I’ve had run-ins with my mentors at different times, but they’ve been complex people and hard to reduce to types.
To you, or to your experience, Heather?
Don’t you think that many people have a defining style? They might be complex, but with a prominent and recognizable characteristic?
Yes, I was being flip. I meant to me. But you are right, of course there are over-riding types. I’ve mostly encountered type 1 in the first list (visionaries), type 3 in the second list (without feet on the ground) and often feel like type 4 myself.
wow, that concisely and accurately pins down some of the academics I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with at uni…garrr..(on the other hand, minus the leadership part i could practically tack on the 4th characteristic to myself..:S) others I’ve come across or heard of could be lolita-complex creep, monastic monotone hermit and hygiene deficient geek.
Thankfully, I’ve had supervisors/lecturers that fit under normal and down-to-earth. One stats prof let us throw paper planes at him one year as a demo…it was very dead poets society in some ways. And there’s whole dept at ubc known for PIs who work hard and party hard with their grads…
Say it ain’t so, Heather. You’re just wonderful.
Linda, I’m not convinced about partying with one’s boss (or underlings, for that matter). Someone is going to get embarrassed, flirty, or outrageously drunk and that’s not good.
Hmm, there’s a blog post in there, isn’t there?
Cheers for the link to Alex Dent’s cartoons, hadn’t seen them for nigh-on a decade and glad they’ve re-surfaced.
I became a notional PI young (far too young, in retrospect) so I’m not sure I ever had a real long-term mentor. My PhD supervisor, who would be the nearest thing, was certainly solidly ethical.
For my own style, I would hope it was empathetic (list 1 type 2) with a bit of moral/ethical (list 1 type 4). Though in the second list I am definitely a type 4.
You’re welcome, Austin. Took me long enough to find it…
And thanks for your self-classification. Interesting.
You forgot “passive-aggressive”, which seems to be rather over-represented in PhD-supervisor level scientists. Not naming any names, mind you.
I once worked for someone who fitted the first two items of your second list. That was fun.*
*not
Ah, yes, Richard. I’ve not personally come across that one (‘aggressive’, definitely).
Hm, I think I recognise myself as the fourth item on the list. The second list, alas.
interesting how most folks classify themselves as II;4.
Hah. I think this cohort might be a little self-selecting.
I dunno, I tend to be II;1 and I’m sure some would say II;2 (hopefully only on an off day when things are going crazy)
I could tell you about my original PhD supervisor, but I don’t think I could afford the counselling that revisiting that episode would require. Ugly
Bad luck Darren. It might make an interesting series of blog posts though.
Joe, it’s the combination of the two that’s scaring me 🙂
hm, it is interesting which type one is…. although, I would think my old saying is along the lines “many of the PIs I’ve encountered seems to be in the “self appriciating” category”. It’s not a smart thing to say though… so I won’t 😉
for me, well – I am not a PI… no classification for me today ^^
self-appreciating? As in, egotistical?
Well, I think that goes without saying. And Åsa, look out for when I start classifying postdocs…
Re partying with the students, wouldn’t think that was all that helpful. In the UK undergrad students (and most postgrads) would feel desperately uncomfortable partying with the old farts, anyway.
My general rule is that if I get invited out for a drink with the students I go along for one beer and an hr or so and then make my excuses and leave. With the postgrads I might extend that to two drinks and an hr and a half…
That way honour is satisfied, a bit of “humanizing” occurs, each age group feels the other made an effort… but you don’t either (i) cramp the students’ style or (ii) make too much of a prat of yourself (hopefully). Childrens’ bedtime makes an excellent reason to duck out, for those with sprogs.
Of course, this is the middle-aged person’s version I’m giving. if you are a postdoc or late 20-something PI (still just possible in the UK) then it is probably different. When I started as a junior lecturer in my 20s (! – really, long time ago) I used to hang out with the postgrads and final yr undergrads. But it would be waaaaaay too embarrassing now.
Yah, it’s good to show willing but too much fraternizing with the enlisted men isn’t good for discipline.
Just seen this but it’s in Dutch (Eva? Jenny?). It was linked from http://academicsnet.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/being-professor-being-a-good-leader/ and apparently says that being a good leader isn’t the same as being a good professor.
other way around: being a good professor doesn’t imply being a good boss. Longer summary when I’m not on iPod and being smothered by cat.
ah.. that makes sense.
Hope you become suitably unsmothered soon.
WTF just happened there? Nasty echo in here.
@ Richard: Quick-and-dirty translation:
Being a professor does not mean that one is a good leader. The University of Jena (Germany) reports.
Only 25% of professors in 96 universities which were studied, act as good research leaders. 52,4% of employees judge their professors as bad bosses. Their style of leadership varies from, at best, ‘mediocre’ down to ‘miserable’.
The German University Newspaper reports that about 25% of professors doen’t do a bad job, as far as their employees are concerned. Perhaps not ideal in the way they treat their employees, but their leaderhsip capabilities are judged as ‘sort of good’.
Research from the Rathenau Institute (The Hague, NL) shows that excellent research groups have leaders that display more varied leadership behaviour. On top of that, they devote more time to research duties. The optimal size of a research group is 10 fte’s, which is smaller than initially thought.
The Rathenau researchers studied 188 biomedical research groups in the Netherlands, of which 22 (according to them) performed ‘excellent’. In the latter group, research teams were also studied with respect to theri style of organisation and management and how this differed from others.
What he said. (That saved me a lot of work!)
Brilliant, Bart. Thanks.
I’m surprised that the optimal research group size is 10 FTEs. That’s larger than I’d have expected. My dream team would be four postdocs, one labtech/manager and one student.
I reckon that the size of the dream team is contingent upon the questions pursued. Theoretical biology and ecology require, in terms of staff, completely different things. So does biophysics…etc etc
I thought that was weird, too. Maybe they mean a sub-department, under one distinguished professor, who has several others working under him who each have their own lab? One of the places I was at in Amsterdam was structured like that.
And did they count MSc students as employees? They’re not, in Holland (don’t get paid stipends until PhD level), but they’re in the lab for about 6 full months a year per person.
That’s true, Bart. But the article says ‘biomedicine’, so that tends to be less theoretical and done in labs, not fields.
In that case, Eva, wouldn’t 10 be far too small?
Larger groups go a bit fuzzy at the edges, but if you have a smaller group you can really get things done and ping off each other without directly competing (in the same group, I think that too often leads to duplication rather than efficiency. And mistrust, sabotage, etc.). My best years in science were spent in a lab that was pretty much like my dream team, although there was one fewer postdoc and one more student.
The smallest group in which 1 worked was 3 fte’s: 1 Professor, 1 Technician, 1 PhD student (I was the non-paid MSc student tagging along). The last was at least 70 fte’s (3 Full Professors, 5 Assoc. Profs, 7 Assist. Profs and loads of postdocs and PhD students).
I can report that 3 is too small and 70 is too big 😉
Heh.
10 FTE would be way too small for clinical research.
Richard. In your ideal research group the 10 FTE isn’t fulfilled because you classify 1 postdoc as equal to 1 FTE.
Weeeellll in my experience postdocs are usually equal to two or even three FTEs each.
(and I wasn’t aiming at 10, btw)
Richard: Well, I think that goes without saying. And Åsa, look out for when I start classifying postdocs
Now, I am prefectly fine with you starting to classifying post docs. That way I can look out for what I was 😉 (since I am not a post doc anymore ^^)
Heh. Once a postdoc, always a postdoc. You can run, &c.
Psychotic bitch queen from hell
And is this type seen in both genders or are you just stereotyping?
Oh it’s definitely both genders. Most women PIs in my experience tend to be nice, but there are are exceptions.
One or two, he says, darkly.
I’d predict III/1 with occasional chances of 2. I’m not stereotyping…I’m just saying, darkly.
I’m not stereotyping myself, that should have said.
Would that even be possible?
I know one supervisor who I would say was 1 and 2 on the second list (Not my supervisor I have to say, thankfully, but someone else’s).
I was pleased to hear that there is some justice/sanity in the world as he did not get his 5 year contract renewed and has now left the UK…pity the people in spain though.
Interesting lists but I’m a bit disturbed by the second list – not because I don’t think it’s true but because I don’t want it to be!! Surely scientists can do better than that – would probably help if the whole system didn’t reward most those who are selfish.
And did they count MSc students as employees? They’re not, in Holland (don’t get paid stipends until PhD level), but they’re in the lab for about 6 full months a year per person.
That’s interesting. On this side of the pond they’re paid, and in the lab for about 12 full months a year per person, but ideally at about 1.5 FTE or greater equivalent workload.
And that is why my “equivalent of MSc” from Holland was not recognized as MSc at UofT and I had to start in the MSc program all over again (but did the reclass exam at the end of year two so it didn’t matter).
M^2Sc?
Over the years they have changed the Dutch MSc from the long “Drs.” (which is a BSc and MSc all rolled into one) which Eva and I had to endure, to the Bologna-style MSc including a 9 month research stint. Still no payment though:
Ducth MSc’s make 0k€/year, whereas Dutch PhD-studs make 32k€/year.
“Dutch PhD-studs” sound fantastic. I’m sure there’s a market for them.
I’m not convinced about partying with one’s boss (or underlings, for that matter). Someone is going to get embarrassed, flirty, or outrageously drunk and that’s not good.
@Richard and Austin: Funny you guys should mention how potentially embarrassing it could be. I’ve heard of the drunken male PIs kissing their male students on the cheek, and flipping thru a dept. photo album of past socials, they caught on camera one student on a PI’s lap (he’s 70..so i guess that’s less weird?). Makes for interesting stories though…
Dunno Linda, did the 70 y.o. PI in question have a long, white beard and a bright red suit?
Sorry Eva, I realized after I posted that comment that you know that all already. 😉
@RPG – I’m sure you could find a website or two about “Dutch PhD studs” if you try hard.
Maybe not at work, Richard.