It takes two to tango

Sat down to breakfast this morning, and was flipping through the newspaper sections rather randomly. My husband was reading the front section of Aftenposten, so I settled on the Jobs section, where there are not only employment ads, but often articles about new trends in the workplace as well as advice from headhunters and work-life coaches. Wouldn’t you know, there was a photo of two couples dancing the tango in connection with a leadership course they’re taking. This particular course encourages its participants (leader personnel from the company Siemens Healthcare) to learn to dance the tango as part of learning how to team-build and be a better leader. In this particular case, since there were no women attending the course (which is telling in and of itself—not many female leaders out there, apparently), males were dancing with other males, and the photographer snapped a photo of two of these couples. There was talk about ‘stepping outside of your comfort zone’ and all that. I’m sure it’s a lot of fun and hard work to learn the tango, and I would be stepping out of my comfort zone as well to learn the tango and any kind of ballroom dancing. But I would do this in my free time, not during work time, so it wouldn’t matter that I was a slow learner. I’m not sure how learning the tango has anything to do with learning how to be a better leader. Does it have to do with learning to lead and have others follow, or vice versa? What happens if you are trying to follow the lead of someone who never learns the dance, as is often the case in the workplace? What happens if none of the trendy leadership courses results in better leadership? I don’t get it, so someone has to please explain to me why companies are spending money on such courses at a time when the global economy is in a downturn. These courses cost money, a lot of money.

I have yet to see the solid research/statistics that demonstrate the absolute benefit of leadership courses for leaders. How do you measure the effectiveness of these courses; how can you assess the results? Can you be sure that the methods work? I’m a scientist, so I want to see the research data. Please show me the reports so I can read them. I have no problems with an annual daylong seminar where leaders can meet together in their workplace and share common problems, brainstorm, or otherwise come up with new and creative ideas about how to lead. I just don’t understand the emphasis these days (the new trend) on traveling to out-of-the-way hotels and resorts for this purpose, for two or more days at a time. The idea I presume is that you cannot just ‘go home’ at the end of the course day; you’re stuck together with other leaders during the evenings where social skills play a large role as well. Networking and more networking. I know several leaders who shun these trips (or want to) as often as they can. A decade ago, private companies spent money on sending their employees out into the forests and mountains to learn how to work together as a team to survive and maneuver through the inevitable problems that cropped up. These team building courses seem to have paved the way for the new types of leadership and team-building courses. Is this because the old ones didn’t work, or are the new approaches the ideas that sprang up during the old team building and leadership courses? Did someone ten years ago think—it would be cool to have leaders learn to dance the tango together? Is that how it works at the top?

As children, we learned the Golden Rule—‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. In other words, treat people as you would like to be treated. I learned this rule early on and it stuck. And when I have broken it, my conscience tells me that I have wronged someone and to go and make amends. I live this way in my personal life and I have behaved accordingly in my work life. I can honestly say that I have tried to the best of my ability to treat those who have worked for me with respect and honesty, and have been as professional as possible when dealing with them. The awareness of your behavior and how it affects others in the workplace are the two most important things one must learn as a manager, and if you manage this you can be an effective manager or leader. I don’t think it is more complicated than that. Unfortunately, when you are lied to, exploited or pushed aside by company leaders, it makes it that much more difficult to treat leadership with respect. It takes two to tango. You cannot expect respect from employees if you do not treat them with respect. It’s that simple, and that complicated. We say that about children and adults as well; you cannot expect children to respect adults who abuse them or treat them badly or indifferently. It doesn’t matter if the adults are parents, teachers or other authority figures. I could already differentiate very clearly when I was in grammar school, who were the good teachers and who were the abusers. You remember both and you learn from both. Had I been surrounded only by abusive teachers, I would have learned how to evade them to the best of my ability--how to lie to them and how to be dishonest—how to play the game to see who would eventually win control. They would not have deserved better treatment. The same is true for abusive or exploitive company leadership.

My view of workplace leadership is more along the lines of the top-down approach. If you want respect from employees, start at the top and look down. Take a really good look at yourself, and then your employees. Companies should hire leaders who know what the Golden Rule is, who have ethics and morals, who abhor corruption and political game-playing, and who are not just interested in their cushy titles and salaries. They should hire leaders who understand that the buck stops with them. But companies have to value these types of leaders. This is the type of leadership that employees will respect. This is the type of leadership that employees will listen to, when new ideas, change, and challenges confront them in a world of global uncertainty and instability. Employees will look to leadership for guidance, but they will also pitch in and do their fair share and more if they know it will help the company survive. I have yet to meet one employee who was treated fairly by his or her company, who didn’t want to give back his or her fair share to that company. In other words, those employees who have been kicked around, exploited, lied to or treated poorly, and there are a number of them, are those who do not want to give back their fair share to their companies anymore. They have felt the injustice that pervades the system; they know that they are dancing alone. Where they once followed another’s lead, they now dance in place. Their leaders bailed out on them a long time ago. I would say that’s the biggest problem in workplaces these days; employees have to figure out everything on their own. There is no one to look up to, no one to mentor them, no one to take responsibility for them and their professional wellbeing. There are few good leaders who take their employees into consideration, who prioritize them. I know of one leader who was told that she was too concerned about her employees; that as a leader, she should be concerned with the company views and policies and with getting her employees to ‘accept’ a new policy that amounted to nothing more than a new way to exploit their competence and dedication (getting them to work twice as hard for the same amount of money). Suffice it to say that this company has a lot of problems and that the turnover rate for employees is high. Employees can ‘see through’ a lot of the new trends in the workplace, and leadership courses are one of those trends. Bad leaders will not become good leaders by learning to dance the tango; they will become good leaders by practicing the Golden Rule. I have yet to see a course that focuses on the ethics of leadership. I have to wonder if it would be well-attended.

School days and a lifetime of learning

The autumn season is always a nice reminder of my school and college years. I can honestly say that I looked forward to going back to school each year, even though I always enjoyed having the summers off. Autumn is the start of a new school season, with all the hype, expectations and focus that a new start entails. That feeling of starting a new school year has never left me, even though I am far removed from my school days; I always have a bit of it when I go back to work after a long summer vacation. But now that I do consulting work for the university, I feel that sense of ‘new school year’ excitement when I walk past groups of students gathered nervously together on campus—that sense of anticipation about new courses, new books, new teachers, new social experiences, and a lot of studying. I’m glad I’m finished with all that, but it’s interesting to be back on campus as an adult doing an adult job. I enjoy seeing the students and remembering back to my own college days at Fordham University. Those years were something special, and I knew that already at college age. I knew that such an opportunity to be able to focus and to study uninterruptedly for four years would never come again. And it’s true, it never did. But those four years were a wonderful immersion in biology, literature, Spanish, organic chemistry and history, on a lovely campus in the middle of the Bronx.

I went to work full-time right after college, halfway through my master’s degree in cell biology that I ended up finishing at night. I was offered the chance to do a PhD by professor Loren Day, my biophysicist boss at my first job, but I turned down the offer so that I could work for some years while I figured out in what field I wanted to do doctoral work. I knew it would not be biophysics (my first working lab experience—isolating and purifying bacteriophage DNA in order to study its helical structure). Although the technology we used at that time was fascinating, I was more fascinated by the use of computers in the lab—the early computers that let us feed DNA sequences into crude programs in order to get back protein sequences, for example. The computers that were programmed to tell us “Cool your jets, I’m adding up the sites” while we waited for the output. They were being funny with us, of course programmed to be so by the offbeat programmers who had offbeat senses of humor. I became friends with Roy, our resident computer programmer, who showed me how computer circuit boards were designed, and who was patient enough to explain the chemistry involved in their manufacture. He taught me the rudiments of the programming language UNIX, and got me interested in the first small personal computers. My interest in computers led to my taking a course in FORTRAN and in machine language at New York University, courses that I have never regretted taking. I hit the wall countless times, but I managed to pass both courses and I learned some really cool things in the process, like how to move 0’s and 1’s around in the data and address registers that make up the CPU. This binary language is the language needed to talk to the guts of the computer; the executable programs that are written in higher level languages like FORTRAN in the early days and in C++ nowadays are translated to executable machine (binary) code by a compiler and linker. So I waded carefully into the programming waters, but I was not clever enough to continue in this field even though it interested me tremendously. I don’t regret this decision, because biology was and still is the field of study that interests me the most, with literature a close second. The exposure to computers and to complex instrumentation in my first job laid the groundwork for my next job, which was to be the daily leader of a flow cytometry core facility at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Laser flow cytometers/sorters were used to analyze different cellular parameters and to physically sort different cell types from each other; most of them were coupled to computers that were programmed to run these instruments and to perform the complex analyses involved. When I look back to that time, the 1980s, I remember it as a phenomenal time in terms of learning. The use of flow cytometry in biological and cancer research was just taking off, and it was fun to be a part of it, attending courses in Boston (sponsored by Ortho Diagnostic Systems) to learn how to run these complicated instruments, as well as a course in Los Alamos, New Mexico at the government lab there to learn how high-speed flow sorters were being used to sort chromosomes and to make chromosome libraries, among other important things. We learned how to do some pretty novel stuff at that course, and got a chance to see a lot of New Mexico in the process. I joined the Society for Analytical Cytology (SAC) that later became the International Society for Analytical Cytometry (ISAC); I have attended countless conferences in different countries since 1985, but the conference that stands out is the one at Cambridge University in England in August 1987. It was here that I met Trond, the Norwegian man who became my husband. It was also my first trip to Europe alone; my lodging was a student dormitory room not far from the building where the conference was held. All conference attendees lived in this way for the week we were there. I loved the feeling of living in the dorm; it was a monastic room, simple, small, with very little furniture save the bed and a desk. But it gave me a real feeling of what it must have been like to study at Cambridge, and the city itself was attractive with its many bookstores and music stores. All I know is that one day I hope to really study there—to take a literature course of some sort during the summer months. It’s on my bucket list.  

Maybe it’s not so strange that I ended up in academia. I don’t teach, even though I have achieved the level of professor competence. I prefer to mentor students on a one-to-one basis or in small groups, and I still like being in the lab from time to time. I don’t like bureaucracy, power politics, or the ‘publish or perish’ mentality of academia. What I do like is the ability and privilege that we have to immerse ourselves in lifelong learning if we want to, and I try to take advantage of this as much as possible. Because life is short, but also because society is changing at a rapid rate, and has changed immensely within the last thirty years. Being able to keep up with the rapid change is important, and the only way we can do that is to remain open to learning for the rest of our lives.