Women and self-confidence

I could have entitled this post 'Women and self-confidence in academia'. But I reconsidered because many of my reflections can be generalized to other professions. It's just that academia is what I know. I've worked as a full-fledged scientist in academia for twenty-two years, and before that, spent six years working on my doctorate. I've worked in a mostly man-dominated profession--cancer research--even though during the last fifteen years or so women have made many inroads into this field. When I did my doctoral work during the 1990s, most mentors were men, and the one woman in my department who headed her own research group was unqualified for the position, in my opinion. Time proved me right. 

I've had the privilege of mentoring/co-mentoring seven younger women and three younger men who have been interested in doing doctoral or Masters degree work. I've taken my mentoring responsibilities seriously, as I've done with most of my career responsibilities. All of the younger people I've mentored have finished their degrees successfully. Not one of them quit, although there were three women who wanted to quit at times (when life was made unbearable for them by other mentors). After many years in this business, I've realized that there are clear differences between women and men in terms of the self-confidence they bring to the table. Two of the men I've co-mentored took PhD degrees in record time; they were finished with their lab work within three years and defended their work not long after. Their self-confidence levels were high throughout; neither of them had any misgivings about their capabilities or expertise, and neither of them suffered from that nagging feeling that they were not good enough. They knew they were, and they acted accordingly. They didn't have to learn to take center stage; they were comfortable being the centers of attention when all eyes were on them. They adapted quickly, finished quickly, and moved into the private sector once they finished their doctoral work. The PhD degree was the key to their future career success in private industry; they understood that, and also made it clear to those around them that they were not interested in academic careers. These are my observations about them, after having had a number of conversations with them. We had a good rapport for the most part; the guidance they needed from me was more collaborative. They were driven and self-motivated, and if they suffered from any negative or anxious feelings, they hid them well. They also received a large amount of positive feedback and praise from their male co-mentor, who was a bit more sparse in dealing the same out to the women for whom he's been a co-mentor. 

All of the women I've mentored/co-mentored had completely different experiences. They did not adapt to their chosen paths quickly. They took their time, felt their way forward, sometimes stumbling in the dark. They were not afraid to say that they were anxious about not measuring up, and in three cases, the treatment they received at the hands of the other co-mentor was often crippling to their self-confidence. When I have reflected upon this, I conclude that male mentors are more supportive of the men they mentor than they are of the women they mentor. I don't know why, but I wonder if it has to do with the level of comfort and camaraderie they feel with other men. I have had many discussions with this particular male mentor about his behavior; I've had to tell him not to be rude, disparaging, arrogant, and dismissive. He's been all those things, mostly to women. Perhaps he is an isolated case as a mentor. I don't know. He's had a lot of power and been given a lot of leeway. In short, he's been allowed to behave pretty much as he's wanted to all these years. He might not have behaved this way with the men he mentored because he knew they'd fight back. I don't know that either. The women have not fought back. Part of my mentoring them was to teach them to fight back--that they don't need to take all of the crap dished out to them (just because they are women). They are allowed to fight back; I've said that, and I've supported them when they did.  

I've been available to my students, male and female. The men needed me less; the women needed me more. Almost thirty years after I started my own doctoral work, I see that times haven't changed all that much. I had no one to talk to when times got tough (my husband was some help, but he wasn't my main mentor), so I promised myself that when it was my turn to be a mentor, I would be there for my students. And I've lived up to that promise. My mentor was a man, by turns rude and supportive, if that is possible. He didn't push me around because he knew I'd fight him back, even though it took me some years to learn how to do that. He did respect my intelligence, albeit grudgingly at times. But as I've told the women I've mentored, I never had a problem with self-confidence when it came to my work. I knew I was good, good enough to be a scientist and good enough to be a project group leader. I know my limitations and my strengths. I've been told that I was good but not good enough by one of my research leaders (a man), and I ignored him and continued to do what I do best. I've gotten all my students through their degree work; he has not. He has harassed many of the post-docs he's hired and they left his lab demotivated and discouraged about their place in science. I know this because they (women and men alike) have come into my office to share their stories with me over the years. He made mincemeat of whatever self-confidence they had at the time they were in his lab. Why? Who knows. I could write a long treatise on him, but he's not worth the effort. One thing is clear to me; the harassment of women doesn't end when they finish their doctoral work. Once a woman becomes a worthy competitor to a man, that's when the harassment intensifies. Academia is a hotbed of competition, bad behavior, arrogance, and harassment. Sometimes it amazes me that any good work actually gets done amidst the political crap that goes on. I wonder too how some people live with themselves.  

Being a mentor involves so many things, but mostly it boils down to coaching and motivation, in addition to understanding the work involved. You cannot be a good mentor unless you understand the projects, the science, the lab work, and the ins and outs of academia. I am a cheerleader of sorts, praising students for a job well-done, listening to them when times are tough and providing encouragement to continue working when everything seems dark and unforgiving. There is always a light at the end of the tunnel. Keep placing one foot in front of the other and you'll get there. The only way out is through. Don't give up. This too shall pass. Sometimes just saying those words is enough for some students. Knowing that they've been listened to, that someone cares about them and their projects and goals, is the motivation they need to continue. If I've played such a role in their lives, I've done a good job, and I'm happy. And it makes me happy to see them succeed. 

 

The importance of good leadership

I’ve written about good and bad leadership many times over the past ten years, mostly as relates to a workplace setting. It’s clear to me that bad leadership has a major impact on how employees view their jobs and their career prospects. Bad leadership is narcissistic leadership; leaders who are most concerned about what their employees can do for them, rather than the other way around. Narcissistic leaders are not interested in serving their company or their employees; they are interested in serving themselves. That can define a lot of modern workplaces; one need only take a look at the hefty bonuses given to crappy leaders at the expense of loyal hard-working employees who will never in their lifetime see a fraction of the amount of money that some of the bad leaders rake in. Many of the bad leaders make a mess of one workplace, only to then move on to the next one that is waiting to welcome them with open arms. They are not or cannot be held accountable for the chaos they leave behind, which I think is wrong, especially in public sector workplaces but also in private ones. Your reputation as a destroyer should follow you and hinder you from getting a new leadership position.

Most employees who have been treated poorly do not want to stay in their jobs; unfortunately many do, either because they cannot afford to quit without another job waiting for them (not always the case) or because they have lost the necessary confidence to seek other positions. The latter is not talked about very often, but it is important and an absolutely decisive factor in whether or not an employee actually gets a new position. Nowadays you have to market yourself to the nth degree, and if you don’t have the confidence to do that due to constant harassment or badmouthing by bad leaders, you’ve lost the battle before you even started fighting.

Bad leaders should be fired, pushed aside, frozen out, or ignored. However it happens, they should have their power stripped from them. Unfortunately this rarely happens. But if you work in a workplace long enough, you can be witness to the karma effect, as in, karma is a bitch. Time heals all wounds, as is often said, and it does. What doesn’t kill you does make you stronger. But time often wounds all heels, and that is a good thing for the heels and for those who have been mistreated by them to see, even though it involves the downhill slide of once-deemed-important leaders into a deserved oblivion. No one will miss them or care about them, and in fact, workplaces can begin to really thrive again once they are gone.

And that brings me to the presidential transition in the USA. A transition from a bad leader to a (hopefully) better one. Biden is at least a decent human being, something that cannot honestly be said about Trump. Decency is a good start in my book. If Trump is at all decent, I haven’t seen evidence of it, and I would need to see the evidence before I can change my opinion of him. But he is absolutely not a good leader. I have said it many times before; he squandered the wonderful opportunity he had as a non-politician to really lead the country into a different future, to implement policies and ways of doing things that could have had good effects and lasting change. Instead he chose to dabble with the alt-right, with white supremacists, with haters and bigots, with conspiracy theorists, with the fringe elements that were enabled by him to slither out from under their rocks into prime time. America got a good look at what lives in its underbelly, and it is none too pretty. If you think it’s cool that the underbelly exists, then you must be prepared to live with the consequences. I for one do not think it’s cool that an American president sanctions racism and white supremacy, yells at reporters, makes fun of the disabled, or acts like a spoiled brat on the world stage. I am praying that the era of narcissistic leaders is coming to an end; it has reigned in politics and modern workplaces for far too long. We need a long era of leaders who are willing to serve their constituents (the whole USA when it comes to politics) and their employees when it comes to workplaces. I cannot see how the world will move in a better direction without such leaders to guide us. We must demand good behaviour of our leaders, and they must listen and act accordingly. And if they don’t, we must get rid of them until we find leaders who fit that bill. Anything else is to choose destruction of the values that most of us cherish.