Brave new work world

It strikes me more and more that the work world has become a ’brave new world’. The future is now, is upon us. A myriad of changes sneaked up on us and suddenly were there. But they weren’t just small changes; they were life-changing and workplace-changing changes. Those of us who have been in the work world for a while are a bit more observant of these changes; or perhaps we feel the effects of this brave new world a bit more intensely than those just starting out. In any case, I’ve had the past two years to muse upon all of the changes, and I must say that they herald a new world of work that we can no longer deny has in reality arrived. 

Open landscapes, shared jobs, home offices, flexible time, team projects, and group thinking are just a few of those changes. But perhaps the biggest change in the past five years alone has been the move toward selling yourself as a worker. It is no longer possible to ignore this fact—that marketing yourself and your capabilities, selling yourself to a potential employer, has become de rigueur for average employees. It is no longer a matter of choice. Even headhunting agencies will tell you that now. It started with posting personal photos on resumes. That was never done when I was starting out in the work world; it is very common now. It moved on to the use of social media to establish your online presence; that has become very important. LinkedIn, Facebook, Google +, Twitter, and a myriad of other online social spaces help present you to a potential employer. The more hits you have on Google, the better. Of course they have to be the right kind of hits; it won’t do for an employer, potential or not, to find your drunken party photos on Facebook. But it strikes me that a potential employer might even overlook this if they see that you have a huge number of friends or followers. Because this is the age of networking. The more networks you have, the better. It shows presumably that you are a social person, friendly, capable of teamwork, of sharing, of listening, of communicating. It may be to your detriment not to have an online social presence these days. I cannot say for sure, but I have a very strong feeling that this is the case. And if it is, is this the right way to be doing things? It’s too soon to say, but for those people who are professionally competent yet introverted or even shy about ‘getting themselves out there’; it must be a nightmare to maneuver through this brave new world. How do you explain to a potential employer that you are fully competent to do the job but a bit shy about promoting yourself? And if your job doesn’t involve sales or marketing, why is it necessary to have to market yourself to an employer? Why isn’t an interview about your skills and competence enough to get you hired? But it’s not anymore. I think that some of this new emphasis on selling yourself is going to backfire. An employer may be impressed by a potential employee who has hundreds or thousands of friends on Facebook; the employer may even think that this means that if this person is hired that he or she will be good at teamwork and group thinking. But not all jobs need this or require it. It won’t do to hire a scientist with hundreds or thousands of friends on Facebook if he or she can’t survive the loneliness of lab life. The life of a scientist is often lonely. If you are hired as a scientist, it is expected that you can tolerate alone time—in your office writing articles or grants, or alone in the lab doing experiments until all hours of the evening. And being social online doesn’t necessarily translate to being a better communicator or better networker in the workplace. I’ve seen that more times than I can count.

I couldn’t even imagine how awful it must be to work in an open landscape, to not have my own office or even to share an office but to be able to close the door on the rest of the workplace at times. I cannot imagine what it must be like to talk on the phone with no hope of privacy whatsoever, whether it be a work-related or personal call. I couldn’t stand the idea that I was to be monitored at all times. I also don’t like the idea of shared jobs; I don’t think it is right to hire a person to do a job and then to hire one or two more people to do the same job, so that all of them are sharing that job at the same time. I can understand sharing a job if one person does it 50% of the time and the other person has the other 50%--I call that splitting a job. The trend that I have seen recently is that one or two people are working simultaneously on the same project or job and are mostly just competing with each other instead of working effectively. I don’t get it in any case. I know a few people who have complained to me about this—that they don’t have their individual projects in the lab but instead are working on the same project as a co-worker, or that they really don’t know what is expected of them, or they don’t know what they’re really doing. That sense of vagueness that hangs over everything—the veil of vagueness, I call it. Who is my boss, what is my job, what is expected of me, am I doing a good job, what is a good job? The same vagueness is involved in group thinking—is this really the way we want to go in the workplace? Forcing people to brainstorm together in the same room for hours at a time won’t necessarily lead to new creative ideas; it may rather lead to boredom and inertia. Home office days work for me, so that is a change I like personally, but I know many people who dread this because of the lack of structure and discipline that the workplace provides for them.

This has been a long post, but one that I have been thinking about for quite a while. I will be writing more about the brave new work world in future posts. I am figuring it out as I go along, but I must say I am ever so glad to be closer to the end of my work life than to the start of it. 

Tunnel of Light at the Nydalen Metro Station in Oslo

Lovely day in Oslo today, so I went for a long walk up along the Akerselva River, as far as Nydalen. I had my camera with me and decided to take a short video of the Nydalen Metro Station's Tunnel of Light. You can see it in action and read more about it here. But I'll include the info about it anyway. Enjoy!!

The Tunnel of Light is located at the Nydalen Metro Station in Oslo, Norway, You step on to the escalator that connects to the station platform, and for 30 seconds you can experience a tunnel of rainbow colors that shift color constantly; the sound patterns ("music") also change along with the lights. The station was designed by architect Kristin Jarmund, and the interactive installations were created by Intravision System.

Experimenting with the workplace

I have written a lot of posts about the modern-day workplace over the past year and a half in an attempt to understand my own workplace and all the changes that have occurred there during this period of time. I follow the news in both the USA and Norway and whenever there is news about what is going on in modern workplaces, I sit up and take notice. It interests me almost as much as science news. I’m not necessarily talking about business news in general; more about organizational behavior in businesses. Why do companies behave as they do toward their employees? What are the different management philosophies that dominate workplaces and how do they affect employees? Why did they arise in the first place? Who is responsible for their implementation in the workplace? When did modern workplaces become research laboratories? By that I mean, when did it become kosher to ‘experiment’ on employees by foisting different trendy management philosophies on them? Because it is an experiment to do this to a workplace—to force a workplace to adopt new strategies and ways of managing people in the name of cost-effectiveness, productivity and innovation. And before one experiment is finished, before data can be analyzed and conclusions drawn, another experiment is undertaken in the name of some other wonderful ideal that is usually impossible to live up to. It is impossible to draw any conclusion whatsoever without careful study and analysis of data that has been carefully collected from carefully-designed experiments. Do any of the workplace experiments meet the stringent criteria required for performing such experiments? I sincerely doubt it, based on what I have been witness to in my own workplace.

I get the impression that this type of ‘experimental’ approach occurs in the classroom as well. Education seems to have been invaded by the same types of people who are responsible for the major changes in the workplace. There seems to be an inordinate amount of experimentation in the classroom, whether in grammar schools or high schools. I don’t get it. What are the experiments trying to prove? I have listened to frustrated parents talk about their children, who are now young adults and who are struggling to find meaning in their lives. These are children who grew up in the 1990s and during the early part of this century, who were told that they could plan their own curriculum in schools, choose their own course of study, and so forth. What they weren’t told was how they were to follow that self-chosen road to its end. They weren’t taught discipline and focus and the value of hard work and homework; they weren’t told about failing and rising again after failing. They were only told to believe in themselves. Some of them do, but many of them don’t. It’s a vague concept for a child to ‘believe’ in himself or herself. When you’re young, you don’t think that way. You think rather—‘I’m scared to give this talk in front of the class. I don’t want to be the center of attention or the butt of the jokes or the nerd’. But there’s often no one to talk to about these things. And you would much rather get concrete help on how to talk in front of the class than hear an adult tell you to ‘just believe in yourself and it will all work out’. That may be true, that it usually does work out. But as adults, we are responsible for training the young, not leaving them to their own devices. I find it ironic that adult workplaces are micromanaged to the n^th degree, whereas children’s (public) schools are not, or haven’t been up to this point. The teachers may be micromanaged, yes, and forced to fill out a myriad of reports; the children are given a lot of ‘freedom’. Discipline is discouraged, homework likewise; teachers who come down hard on students are reprimanded. It’s a very different world than the one I grew up in, and I don’t really understand it. The same is true about the modern workplace—it is not the workplace I cut my teeth on, and I am spending a fair amount of time trying to figure out when the paradigm shift occurred, when the rug got pulled out from under our feet, and how it all changed when no one was looking. The values and ethics I grew up with that I expected would be valued in the workplace, are not necessarily valued as much as I thought they would be. Loyalty, discipline, structure, focus, hard work—I know they are appreciated, but not in the same way as in my parents’ generation. But when I started out in the work world over thirty years ago, they were still highly appreciated. It is amazing how much can change in the space of ten or twenty years. I suppose when I look at it all objectively, I cannot really be surprised. Change is part and parcel of life, including work life. Perhaps it has been rather naive to expect it to remain the same, especially when everything else around us changes continually. 

My heart and San Francisco

Nineteen years ago, my husband and I were walking the streets of San Francisco; we lived there for one glorious year when he got the wonderful opportunity to work as a postdoc in a molecular genetics lab at the University of California at San Francisco. I also ended up working in the same lab (pretty large) but in a different capacity. I remember loving the challenge of moving, setting up stakes in a new city, finding an apartment for us to rent, going to look at them in the evenings when he got home after work. All those things that make for a life together and the stuff of great memories. I got to thinking of that time in our lives because I saw our old address on a slip of paper as I was going through my files recently and tossing old papers. We lived on Carl Street (very near the intersection with Stanyan Street), a stone’s throw in terms of distance from both Golden Gate Park and the Haight-Ashbury district. I googled the address recently and clicked onto the street view—wouldn’t you know, there was our old Victorian-style house, still looking the same as it did nineteen years ago? I wonder if it still exists as apartments for rent? As I remember, there were several apartments in the three-story house. We lived on the top floor.

We loved being there and each weekend was a new adventure. There were so many things to do and see that year. Where should we go, what should we visit this time? Of course we did all the standard touristy things—visiting Fisherman’s Wharf, Alcatraz prison, Muir Woods, Chinatown, Golden Gate Park, different museums and the zoo. And so many other things. We drove to Marin County, to Berkeley, and to the Napa Valley wine country (don’t get me started on how much I loved being there—it is one of the most beautiful places on earth if you ask me). But what I remember most from our year in SF is that we got outdoors and walked. It is a great city to walk in, hilly yes, but easy to walk around in. And that is how we discovered most of the interesting off-the-beaten path restaurants and cafes and stores that we ended up liking to go to. And our trips to the beach on the weekends, even in the months of February and March. Deserted beaches for the most part, but what an expansive feeling to be there. I love being at the shore during the winter months; I remember doing that when I lived in New Jersey—driving to the shore in the middle of winter and looking out over the ocean. In San Francisco, we took the cable car all the way out to the end of Irving Street and then walked a few meters from there to the beach. We stopped and bought homemade vanilla sodas at the little Italian deli that stood on the corner of the last street before the beach. That was my first introduction to those wonderful Italian syrups that come in all flavors—vanilla, coffee, chocolate, and so many others. I took so many pictures that year, we had so many visitors that year—my sister and her husband, my friends Gisele and Judy, my husband’s friend Lars, colleagues from our Norwegian workplaces.  I remember my husband’s aunt and uncle (Gunvor and Åke) visiting us in the autumn, and her falling in love with the pumpkins that were in abundance at that time of year; she helped me carve out a large one for Halloween. And when my ten-year old stepdaughter Caroline came for three weeks during that summer, we took her to Disneyland in Los Angeles and then visited my friends Lucy and Steve in San Diego where we ended up visiting Sea World as well. My brother got married that year as well—the wedding was in NY which made it a pleasure to fly the short trip back to NY to be a part of it. There was never a dull moment in all of 1993, and that is why that year stands out in my mind as a very memorable year. It was full of adventures and new experiences that we tackled and mastered and enjoyed doing so in the process. Perhaps those are the things we should do more often in our lives—choose new experiences that bring us out of our comfort zones, that stretch us and make us broader. Who knows? It is easier to choose safety at the expense of all else, and becomes much easier to do so as we grow older.

We often walked around in Haight-Ashbury on the weekends, with its great old record stores, clothing stores, cafes—you name it. Of course it had its quota of shady stores and seediness, but what big city doesn’t? I wouldn’t have lived smack in the center of that district, mostly because it attracted a lot of tourists and there wouldn’t have been much privacy or quiet. But we were there often. It’s where we discovered a little hole-in-wall Southern food restaurant that probably isn’t there anymore. It served crab cakes and seafood gumbo and you name it. We went there often, as well as to a barbecued ribs place that probably should have been closed down by the health authorities, but boy were the ribs good! We had an organic deli and bakery on the corner a few houses down from us, where we bought fresh bread, and a small supermarket a few blocks from us where we could get fresh fish. We didn’t lack for much that year.

It was the one year in my life where my work really didn’t matter all that much to me. I was employed in the same lab as my husband, working on a flow cytometry project that I learned and mastered and that eventually led to a publication for my boss at that time. I’m proud that I was able to come in and get the project organized and on-track so that a publication became possible. I worked hard, but I left work at the door at the end of the day. We met some great work colleagues and hung out with them as well--concerts, picnics, parties. But weekends belonged to my husband and me, our free time, relaxing because work did not hang over our heads as it does usually. I miss that. I try to keep weekends free now, but there is always something to do for work. I don’t mind it, but I miss that feeling of being truly relaxed.

When we returned to Norway, a new year awaited us. It seems almost impossible to believe that nearly twenty years have passed since that time. But they have. We sat and watched The Streets of San Francisco with Karl Malden and a young Michael Douglas, that ran for a year or so on Norwegian TV during 1994. We missed SF. It made us feel good to watch the show, to try to identify the streets we knew and had walked on. Is it possible to fall in love with a city? I think so. It happened to me during 1993. I don’t know how I’d feel going back now. I’ve changed, our lives have changed. Perhaps it’s good not to go back? I don’t know. I’ve done it once, returned to Cambridge in England, the city where I met my husband. It wasn’t the same feeling. Of course it couldn’t be. Part of the original feeling had to do with its being my first trip to Europe (1987), first time in England, meeting my husband, falling in love—all those things. Can you recapture those feelings, the feelings you first have about a place or a person? Probably not. And that’s ok actually. Because other feelings and thoughts have taken their place. New memories have laid themselves up on the old ones. I dig deeper now to unearth the very old ones. But they’re still fresh when I do so. The mind is interesting that way. A mystery that holds our lives in its recesses. The heart likewise. 

Defining academic productivity

At the end of Saturday’s post, I said that I would discuss productivity in a future post. I decided to write a short post about academic productivity today.

I found a useful definition of productivity at the following website, at least in terms of how it can be measured: http://www.investorwords.com/3876/productivity.html

‘The amount of output per unit of input (labor, equipment, and capital). There are many different ways of measuring productivity. For example, in a factory productivity might be measured based on the number of hours it takes to produce a good, while in the service sector productivity might be measured based on the revenue generated by an employee divided by his/her salary.’

Another definition comes from the Merriam Webster online dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/productive:

‘yielding results, benefits, or profits’.

There are difficulties in applying the first definition in its entirety to an academic researcher, because it is very difficult to directly measure a researcher’s economic productivity. The number of publications and grant funding (money given to the research organization where the academic works) are the standard ways of measuring an researcher’s productivity. A good number of publications often leads to more grant funding. And more grant funding in turn draws in more students. But all of this depends on the hierarchical level of the academic. It stands to reason that a staff scientist without a research group (students) cannot be as ‘productive’ as a professor with a large group of students around him or her. Can they even be compared? Yet they often are, especially when it comes to the numbers of publications produced. This is unfair, because in principle a large research group can produce many more publications than one scientist alone. Whether that is in fact true is another discussion. In any case, not all researchers get grants, which doesn’t mean that they are necessarily bad researchers. It simply means that they didn’t get funded this time around. But is that acceptable to the business administrators who control the research institutes and who insist on measuring productivity on an annual basis?

Most other research activities--e.g. advising, teaching, designing experiments, having meetings with students, and writing--don’t generate revenue. If a researcher/advisor spends several hours per week helping one graduate student who is clueless about how to proceed with his or her research article and data interpretation, how do we measure productivity in this situation? The advisor has invested time, energy and intellectual focus in these activities--meeting, advising, and discussing. What is the tangible product? Over time, the product may be (emphasis on the may) an article or two from a student. Or perhaps not, as this can depend on the whim of the involved student as to whether he or she will write those articles. There is no guarantee of a publishable article for all the hard work invested in the student. If graduate students aren’t productive and won't write articles, it can reflect poorly on the advisor because there will be no papers to publish unless the adviser ends up writing them himself. A lack of articles can lead to not getting grants. Published papers are proof that an academic is productive; proof that an academic has done his or her job, which is to do science and to train graduate students how to do science, as well as to write/help to write the articles resulting from research activity. But how many published articles are enough, and how many are too few? Is it quantity or quality that counts?

And what should be done about the academic researchers whose graduate students leave research for the greener pastures of the business world without finishing their PhD degrees? Who don’t stick around despite the huge investment of the researchers’ time and money for lab consumables, conferences and travel? Is this the fault of these researchers? Was it a waste of time and money to train them? The point is that these graduate students got valuable research training before leaving academia. It has to be accepted that whatever they do with that training afterwards is their business. If they leave the research world, well, then they leave it. No one can stop them from doing so. So here’s the rub. Should academic researchers’ productivity be measured by how many of the trained students go on to become academics themselves? If that is the case, it will take years before productivity can be assessed correctly.

The second definition talks about yielding results, benefits or profits. Research activities such as doing lab work, generating data, reading, advising, teaching and writing articles do yield results, but not necessarily profits, unless ideas are patentable, leading to collaborations with big business, e.g. pharmaceutical firms that can produce a profitable drug to treat a specific illness. But getting a patent approved can take many years. So it’s difficult for me to understand the emphasis on increasing academic productivity. I'm not sure what this really means. Again I ask, who will define this adequately, and will it be fair? It strikes me as rather naïve on the part of business administrators to not even make an attempt to understand the complexities of the academic research world, and yet this is the current situation—administrators who have no real idea of what academics do, yet who insist that academics increase their productivity so that the organizations for which they work can get their 'money’s worth' out of them. 

A super-duper uber work world

“One hundred academics at the University of Sydney, Australia, have this week been told they will lose their jobs for not publishing frequently enough. The move is part of wider cost-cutting plans designed to pay for new buildings and refurbishment to the university.”

This article appeared on the Nature News Blog this past Thursday (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/university-of-sydney-sackings-trigger-academic-backlash.html) and I have to say that it was one of the wilder things I’ve read this week--as in bizarre or very odd news. But I have a feeling this is shades of things to come globally. The university was quite blatant about its motives. They want to fire academics they deem to be non-productive in order to use the money saved to refurbish the university. If it wasn’t for the fact that this story was true, I would think it was an April Fools’ Day joke.

So we’re back to the good old question that is being fired more and more at academics and scientists these days. How can you be more productive? How can you rake in money for your universities? Can you patent your ideas and your inventions? If not, why not? How can you make your research patentable? How can the universities get huge returns on their investments (their academics)? My question is—how do you define productivity for a research scientist or for an academic in general? And who gets to define productivity? Administrators? Accountants? Other academics? Research directors and deans? What is poor productivity and what is optimal productivity? The University of Sydney defines optimal productivity as ‘at least four “research outputs” over the past three years’, and informed its non-productive academics (not just scientists) that their positions were being terminated because they hadn’t published this amount of articles. It’s a bit daunting to hear about a university doing this. Why? Because it is all part of the larger global trend to make everything more productive, without defining what productive means in the first place for each respective profession. I’m waiting for the powers-that-be to start on children and babies next. How can schoolchildren and babies be made productive? How can they earn money for the schools and child care centers they attend? And what about mothering? There is no real money involved in doing it, so isn’t this a non-productive job? But I digress.

I have to say that I am glad that I am closer to leaving the work world behind rather than to starting off in it. I know I have a good number of years to go before I can take early retirement, but I won’t mind leaving behind a work world that is focused solely on money and how to make more of it. There will never be enough money. Man’s nature is greedy. He will always want more. Enough is never enough. It’s boring really. I’ve written about the different management philosophies that have taken over the business world. They’re all about productivity, cost-effectiveness, and control of employees. The joy of working is disappearing. I want to say it is disappearing slowly, but it’s not. For some professions it is happening at a rapid rate. If every profession becomes like a factory, what good will that be to society? Couldn’t society get to a point where non-vocational learning and knowledge will be deemed useless and a waste of time and money? Where the study of art, literature, and music for the pure sake of learning will be considered a waste of time? Where turning out well-rounded individuals who appreciate beautiful things for their beauty and spiritual worth and not for their economic worth alone will be considered treasonous? We are fast becoming a work world comprised of super-duper uber organizers, controllers, bureaucrats, administrators, money-pushers and money-makers. These are the only types of jobs that seem to matter. I look ahead and I see a sterile world--an organized, cost-effective world, yes, but not necessarily a productive one. At least not how I define productive. And that will be the theme of a future post.   

A fascination with reflections

Just thought I'd share a few photos from the past few months with you today--Reflection photos. I am fascinated by how images and light are reflected in our surroundings, be they water, ice, smooth walls, windows, or glass generally. Some of these are from the late summer and some from the current winter. Enjoy.

The man in the puddle

Reflections in the ice

Double vision

Reflections and empty shelves

The life around us, reflected in a glass

From the minds of children

The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten ran an article about The Monster Engine in its weekend magazine of February 17th. I'm posting the link to The Monster Engine website so you can see what Dave Devries, who started it, does, as well as his amazing artwork based on the drawings of children. And not just any drawings, but drawings of what scares them. Some of them scared me! Check it out.

http://www.themonsterengine.com/

He also has a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/TheMonsterEngine.DaveDeVries

Smart phones, not-so-smart people

Today’s Aftenposten newspaper ran an article about the use of smart phones here in Norway. According to the article, 57% of Norwegians over the age of 16 have a smart phone, 93% of all Norwegians have internet access, and nearly three million Norwegians use Facebook (TNS Gallup statistics). But the article didn’t focus on the usage statistics; it focused on the growing addiction of smart phone owners to their phones. One of the managers at the National Theater was interviewed, and she meant that the addiction was becoming a problem for the theater because the users were looking at their phones throughout performances and disturbing the people around them because the light from the phone is so bright. I quote her (translated from Norwegian): ‘We have had nights where so many people in the audience have had their phones on during the performance that it could have been New Year's Eve’. I call this the height of rudeness.

The advances in computer and phone technology just during the past ten years have been pretty amazing. I understand the fascination with all things new; I also understand how important it is to keep up with the pace of modern technologies. If you don’t, you’ll end up lost and exiled to the outskirts of modern society. I do feel sorry sometimes for elderly people who haven’t kept up or who haven’t had the chance to keep up—who may feel overwhelmed and confused and who wish the world was still as it was thirty or even twenty years ago. But it’s not. I want to keep up and I have kept up. We are fast approaching a world where most ordinary things we do will happen online—from banking to shopping to trip reservations as well as a myriad of other things. It is already that way to a large extent. I don’t have a problem with any of this. I love banking online, for example. We have two laptop computers at home, I just bought an iPad2, we bought a big flat screen TV a few years ago, and I own a top-quality digital SLR camera that I use quite often. I don’t own a smart phone, however, and am not sure I will buy one now that I have the iPad.

However, as much as I use and love all the new gadgets available, I also know when to put them aside for the most part. I know I am not addicted to any of my gadgets, although I can overdo it a bit at times with snapping photos. I do on occasion use a lot of time on my laptop; especially during the evenings when I use it to pursue my writing and photo projects. What I can’t understand is the point of being on Facebook for hours at a time or of sending hundreds of text messages or emails. So I can’t really relate to the addiction problem. I can go to the movies, the opera, the theater, or out to a restaurant and leave my cell phone at home. It has happened. I don’t miss it. I usually have it with me, but when I am together with others, it’s off or silenced, ditto for being in a theater. I don’t need to be constantly conversing with other people, on buses, trains, boats or planes. I don’t walk behind other people and make them nervous by chatting on phones they don’t see. When that happens to me I feel like I am being followed by crazy people talking to themselves. I don’t need to check my emails constantly, so I don’t need to be online constantly. I write this blog but I don’t need to check it constantly either. And as time goes on, I know that I will organize the free time I treasure even more optimally than I manage to now. That will be because I don’t want to spend all my free time writing on a computer or connected to some gadget, updating the world constantly about where I am, what I am doing, or who I am together with. That is because I value my private time and my private life. There are many things that no one else except those closest to me will be privy to. That’s the way I want it.

I find it sad, apropos this newspaper article, that so many people are living online rather than experiencing the ‘now’. The now is all we have. Think of what they’re missing. I would rather be together in person with a friend and enjoying an evening talking and relaxing, without having to check my phone every ten minutes. It’s rude to do that—that’s the way I grew up. I can hear my mother’s voice in my head saying something to that effect. I have seen enough people sitting together at a restaurant table, and each of them was texting messages to friends or family that were not there with them, ignoring the others at the table. More rudeness. I attend professional meetings that are constantly interrupted by emails and phone calls. It is difficult to pick up the thread and to go forward with the meetings after four or five of these kinds of interruptions. I’ve been to lectures where many in the audience are using their laptops and smart phones to check their emails and/or to edit their own lectures or reports. It’s become a brave, new, rude, socially-unintelligent world, despite all the gadgets that can socially connect us and which should be used intelligently. I would always choose the personal connection over the gadget or social media connection. I appreciate what the latter have made possible for me, the ex-pat who lives across the pond from her country of birth, in terms of keeping in touch with family and friends, but give me the in-person experience of being together with them any day.  

Home office day

I love my one day a week when I can work at home. ‘Hjemmekontor’ as it’s called in Norwegian—literally, ‘home office’. Home office day. Has a nice ring to it. I usually work at home on Wednesdays these days. All I know is that it seems to be a lot more common now than it was ten years ago. I started working at home around eight years ago; I was one of the first employees at my hospital to take advantage of the opportunity. I get so much work done at home. I am disciplined and structured enough to make it work; I know people who are not and who shudder at the very idea of working at home. I love it because I am not distracted by telephones, knocks on my door, or other interruptions that make up the daily life of the workplace. And I am not complaining about those interruptions—they are part and parcel of the work world. But if I want to think, write or be creative, home is the place I need to be.

I work at home the way I do at my workplace, from 9am until noon with a break for lunch, and then the rest of the day until around 5pm. Today I did some food shopping at lunchtime, and on my way upstairs to our apartment with my two grocery bags, I ran into two other people who live in our building. They were also working at home. It struck me that more people may end up working from home in the next ten years than will be working in a formal workplace. And wouldn’t that be ok? I would welcome it. With computers, smart phones, fax machines, webcams and pagers, aren’t we well-connected to our workplaces? Aren’t we sufficiently connected? We are on an honor system, yes, that’s true. If we say we will be at home to those who work for us, we have to honor our promise. I want to honor it, because I want my co-workers to know that I am available to help them whenever they need me during work hours. After hours is another story. After hours—those are my hours, and they are ‘do not disturb unless it is a crisis’ hours.

There are a lot of advantages to working at home. There is no formal dress code; pajamas are quite ok, as are tattered jeans. Makeup is unimportant. Additionally I can take a five-minute break from time to time to find my camera to take photos of the pigeons who sit outside my kitchen window—my camera is in the next room a few feet away. If I was at work, I would miss those shots because I don’t carry my camera with me to work. Perhaps I should start to do so. In any case, I cannot come up with one disadvantage to working at home, unless of course one brings up the loss of social contact. But being a scientist, I am alone a good portion of my day anyway, so I don’t normally experience an overabundance of daily social interaction at work. And I’m fine with that. I know others who would miss having their daily group around them, and who would not enjoy being at home. I also look at working at home as preparation for retirement. And since I’ve been doing this for eight years, I am used to it and I know I'll be fine the day I no longer have a formal workplace to go to. 

A poem by Elizabeth Barrett Browning for Valentine's Day

Sonnets from the Portuguese - 43

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

I love thee to the depth and breadth and height

My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight

For the ends of Being and ideal Grace.

I love thee to the level of everyday's

Most quiet need, by sun and candlelight.

I love thee freely, as men strive for Right;

I love thee purely, as they turn from Praise.

I love thee with the passion put to use

In my old griefs, and with my childhood's faith.

I love thee with a love I seemed to lose

With my lost saints I love thee with the breath,

Smiles, tears, of all my life! and, if God choose,

I shall but love thee better after death.

Photography blogs I like

As many of you know, I am a hobby photographer, and I have a photography blog where I try to post photos on a daily basis (http://oftheangelsdesigns.wordpress.com/). I have connected with a number of different photo bloggers, and all I can say is that I am amazed by and in awe of the talent out there in the world. There are so many creative people who take some gorgeous photos, and it is pretty terrific that so many people are sharing their views of the world. I thought I would share some of those blogs with you today. I am sure you will like them.

http://design6studio.wordpress.com/
http://sugarblast.com/
http://sillymonkeyphoto.com/
http://tau0.wordpress.com/
http://h2obyjoanna.wordpress.com/
http://burntembers.wordpress.com/
http://photobotos.com/
http://photonatureblog.com/

Sharing happiness and being happy for others

The death of Whitney Houston, like Amy Winehouse before her, is always a wake-up call to pay attention to the lives we have, right now, today. Today is all we have. Instead of wishing our lives away, hoping for better times in the future, or worrying too much about the past, we are reminded that it is best to focus on today. These are just two of many enormously-talented people in the world who achieved fame, years of fame, and for all their fame, did not seem to find the happiness they were seeking. Their lives sunk into the hell that is drug abuse; their personal pain and negative experiences are poignant reminders that fame and wealth will not necessarily bring happiness. I read somewhere that Whitney’s husband was jealous of her professional fame, and that this led to psychological and physical abuse on his part. If he managed to drag her down rather than her pulling him up, how sad is that. Is professional jealousy a common thing in marriage and relationships? I don’t know. Sometimes I am tempted to answer yes, especially the more fame and wealth one partner achieves compared to the other. Fame and wealth may be good to have; we may experience them as rewards for a job well-done. They may make life easier, but they cannot buy happiness or guarantee it. And that must be the bitter rub. With all the money in the world, one cannot buy the love of another, not if it is real love one is out after. And one cannot buy happiness.

Happiness is an elusive thing, and no one has managed to define it satisfactorily (at least for me) to date. It is a very personal experience—for some it may be the experience of family life, for others career success, for others the realization of personal dreams. For some it may be a combination of all these things. For others it may be daily contact with nature and with the animals and birds around us. It is important to acknowledge the happy times in our lives; important to tell others when we are happy. There is too much focus in our world on telling others when we are sad, depressed, upset, or angry; not enough focus on telling others when we are feeling happy, content, joyful or at peace, or when others make us happy. Why this is I cannot say. Perhaps we always want to share the negative. Or perhaps we are afraid to share the positive. Afraid that others will take our happiness from us, or come with a flippant or sarcastic comment concerning our happiness. Sometimes just verbalizing something positive sounds so strange, out-of-place, unnatural. Or perhaps we are afraid that we will hear the standard well-meaning advice that many people tell you—don’t get too wrapped up in your happiness; the bad times will come again. Don’t get too comfortable or don’t be too happy about being happy. As though that was a crime. Others may feel guilty about finding happiness, especially when they know that family and friends have not found it. Why can’t we be happy for others when they find happiness? It is no reflection on our lives if they find happiness. We can choose our responses, and I think it's best to choose to be happy for others and to support them when they are happy. Wouldn’t you want others to be happy for you when it’s your turn? Don’t you love the people who turn to you when you are happy and say—‘I’m so happy for you right now’. It’s freeing, it’s loving, it’s generosity in action. God bless those people. 

The new and improved, spontaneous and creative modern-day workplace

Ran into a former colleague yesterday; he left academia a few years ago and moved into industry. Not necessarily because he wanted to; more because there were no further possibilities for him to get more funding at that time, so when his contract ran out, he had no job. That’s how it works in academia. The nature of academic jobs is transient; if you don’t like this aspect of academia, it is not for you. Most non-tenured academics work contractually for three to four years at a time. But my former colleague was telling me how tough it has become to work and keep your job in the private sector as well. Not easy there either. You must like constant change, and you must adjust quickly. If not, you’ll be left in the dust and possibly without a job if you don’t keep up. There is a lot of instability there too, and you can no longer rely on finding a ‘permanent’ job. The public and private sectors seem to have discovered that the offer of a permanent job to an employee may make that employee complacent and thus non-productive over time. Of course that can happen. But does it always happen? No. What they haven’t factored into the equation is that without some sort of stability, there can be no productivity because there is no time to relax and to produce. If you are always worried about whether your job is to be eliminated or if you will lose your job because your performance is constantly being measured, you cannot produce well. That is my contention at least. My former colleague talked about quarterly performance evaluations. That must be extremely stressful. I think annual performance evaluations are enough.

I’ve talked to many different people who work in the public and private sectors, both here in Norway and in the USA. They all say the same thing—the work world has gotten much harder and tougher. Modern-day workplaces are now new and improved. If you don’t measure up, you’re gone. If you don’t produce, you’re gone. If you’re not creative, you’re gone. If you don’t like constant change, brainstorming, open office landscapes, and teamwork, you’re gone. If you’re a loner type, a non-conforming type, a quiet type, there’s not much room for you these days. You’re expected to conform, to avoid conflict but to be creative, to network, to connect, to work together in a team but to be creative, to be constantly on but to be creative and so on. I don’t know how all of this is possible. I find it difficult to draw a direct connecting line between creativity and productivity. A creative idea needs time to take root, to blossom, to grow. It cannot be pulled out by its roots before its time. It cannot be harvested before its time. This means that there is a time lag between the birth of an idea and the birth of the product that may come from that idea. What if it takes a year or two? What if it takes five years? Is that allowed these days? All I know is that scientific research cannot and does not work like this. It’s hard to measure our productivity as scientists except to look at our publication records. And even those can be misleading. You may have one good article published during the past three years in a very good journal, and that article took several years to create. Or you may have several average-quality articles published in average-quality journals that took the same amount of years to create. If management only looks at the latter, then a scientist will be considered productive. But is this the correct picture? Is it the whole picture? I think not.  

Personally, it would be pure torture for me to have to perform on cue every single time I had a meeting with other team members—to come up with creative ideas on cue, to know just the right thing to say, to have a quip ready, to have advice in spades. I don’t work that way. I don’t tick that way. Heck, there are some meetings where I can sit quietly and just listen to others talk. I leave those meetings and reflect on what’s been said and accomplished. I respect others who can and who do perform on cue; who can ad lib and brainstorm at will. I am not one of them. I never was, even as a child. I am not very spontaneous. I respectfully request that others respect that all people are not the same, and that it will be impossible to create a society of workers who all think alike.

Another day in the life of a scientist

Long day in the lab yesterday. One of those days that leave you dead-tired, so that when you get home you just want to find the couch, turn the TV on and just do nothing. Got my morning coffee first. Workday started off with me doing a procedure called western blotting—104 cell samples loaded manually (by me) onto four plastic-like gels and pushed through them by electricity. Point of procedure? To separate proteins in the samples according to their molecular weights. Just the sample loading took over an hour. Have to pay attention--very easy to make a mistake and load the wrong sample in the wrong place. Made buffers after that. Found all the accessories needed to complete the procedure. Lunchtime in my office. Knock on my office door. Impromptu visit from the big boss. Shoveled in my salad while talking about my future—lab frock on and thoroughly harried. Thought about that. In my younger days I wouldn’t have eaten a bite while talking to the boss. Would have been too nervous. Now I do. No longer nervous. Getting used to all these conversations. Back in the lab. Two more hours of finishing up this gel procedure. Nice results. A reward for the hard work and long hours. Not always that way. A quick coffee break. Meeting with my student--discussed results. Hers and mine—she does the same procedure to get data so we can discuss what’s happening in her cells. Interesting project. She will get her thesis done. Hope there will be an article out of it. Cannot predict that when you first start the work. Do all this work for several months and suddenly a dead-end. That’s research. Used to disappointments—makes success all the more enjoyable. Scanned in some data, transferred it to the computer, sent it on to my student. Finished up paperwork before heading for home. Bought a grilled chicken, fried up some mushrooms, made broccoli—voila—dinner on my own. Hubby out with his lab group for dinner. TV night for once—not often that happens! The King’s Speech, Game of Thrones, The Way We Were—well-worth the watching time. Monday starts another week, more long days in the lab. Wonder how I did this when I was younger—long long hours in the lab, sometimes twelve per day. Dead-tired a lot of the time. Like being in the lab though. Will probably be doing that till I retire--white frock on, in front of the lab bench, alone. Not a bad way to work given the new workplace propensity for long unsatisfying meetings these days. Would rather be in the lab, all things considered.