Leaving behind the big business and bureaucracy of academic science

I have written several posts in past years about my preference for small organizations/companies and small research groups in the world of scientific research, be they in the public or private sector. It wasn’t always so; when I was starting out in the work world, there was something enticing about working for a large company, e.g. a pharmaceutical company. There was something attractive about being a small fish in a large pond, so to speak. Even though you could be surrounded by an ocean of people, it still felt as though there were possibilities as long as you worked hard and did your job. It felt like the world was your oyster. That was in 1980s America, specifically Manhattan. I have not physically experienced the changes that have occurred since that time because I moved abroad and began working in Norway in 1990. But I have kept abreast of the different changes both there and here via books, the news and social media. And the academic scientific workplace has changed enormously in Norway since 1990. One must expect change, I know that. I know too that the changes I’ve witnessed here in Norway are not specific to Norway, although Norway puts its own stamp on them. They are global changes--the huge growth of bureaucracy, the emphasis on mergers that result in huge organizations/companies, the loss of individuality in the workplace, the dominance of program-driven research, the emphasis on huge research groups (think centers of excellence), the inability to obtain funding for non-program-driven research and the demise of small research groups, scientific publishing as big business, to name a few.

I have worked in the public sector for most of my research career, over thirty years here in Oslo and at least three years in Manhattan. I have seven years of research experience working in the private sector (a well-known cancer hospital). There are advantages and disadvantages to working in both the public and private sectors. I know this from my friends in the USA who have worked in the private sector (doing R&D for pharmaceutical companies) for most of their careers. Very few regret working in the private sector. They were well-paid, recognized for what they did, and when they retired, they left knowing that they made a substantial contribution to their workplace. I doubt any of them felt like a fifth wheel (superfluous or burdensome). The main complaint they had was not that there was lack of money for research projects; rather that there could be pressure on them to produce results, and when those results were not forthcoming fast enough, projects were cancelled in favor of new and more promising projects. But the public sector is no better. I know this to be true. There, many projects don’t even get that far, because they don’t get funded from the start. Many good ideas die on the planning table because there is a lack of funding to implement them. Why? Because academic research is big business now; huge sums of money get tossed around, and tossed to those who have great ambitions and five-year plans that promise the delivery of great (innovative and marketable) results. It’s often the same researchers who lead program-driven research centers who get funding; small research groups or researchers with less lofty ambitions do not get funded anymore. ‘Bigger is better’ in all respects. Actually, ‘bigger is best’, because if you think ‘big’, you are thought to be an ambitious scientist, a market- and innovation-driven scientist, a high-flyer. If you don’t think big, you’re less employable because you’re considered second-best, mediocre, unambitious, or not good enough. Many small research groups have innovative ideas and good plans for how to translate and implement them; it doesn’t matter because they no longer get funding to do so. Most research in the public sector is done by large centers of excellence (populated by project groups that are protected and funded by the center heads). Academic science is big business now, with emphasis on big. We’re talking tens of millions of dollars in grant funding to program-driven research alone at present. Some of that money goes to actual research; some of it goes to the bureaucracy needed to run these huge centers—secretaries, accountants, advisors, human resources, etc. Just a decade or two ago, a researcher working in a small group doing non-program-driven research could obtain fifty to one hundred thousand dollars per year in funding to carry out his or her small research projects independent of large centers of excellence. That meant a lot to those researchers. But no more. The government doesn’t want small research groups anymore, even though many of the top researchers in the USA have stated publicly that the best ideas often come from small research groups. It doesn’t matter here in Norway. They know best, and big is the politically-correct mantra, in all things.

Eventually, facing this overwhelming hugeness at all turns takes its toll on researchers who work in small research groups and who want to pursue non-program-driven research. There are only so many times they can apply for funding and get continually rejected in favor of the centers of excellence and program-driven research. There are only so many times they can be told to keep plodding on—‘one day you’ll get funding’—when everyone who understands the system understands that this is just lying. There are only so many years they can keep working as post-docs or junior scientists, waiting for their chance to finally ‘belong’. There are only so many years they can deal with the rejection, the loneliness, the demotivation, the lack of recognition for what they do. Keeping their heads above water, competing with the centers of excellence for funding, being told by department research leaders that they’re mediocre because they don’t get funding (when they can’t get funding because they don’t do program-driven research), all these things are counterproductive at best. None of it is good for mental or physical health, and none of it is good for sanity. If all these scientists ever hear is negative feedback, then they become cynical, demotivated, and demoralized. Most research leaders don’t seem to care about that; some few do. Some few are fighting for a return to non-program-driven research and for the survival of small research groups. But I doubt that they’ll get far. One could ask why these ‘small’ scientists simply don’t hop on the program-driven research bandwagon, why they don’t become politically-correct scientists. The answer is that not all scientists are the same; they are individuals with different motives and goals. That should be respected and encouraged; at present, it is not. I no longer encourage small scientists to stay in academia. I am retiring soon and can now speak the truth. It is a waste of their time and of those precious years when they could be doing good research, preferably in the private sector, where their skills and talents will most likely be more appreciated than in the public sector, where after some years of not ‘measuring up’, they become the fifth wheels, superfluous and bothersome to their institutions, and unwanted.

Reflections on retirement and the pandemic

Now that I've made the decision to retire, I've begun to reflect about different things, among them, how the pandemic affected my decision to retire this year. In mid-March of 2020, we were essentially told to work from home full-time if we had that possibility, and since most of my work is administrative, I was able to do that. I went from working from home one day a week as I had done for about fifteen years, to doing so five days a week. The first few months of full-time home office were fine; I had plenty to do and the days flew by. I didn't think much about whether I missed the actual office or not, because I didn't have the time to do so. Zoom meetings were new experiences, and people were not weary of them as they are now, over a year later. During the summertime, Norway 'opened up' for a few months, and it felt as though life was beginning to return to normal. In September 2020 I began to go into the office a couple of days a week to update server files and to meet with specific colleagues; we kept our distance and wore masks as required. We were allowed to have small physical meetings (five to ten people) as long as everyone kept the appropriate distance from each other. I held a lecture about my research project in September, and that went well. I began to think about writing the eventual article based on data from that project (that will be published next month), and I started writing it in the autumn of 2020. That kept me busy as well in addition to my biobanking administrative work. 

And then the winter months hit, as did a new lockdown right after Christmas. It was as though the reigning powers that be said--it's ok to shop and celebrate Christmas, but the punishment for doing that is a new lockdown right afterward. As of January 2021, normal life ceased and we were suddenly thrown back to March 2020. Working from home full-time began to feel like a chore. It wasn't a positive experience anymore. Zoom meetings were a bore, even though they were necessary. The only ones I got anything out of were the meetings with our research technician about her work on my research project. They were interactive and productive meetings. The amount of biobanking administrative work fell off dramatically from what I was used to in 2020, probably partially due to that our department leader (who prioritized biobanking) moved on to another job and priorities shifted as they often do under a new department leader. Biobanking work seems to have been deprioritized; I could be wrong. But the amount of biobanking administrative work has continued to decline, and no one seems to have an explanation for why that is the case. My research article is now written and will be published soon, research funding has run out, there is very little biobanking work, and my PhD student successfully defended her thesis in April. I'm essentially finished with all of the projects and work that I've been responsible for during the past five years or so. It began to feel like a good time to retire. It's not as though I didn't plan for it, I did. I planned quite well. I knew I wanted to retire in 2021, I just wasn't sure when. As it turns out, retiring at the end of August seemed to be the best decision. 

I didn't expect the pandemic to factor into the decision, but it did. The pandemic exacerbated the loneliness of academic life. When I am physically at work, I share an office with a pathologist who has a lot of diagnostic work to do. Sometimes we chat, and that is always pleasant. She is really the only person I truly interact with in the space of a day. But still, it is a lonely life. And working from home full-time began to seem quite lonely too. I don't mind being alone at all. But in the context of a work situation, I discovered I am one of those people who enjoy the professional and social interactions at work, however few they are. Being at home all day began to wear on me. Additionally, I realized that most of my colleagues are former colleagues; they are already retired. There aren't a lot of new contacts waiting in the wings. Those days of establishing collaborations with other scientists are over. 

So in the end, I feel lonely at the office and lonely at home--in a work context. When I am not working and am at home full-time, I'm fine. I have lots of other non-science-related projects to focus on--writing and gardening being two of them. I feel lonelier at work (whether at the office or at home) then I do when not working. That is as good a reason as any to retire now. I thank the pandemic for helping me to figure that out. 

Choosing change

Weary (and wary) of change

There are at least two sorts of changes, perhaps more. The first sort is the type of change that life brings about, that you can do nothing about--innate change. We age, we grow older, we grow old. There are many changes connected to aging that we can merely observe in ourselves and others; we cannot stop the progression of time. Illness and death are part of the journey. We learn to accept this type of change, albeit grudgingly at times, mostly because there is nothing we can really do about it. At some point you realize that it's best not to think too much about it and to enjoy the days and years that are given you. Because not all people get that chance, as has become all too clear to me during the past decade. 

The other type of change is external change. It is not a natural part of human life as is innate change, but it is a part of our lives that has consequences for us. It is often a type of change that can be forced upon you by a workplace or an organization, or by events in one's personal life that you have not instigated. It can be unsettling change, in that you have to react to it in one form or another, either passively or actively. Many choose the passive route, others choose the proactive route. Regardless, this type of change will affect your life and change it irrevocably--marriage, children, divorce, a major move, a bad job, a good job, retirement. They are changes we can choose, but sometimes they are not. And it is when this type of change is forced upon us that problems can arise. 

During the past two decades or so, modern workplaces have put a tremendous amount of emphasis on the necessity for employees to be able to change (almost at a moment's notice). I remember when I took a year-long leadership course here in Oslo; the operative (Norwegian/Danish) word was 'endringsparat' (ready for change). As a leader, it was important that your employees were endringsparat. An entire module was dedicated to how to lead employees through major workplace changes, and how to deal with those employees who were resistant to change. It was an interesting module, to say the least. Discussions of major mergers came up, and our teacher took an informal poll of the class--how many had been through such a major change as a merger and felt that the outcome was successful. Only one or two people raised their hands. The majority did not, and when quizzed, told stories of fiascos and failures to communicate that torpedoed such workplace changes. There was massive resistance to the changes that ensued in the wake of the merger. What was not commented upon or discussed was the timescale involved in such major changes. How quickly do leaders expect employees to adapt to change? Mergers, for example, are such major changes that it wouldn't surprise me if it took a decade or more for employees to become used to the idea. I don't think most leaders look at this aspect--the length of time involved for employees to adapt to and to accept change. I think they should look more closely at exactly this aspect. 

It is possible for employees to become weary and wary of change. Just hearing the word 'change' can be anathema for some employees, and I think that's because they feel that they have had no say in the matter. Yet another change has been forced on them, that they are expected to accept immediately. That can only lead to conflicts and failure to communicate. I think the time window for measuring the outcome of change should be long. I think management should allow at least five to ten years for employees to adapt to major changes. But that is rarely the case. It all has to be wrapped up nicely with a pretty bow, so the package can be displayed as a 'success'. But how do you measure that success? Did you talk to your employees?

I know several leaders who are young (in their forties) and older (around sixty or in their sixties). All of them have faced situations of major change that they have had to implement or are responsible for initiating. All of them have expressed mild to strong surprise that many of their employees appear to be resistant to those changes. They don't get it, they don't understand what they've done wrong. I try to tell them that perhaps their employees are weary of change. And that some are most likely wary of change. I was, during a period of too many changes about fifteen years ago. I listened to the svada (empty words, empty phrases, meaningless talk about great ambitions for this and that) and thought 'been there, done that'. So many times I can't count. How many times can you change yourself, start over, reinvent yourself, market yourself and your dreams, and to what end? Are we all to conquer the world? Most of us are good at what we do, and that should be enough. But in today's modern workplace, it's not, at least not for many modern workplace leaders. They have to do something, they have to effect change, they have to be remembered for such things. They have to 'motivate' their employees and make them endringsparat. It borders on hysterical. I prefer the non-hysterical approach. 

Through all the years, there has been change, whether modern leaders see it or not. Workplaces change, not because of artificial changes forced on employees, but because the world around us changes. We communicate via internet and digital meetings because technology in the world has made it possible for us to do so. That changes a workplace. Emails changed workplaces for good. They also changed personal communication for good. Smart phones likewise. IT departments are large and necessary entities in most companies; just try living without your computer when it's down for two days. So changes have been implemented gradually over the years in response to the external world. It is the artificial changes, the forced and often unnecessary changes, that cause problems. Leaders who are truly interested in the wellbeing of their employees should learn to distinguish between what are necessary and what are unnecessary changes. The latter can wear down the morale and motivation of many employees, whether modern leaders like it or not. 

 

More garden photos--June 2021

 

The garden in June

It's been a while since I've posted photos of my garden. It got a slow start this year due to a very rainy and chilly May. About the only plants that loved the rain were the strawberry plants; I've never seen them so tall as they are this year. But since June started, the weather has been warm, with temperatures in the mid-70s, and most of the days have been sunny. We've had very little rain so far in June. So now the plants are taking off, and I hope there will be a good yield of zucchinis, butternut squashes, and pumpkins. The potato plants (two types) are doing well; they are also quite tall already. I planted the tomato plants in the same area as last year, since it gets a lot of sun. They did well last year, so I'm hoping for a repeat success. I have a few bean plants that are just sprouting, some onion plants, and two cucumber plants. Most of my perennials came back after winter, but not all. We did not have a lot of snow this past winter, mostly cold temperatures and frost, and that does a lot of the perennials in. Snow actually protects the roots of perennials by keeping them insulated. I'll have to remember to cover the plants with mulch/dead leaves in order to protect them for next winter's cold temperatures. 

My lilac bush, wisteria tree, magnolia tree, potentilla (cinquefoil) bushes, and my ninebark bush all survived the winter and are doing well. The wisteria (planted two years ago) has even produced two purplish-blue flowers, which surprised me because I remember reading that it can take three to five year for wisteria to bloom for the first time. But it's in a part of the garden that gets full afternoon sun, and that part of the garden is less open/more protected. That could have something to do with it. I planted two forsythia bushes around mid-May, and they have just taken off. I love forsythia; it reminds me of childhood when we would pick forsythia that grew wild and put it in a vase when we got home. My autumn aster is also very happy. I got some Columbine plants from a garden neighbor, and some hollyhock seedlings from the neighbor across the street from the garden. Both are growing well. Otherwise, I've planted sweet pea flowers and one cathedral bell (Cobaea scandens) plant. 

My peony plants will have a lot of flowers this year. My Japanese maple tree has also grown taller, and is so pretty. My rose bush and my climbing roses have produced new stems that are growing taller each day. The irises, which are such elegant and beautiful flowers, are starting to bloom. All the berry bushes have produced berries that are starting to ripen. We will get a lot of strawberries, black currants, and gooseberries this year. It will be interesting to see if we get a lot of raspberries, blueberries, and red currants. 

I bought two new Coral bells plants to replace the two that died after the winter cold. And then there are the pansies, which are such great little flowering plants. They do well in most types of soil and tolerate most temperatures and weather that the Norwegian climate tosses at them. 

So the garden is blooming, and it always does my heart good to see that. It is a reward for all the hard work that goes into a garden. It makes me feel good to know that I've learned enough to know how to care for my plants. I cannot control how tough winter is on my perennials, but I do my best to prepare them for winter. The rest is out of my hands. 

Wisteria bloom

Wisteria tree

Magnolia tree

Rhododendron bush--so many blooms this year

Beautiful irises

Snapdragon plant

Potato plants growing

Strawberry plants--two patches

behind the greenhouse 

Bumblebee on rhododendron flower

Honeybee on flower

A leap into the unknown

And so I've taken the next step and a leap into the unknown--in September I will join the ranks of those who have retired early. I've thought long and hard about this decision and have planned well for it, as one of my leaders commented. I have. My responsibilities for research projects and PhD/Masters students are fulfilled; my last PhD student defended her thesis in April. I could go in another direction now and start to study another type of cancer (my focus has been colorectal cancer for my entire academic career), but I don't want to switch fields and there is no more funding to be obtained for my particular research area. I'm proud of the work I've done. I've published nearly one hundred research articles as a main author/co-author and have been a mentor/co-mentor for three Masters students and six PhD students, all of whom successfully finished their degrees. What I've learned after many years in academia is that an academic career is demanding; one must be good at grant-writing, article-writing, mentorship, project planning and execution, networking, academic politics, communication, and diplomacy. I was good at most of it, but not at academic politics and as it evolved, grant-writing. But to be fair, the world of research science changed dramatically compared to when I started out in the mid-1990s. It was easier to write grants and get them funded then. I prefer the way research was done then--in smaller research groups without an emphasis on centers of excellence and platform-based research. I am old-school and do not apologize for it. I do not fit together with big research groups and large research centers, nor am I interested in having to follow a center leader's plan for what type of research project I should focus on. As a senior scientist, I feel that this decision should be left up to me, but often it's not. I've written about all of this before, about how postdocs are used as technicians in large research groups, going from one postdoc position to another and using valuable time trying to please group leaders instead of the group leaders encouraging them to become independent scientists. I would go so far as to say that many group leaders use postdocs as slaves; they know they will get a lot of work out of them, but they don't have to worry about rewarding them in any way. It's unfair, and that's just the way it is. There are scientist associations (unions) working on the problem, but so far it remains that--a problem. 

I won't miss the work world. Either it moved away from me, or I grew beyond it. I grew to want more than it could give me. I used to get really jazzed at the idea of scientific meetings and conferences; I no longer do. It's more a 'been there done that' type of feeling. And I could write a long post about academic politics--how bored I am with them; the truth is that you are either on the current ruling team or you're not. If you're not, you're not important, and that means that your expertise is mostly ignored in favor of someone else who just happens to be on the right political side. And so it goes. Life is not fair, and academic life is definitely not fair. It's who you know, not what you know. I think it's always been that way, and that it will continue to be that way. I also won't miss the feeling of constantly having to do homework--read articles, stay updated, read more articles, plan more research. It's tiring. 

Now that I've informed my leaders, I feel free. I've been walking around for the past year with this decision on my shoulders, so to speak. Should I or shouldn't I? As it turned out, there are personal reasons for why I made the decision now. I won't detail them here, but it has to do with that life is short and that friendships mean more than work. So in a sense, the decision was easy to make. I want to spend more time with friends, not more time at the office. 

Leaving the work world is a leap into the unknown. I look forward to finding out what the next life chapter holds. I don't need to know everything that's going to happen, nor do I want any major plans or responsibilities hanging over me. I want at least one year without any plans or responsibilities. After that, we'll see. One thing is for sure; I will be able to focus on my writing a lot more. It will be nice to have the time to do that, when I want to do it. And if you want to find me most days during spring, summer, and fall, you'll find me in my garden. 

The quest for fame (and fortune)

Apropos my post the other day about anonymity and those who spend their lives in a quest for fame and fortune--here is a rather apt cartoon from one of my favorite comic strips, Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller.

The Undisputed Truth - Smiling Faces Sometimes (1971)

An oldie but goodie. The video is so-so, but the song is so good--and relevant for the times we live in. A warning, a message, good advice. The songwriters knew the truth--smiling faces are not always what they seem to be. Here are the lyrics: 

Smiling faces sometimes pretend to be your friend.

Smiling faces show no traces of the evil that lurks within.

Smiling faces, Smiling Faces, Sometimes they don't tell the truth.

Smiling faces, smiling faces tell lies and I got proof.

The truth is in the eye 'cause the eyes don't lie, amen.

Remember, a smile is just a frown turned upside down my friend.

So, hear me when I'm saying

Smiling faces, Smiling Faces, Sometimes they don't tell the truth.

Smiling faces, smiling faces tell lies and I got proof.

Beware. Beware of the handshake that hides the snake,

I'm tellin' you beware of the pat on the back it just might hold you back.

Jealousy, (Jealousy) misery, (misery) envy.

I tell you you can't see behind

Smiling faces, Smiling Faces, Sometimes they don't tell the truth.

Smiling faces, smiling faces tell lies and I got proof.

Your enemy won't do you no harm, 'cause you'll know where he's comin' from;

don't let the handshake and the smile fool ya.

Take my advice I'm only tryin' to school ya.

Smiling faces, Smiling Faces, Sometimes they don't tell the truth.

Source: LyricFind

Songwriters: Barrett Strong / Norman Whitfield

Smiling Faces Sometimes lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, DistroKid

Reflections on anonymity

Most of us will never become famous for what we do or for who we are, and most of us are satisfied with that, because we did not set out to become famous. We did not set out to become world conquerors, famous for what we do, or filthy rich because of what we do. Most of us did the best job we could do in our chosen field, achieved a modicum of success, enjoyed decent incomes, and made sure that those who follow us were ready to take over for us when it was our turn to leave that field behind. Anonymity is not something we chose, it simply is the backdrop of our lives while we live them. We are not anonymous to those we love and who love us. We choose to give up anonymity in order to love another person. But we remain otherwise anonymous to the world at large. 

Most people don't seek widespread attention willingly, because the idea of being center stage is not appealing. That is true for me as well. It has happened that we found ourselves center stage at several points in life, but those were not aimed-for experiences, rather stressful ones, especially for introverts or ambiverts with introvert tendencies. When I was in grade school and high school, I was deemed the smartest student in my class each year based on grades, and that meant accepting several honors at the end of each school year. While it was nice to be recognized, it also meant accepting awards in public and feeling pressure to accept a position as student council president in high school, a position for which I was unsuited and which I disliked immensely. Being the top student also meant holding a valedictorian speech at the end of high school for a huge auditorium of people that made me nervous for weeks prior to graduation. That has been the case for every single speech or lecture I have given since then. I've agonized for weeks about them--what to say, how to say it, will it be well-received, will I make a fool of myself, will I be so nervous that I couldn't enunciate correctly, and so on. I have never enjoyed public speaking nor being on stage. I remember performing in dance recitals, and how nervous I was before each recital. But I loved dancing and dancing classes, and recitals were a part of the entire experience. For me they were just something to get through. 

As I've gotten older, I've realized that preparation is key; if you practiced your speech enough times, or memorized your lines, or your dance moves, you would be fine. Something automatic takes over when you finally step onto the stage and it's your turn to be in the spotlight. With one exception, I've never made a bad speech, given a poor lecture, or performed a suboptimal dance. But my nervousness has not abated with the years. If being recognized and remaining anonymous were possible, that would be preferable. Writing comes closest to that combination; it is possible to write, to receive responses from readers, and to remain anonymous, at least in a general sense. I remember when my book about passive-aggressive leadership began to garner some attention; I was pleased but at the same time nervous when I read the reviews of the book. Putting yourself out there as a writer is an iffy proposition; will you be able to write and still retain a sense of anonymity? If one writes under a pseudonym, it is possible. The author who writes under the pseudonym Elena Ferrante has retained her anonymity while being a best-selling author, one example of this being possible. Her publisher protects her anonymity. 

Some people I know have never had a problem being in the limelight. They enjoy giving speeches, enjoy being the center of attention, and enjoy an audience, both socially and professionally. Most of them are extroverts. I admire them, at the same time knowing full well that I could never be like them, nor would I want to be. I am perfectly happy remaining out of the limelight, as long as I am recognized for the work I actually do and am rewarded for that when it comes time. That is very important, especially in a world that rewards extroverts for nearly everything. If you are comfortable in the limelight, if you don't mind selling yourself, if you like giving speeches or leading meetings, more power to you. But that shouldn't mean that those who don't like these things should not be rewarded. Unfortunately, if you are not an extrovert, you are often overseen in a work context. I have gone out of my way during my career to 'see' those employees who don't make a big deal about themselves, who prefer being in the background. I've always found them to be as smart and knowledgeable as the extroverts who have also been smart people, just more verbal about it. 

Some of you may be thinking that I am equating introversion and anonymity. I am not. But I have often found that introverts prefer remaining anonymous in the general sense of the word--unidentified, incognito, or unnamed. They are not attention-seekers. That is the connection I've seen and experienced. One can be an extrovert and choose anonymity as well, for good reasons. But mostly those who prefer or choose anonymity tend to have introvert tendencies. 

There is also a group of people who spend most of life desperately trying to escape their anonymity. This group of people are of average intelligence and abilities, but they believe that they were made for greater things and that one day they will be finally noticed for their great talents. They waste quite a bit of time trying to be noticed, trying to be famous, trying to be successful, ad nauseam. Their definition of successful is being rich. They are not happy with who they are, and they refuse to accept that they are just average ordinary people who are destined for average ordinary lives. They just know that they are destined for fame and fortune. It's just right around the corner. If you try to tell them that there is nothing wrong with having an average ordinary life, they will berate you for being negative or unambitious. They blame others for their lack of success (money), and they buy into all sorts of scams promising them success if only they do this or that thing or change this or that mindset. They'd be better off writing a book about how to become successful, rather than buying the books telling them how to become successful. They don't see that there is no magic formula for success/becoming wealthy. What they want is to be famous and successful, but they don't understand that success and being famous are not necessarily connected (Elena Ferrante is a good example of a successful writer, but no one knows who she really is). You can be famous without being successful (rich), and successful without being famous. These people don't change or begin to accept their lives as they are until they have been through some hard-knock experiences. But getting to that point can often take a good portion of a lifetime. 

Deception and the end justifies the means

Last night I watched the Netflix film The Woman in the Window with Amy Adams as a pill-popping, wine-drinking agoraphobic female psychologist who lives alone in a big house in Manhattan, except for a tenant who rents the basement apartment from her. The story revolves around her trying to get the police, her tenant, and a few others to believe that she has witnessed a murder in the apartment building across the way from hers. It's based on the book of the same name by A.J. Finn (pseudonym for Daniel Mallory). I haven't read the book, so I cannot comment on whether the film remained completely true to the book, or whether the film is better than the book, or vice versa. 

As I usually do once I finish a book or a movie (or both), I googled them to read more about them and the author. One thing led to another, and I came upon an excellent article in The New Yorker (A Suspense Novelist’s Trail of Deceptions | The New Yorker) about the author (book editor turned novelist) and his climb to the top of the publishing world. His debut novel, which was published in 2018, is The Woman in the Window, and it made him a millionaire. So far, so good, I thought. Kudos to those debut novelists whose books become best-sellers. It's the hope and dream of most novelists, however, most of them never realize the dream. Very few novelists write best-sellers. That's a statistical fact. 

But as I read further, I realized that for this author, the end justified the means. He used every means possible to get to the top, to become famous, to become a best-selling author. He essentially lied his way to the top and used the people he needed to use to get there. He lied about being sick, about family members being sick/dead, about his education/degrees, and his work experience. He made himself out to be much more important than he was. Some of you may be shrugging your shoulders saying, so what, many people do that. If you read the article, you'll realize that most people don't do what he did, and if they did, we'd be living in a very difficult world where you wouldn't be able to trust anyone, essentially. I don't know why he did what he did, or if he even understands that what he did hurt people, but if he does, he knows that what he did was morally questionable and wrong. When confronted, he ended up blaming some of his behavior on being bipolar. I don't know enough about bipolar disorder to comment on it one way or another, so I leave that to the experts. I do know something about narcissistic personality disorder, and this type of behavior is not uncommon in those who have that disorder. So I don't know. What I do know is that it struck me while reading the article how little the publishing world polices or punishes their own. And when their mistakes catch up with them, they go the 'no comment' route in order to avoid the bad publicity and embarrassment. 

It also struck me that the publishing world rewards their own. Editors know other editors and suggest books for perusal and publication. They take care of their own. It's who you know that moves you ahead. A.J. Finn the editor turned novelist may have gotten ahead just fine without all the lying; there were plenty of people willing to move mountains for him. The publishing world is another elitist profession that protects its elitism by keeping the common people--average ordinary authors--at bay. Traditional publishers do not accept manuscripts directly from authors; most go through literary agents who wield a lot of power in terms of acceptance/rejection of manuscripts. They work together with publishers to keep out the 'riff-raff'. It is strange to realize that most authors will never enjoy what A.J. Finn enjoyed--editors willing to promote his book. Most authors who behave honestly and who follow the traditional rules of publishing will never see their book published by a traditional publisher. 

This is why I am all for the rise of independent publishers and self-publishing, at the expense of traditional publishers. Yes, the market is now flooded with sub-optimal books by first-time self-published authors who think they are great authors, but eventually they find out that they are not, because no matter what they do, their books don't sell. It's hard to be a little fish in a huge ocean. Absolutely no one will notice you. And that is the current state of affairs for most self-published authors. But there is also a lot of poor writing published by traditional publishers; many books promoted by traditional publishers are just garbage. The same holds true for vanity publishers, who promise first-time authors the moon--a best-selling novel and a film script based on their books. Vanity publishers have no qualms about taking 20,000 dollars from authors to 'help them publish their books, to distribute them globally, and to initially promote them on social media'. These are all activities that the author can do himself or herself for less than 50 dollars on Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP); one need only use KDP to self-publish a book, arrange for global distribution, and sell the book on Amazon. I wrote a post about self-publishing already in 2010 (A New Yorker in Oslo: Publish Your Book using CreateSpace (paulamdeangelis.blogspot.com); just as an update, CreateSpace eventually became KDP for those who are interested. Once the book is out for sale on Amazon, it's easy to tweet about it or share the link on social media. So what are vanity publishers using the 20,000 dollars for? They're getting rich from taking advantage of first-time authors who don't know any better. They're also criminals for lying to authors. 

One sad thing about getting older is finding out how many people lie, or are willing to lie to get ahead, to make money, or to be successful. There are people willing to sell out their relationships and family in order to make money. There are people who were perhaps willing to cheat or be dishonest when they were young, who became cheaters and dishonest people as adults. It's disconcerting to read about them, and even more disconcerting to know them personally. I find it sad that most professions are built on the backs of honest hard-working people who never really found out how or even that they were taken advantage of until they were older, and by then the only feelings they can feel are disappointment and sadness. It's too late to do anything about it. It's hard not to feel sad when you realize that in many professions--academia, publishing, business, journalism, medicine--there are those who don't mind shamming others, who don't mind lying and cheating their way to the top, who don't mind stepping on others or holding them back, and who don't care what others think of them. Perhaps that is the way of the world, and perhaps that has always been the way of the world. Nevertheless, it is still quite jarring.  

Foo Fighters - Chasing Birds (Official Video)

I haven't really followed the Foo Fighters much since they started making music, but this song and video caught my eye. Definitely a throwback to the psychedelic songs from the 1960s and 70s, from the likes of The Beatles (think of the album cover for Magical Mystery Tour), Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, and other bands/singers from that time. I hope they continue in this vein--it's a very good song. 

Working from home and the least engaged employees

I read an article today in the New York Times about the CEO of WeWork who meant that employees who enjoyed working from home were those who were 'least engaged' in their jobs (WeWork’s CEO: ‘Least Engaged’ Employees Work From Home - The New York Times (nytimes.com) I had to laugh. I thought to myself--another dinosaur. Another entitled leader without social antenna or emotional intelligence. My advice to him is to join the 21st century before it leaves him behind. 

The pandemic has shown us all how it is possible to keep on working productively and effectively while working from home full-time (or mostly full-time). Those of us who have administrative jobs have not experienced major changes in how we do our work. The greatest challenge I've faced during the past year has been getting my hospital's VPN to work at home; my company had to work that one out. It took some time, but they did. I need to have access to work emails from home and it has to happen via a private network. Does it always work? No. But 90% of the time it does. So I won't complain. When it doesn't work, I find another task to occupy me. The days go by, and work gets done. 

I'm an older worker without children to care for. Many of the younger couples in my neighborhood who are new parents have enjoyed working from home this past year, for good reasons. They have been able to spend each waking day with their infant/toddler, and I've watched them take turns caring for their children. The fathers are outdoors pushing the baby carriages while the mothers are at home working. Or vice versa. They are relaxed and their babies are relaxed. Of course, we are talking about parents with one child each. Families with several children each may not experience the same amount of relaxation, especially if the children are of school age and were stuck at home during the last year. I've read articles about the parents who have used a lot of time on home schooling and the challenges involved in trying to work from home and home-school children. It can't be easy. As always, I would guess that much of the work falls to the women in the family, who do all of the above plus clean and run the house. So the WeWork CEO is most likely referring to mothers when he says that those who enjoy working from home are the least engaged. As I said, he lacks social antenna, because if he had them, he'd understand that maybe these women appreciate the extra time gained not spent commuting to and from work. Perhaps they appreciate being able to use that extra time on their actual jobs when they are at home, despite all of the other things they are asked to do. As always, it's a man commenting on these issues. I'm really so tired of hearing what men have to think. Why not ask women CEOs? Oh, I forgot. Men still outnumber women when it comes to occupying those coveted CEO positions (Women Business Leaders: Global Statistics (catalyst.org). Why doesn't that surprise me?

I've worked in academia my entire career (dominated for the most part by men at the higher levels). All I've seen are men who have prioritized their careers at the expense of family and friends, at the expense of hobbies and other interests. Many of them (now old) are divorced and alone. They face old age and sickness alone. Many of them were unfaithful to their wives along the way. Many of them were never there to help raise their children. It seems strange to me that society would expect men and women to behave this way and then expect them to have a decent family life. My brother hit that wall when he had children; suddenly sitting in his office until late hours did not appeal to him, and it caused him trouble with his bosses who thought he should not be leaving at 5 pm every day. But he wanted to be with his children, and it cost him one job. But if you get your work done within regular work hours, why shouldn't you be allowed to leave at 5 pm without that being a negative thing? It's because we Americans were raised to think that 60-hour work weeks somehow make you important, invaluable to your company. And for some decades, it probably was that way. But no longer. Companies are no longer loyal to employees who dedicate every waking hour of their lives to their companies. Younger people want a life, and thank God for that. They enjoy their work, but they also enjoy their family lives and friends. And most younger women would not tolerate being married to a man who worked the way men in my father's generation worked, or even men in my former boss's generation (close to 80 years old now). They gave their all to their jobs, but for the life of me I cannot see what they got back that was so much more important than their families and friends. 

So working from home gets two thumbs up from me. Being able to be flexible about when one needs to focus on work, or on family, or on home life and friends, is worth gold. If the WeWork CEO has a problem with that, it's his problem. Society is changing rapidly, and it has passed him by. Good riddance to these types of men. 

The demise of workplace loyalty

Modern leadership courses emphasize many things, but loyalty to one’s workplace is not one of them. Loyalty (my definition of it) is considered to be old-fashioned; what’s important is being able to navigate the many and continual changes that come your way as an employee. Don't become too attached to anything because it could all change tomorrow. Don't become too attached or loyal to a project, a job, or a good leader. Be ready to let go of all of it immediately, because you may very well be asked to do that. Be ready for change at all times. That is the modern workplace mantra.  

As long as employees do not resist the many changes that are foisted upon them, they are considered 'loyal' in the way that management likes. That is the modern definition of workplace loyalty. If management decides that an employee should move to a new location and start anew, it is expected that the employee do that without questioning the wisdom of their decision. Modern workplace loyalty is doing and saying what workplace leadership wants you to do and say; it is not doing and saying what is often the truth and what is often best for oneself and one’s workplace, because the truth is generally not appreciated, or rather, management does not often wish to be reminded of it, especially when it comes into conflict with the plans and strategies that management wishes to implement. Most managers are not interested in hearing your thoughts/opinions about their decisions, whether they are about your job or the workplace at large. If management decides that a merger is the best course of action for a workplace, they effectuate it even if most employees are opposed to it. That has been my experience in huge public sector workplaces. Employees must simply find a way to deal with the outcome, even if it is an obvious failure on many levels. If management decides that personnel budget cuts are the way to reduce operating costs, they effectuate them, despite the protests and complaints by the employees affected directly by them. If management decides that the remaining employees are to do the work of the employees who have been let go, they will put a spin on that decision and foist it upon the remaining employees. If productivity decreases as a result of this decision, management will not allow employees to remind them that this is a direct result of the budget cuts. Management refuses to face the truth--that it is not possible for two people to do the work of five. Modern workplaces are all about saving money ad nauseam but making sure that top leaders get the generous salaries they feel they deserve. And so on. 

Leaders would rather not have to deal with such a tiresome virtue as loyalty, with employees who want what's best for their workplace, who like their workplace, their colleagues, the camaraderie, the shared history, and the interesting projects. It's difficult for most employees to live up to the version of modern worker that most modern workplaces want. The same idea applies when discussions of open office landscapes come up; management will push through that idea despite protests from employees who know from the start how the noise and chaos of open landscapes will affect their productivity. They are not listened to. They are expected to be sheep; just follow management's lead and accept the consequences. If the decision proves to be a huge mistake, they'll find a way to gloss over it so that it is never defined as a mistake. Ergo, it will not be possible to learn from mistakes because there aren't any. 

I don’t understand workplaces that refuse to listen to the good advice and ideas of their employees who have worked there for many years, who know the history of their workplaces and the risks involved in going down a particular path. It’s almost as though the longer you work in one place, the more risk you pose to the implementation of the plans and strategies of management, because they know that long-term employees perhaps cannot adapt or might not want to adapt as readily as short-term employees. They are too loyal to the old way of doing things. I can understand this from management’s point of view, but it’s disconcerting to realize that history, experience, and general knowledge are not valued in the same way as they once were. It’s disconcerting to watch a workplace under new management make the same mistakes as were made ten years ago under an older management. It’s disconcerting to know that they did this because they did not want to listen to the long-term employees. It's disconcerting to watch how long-term employees are pushed aside or frozen out in favor of the younger ones who are more malleable. Eventually, the longer you stay in one workplace out of a misguided sense of loyalty, the less valuable you are to that workplace. That is the definition of a modern workplace. It is no wonder that younger people are less ‘loyal’ in the old-fashioned sense of the word. Why hang around when your ideas and advice are not valued? Many of them shift jobs without compunction after five or seven years. I’ve come to see that as a good thing. I started my career with that attitude, because I felt that at the seven-year mark, one perhaps needed a change of venue. It was important to move on in order to grow and develop. But that was a different era when loyalty between employer and employee was a two-way street. Employers may not have wanted you to leave, and they did their utmost to keep you. That is no longer true. But then I moved to a small country with considerably less career opportunities, and suddenly I had to face the reality that it wouldn’t be easy to shift jobs the way I might have been able to do had I stayed in my own country. So I stayed in one place, in one department, at one hospital. I pursued a doctoral degree, did a postdoc, and became a scientist, all at the same workplace. Many of my colleagues have been the same people for the past thirty years. I grew to like that for the most part—the sense of familiarity and shared history. Thirty years went by. But during the past ten to fifteen years, much has changed, perhaps not unexpectedly. The sense of familiarity and shared history are gone. They have been replaced by a feeling that the sands are constantly shifting under one’s feet. Employees come and go. Decisions are made, work groups established to implement them, and then they are abandoned for reasons that are unclear. Few people seem to complain about the waste of time and effort involved in this type of decision-making, not to mention the huge costs involved. Everything has become very fluid and relative. It often feels like the foundations are no longer strong, or that they are now being built upon shifting sands rather than on solid ground. Many long-term employees have adapted to multiple and continuous changes, but it took time, probably much longer than management preferred. The result however is that long-term employees stand alone. They feel alone and perhaps abandoned. They feel devalued and useless to some extent. The sense of shared history is gone. The sense of pulling together for a real and important goal is gone. It’s a strange feeling. I haven’t decided yet whether I like it, but that’s not what’s important. What’s important is that management likes this way of doing things.

Another way of looking at it

 Makes you think......