One question: Do scientists know they need it? That’s a big question, so I’ll refine it: Have you yet met any scientists who have expressed interest being more effectively managed?
I am a scientist who would like to be more effectively managed. Note, though, that I don’t think that telling me what research to do would be “effective management”. Management is a service, not a position of authority. And scientific problems are sufficiently technical that it’s very unlikely that a manager would have a better idea than me what problems were important to approach and why.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have to justify myself on some level (and being forced to do that in the past has been very valuable to me), but at some point you might just have to trust my intuition. The best advisors I’ve worked with were extremely good at knowing when to go with my intuition (even if it conflicted with theirs) and when to force me to make things more explicit.
I imagine a good manager would basically take care of creating an optimal working environment, and force me to come back to the bigger picture when necessary.
There’s a section in my paper about the study of the (in)effectiveness of application-oriented research vs. basic research, and the trend over the past 50 years to shift almost completely to application-oriented research (where goals are ultimately set, or at least approved, by Congress) despite all the literature showing that it’s a waste of money. In my opinion, the problem isn’t that managers aren’t telling scientists what research to do; it’s that they are.
Then I wonder how one could propose to a scientist an offer of effective management and be warmly received. Hefty financial compensation, combined with a noble and ambitious goal, that would end—after years and years of research and development—in potentially great monetary and reputational profits, perhaps?
One question:
Do scientists know they need it? That’s a big question, so I’ll refine it:
Have you yet met any scientists who have expressed interest being more effectively managed?
I am a scientist who would like to be more effectively managed. Note, though, that I don’t think that telling me what research to do would be “effective management”. Management is a service, not a position of authority. And scientific problems are sufficiently technical that it’s very unlikely that a manager would have a better idea than me what problems were important to approach and why.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have to justify myself on some level (and being forced to do that in the past has been very valuable to me), but at some point you might just have to trust my intuition. The best advisors I’ve worked with were extremely good at knowing when to go with my intuition (even if it conflicted with theirs) and when to force me to make things more explicit.
I imagine a good manager would basically take care of creating an optimal working environment, and force me to come back to the bigger picture when necessary.
There’s a section in my paper about the study of the (in)effectiveness of application-oriented research vs. basic research, and the trend over the past 50 years to shift almost completely to application-oriented research (where goals are ultimately set, or at least approved, by Congress) despite all the literature showing that it’s a waste of money. In my opinion, the problem isn’t that managers aren’t telling scientists what research to do; it’s that they are.
No. At least, they don’t express concern about the points in this post.
Selection effect. Interning in a big genetics lab and seeing some of these problems first hand is why I wasn’t a science major.
Then I wonder how one could propose to a scientist an offer of effective management and be warmly received. Hefty financial compensation, combined with a noble and ambitious goal, that would end—after years and years of research and development—in potentially great monetary and reputational profits, perhaps?