Women in Leadership: Influence

If, indeed, the key to successful leadership is influence, how do we become more influential? Is this something we can learn? Influence was a crucial component of the lecture on Power given by Dr. Mabel Miguel, Professor of Organizational Behavior at the University of North Carolina (UNC), at the “Women in Business – Transitioning to Leadership” workshop at the UNC’s Kenan-Flagler Business School that I attended in May. Remember that “Power is Good” (for a refresher, please see blog on Power), and we should all want more of it. If we define power as the capacity or potential to influence others, then we want to increase this capacity or potential. So think about a recent situation where you successfully wielded your influence. Did you win an argument, change a policy, or improve a situation? Ask yourself the following questions:

• How influential are you?

• What is your favorite influence technique?

• How do you tailor your strategy to the situation?

• Did you have a plan when you approached people?

There are several categories of strategies/tactics that we use to influence others. These are often referred to as the three Rs: Reason, Reciprocity, and Retribution. Here’s a summary of each and some indications of when they might be the most effective choice.

The Power of Stories

I have never been a story teller. I’ve never developed the flair, pacing, and audience connections needed to tell a good story. So when I attended the “Women in Business – Transitioning to Leadership” workshop at the University of North Carolina’s (UNC)Kenan-Flagler Business School in May, I wasn’t expecting to tell a story. Dr. Heidi Schultz, Clinical Professor of Management and Corporate Communication at UNC and the facilitator of our Wednesday afternoon session, told us that the story a speaker tells is often the only thing an audience remembers! Once I heard that, I realized that I wanted to know more about the power of stories.

In her article for Forbes Magazine, How To Tell A Good Story, contributor Kristi Hedges shares the reasons why most people don’t consider themselves good storytellers.

• I never think of it
• I tend to ramble and lose the point
• I have a hard time gauging interest
• I am never sure how much detail to use
• I don’t have good stories to share

Women in Leadership: Power

I’ve had many bosses. Two were great, several were mediocre, and a few were simply awful. I can count one sexual harasser, one bully, and at least one liar. One taught me the difference between leadership and management. None taught me about power. So when I attended the “Women in Business – Transitioning to Leadership” workshop at the University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School in May, I wasn’t expecting my ideas about power to change. When Dr. Mabel Miguel, Professor of Organizational Behavior at UNC and the facilitator of our Tuesday afternoon session asked us if we thought power was good or bad, the thing that came to mind was the old quote from Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I thought power was bad. Over the course of the next four hours, Dr. Miguel completely changed my mind. Not only is power not bad (what you do with it can be bad), but for me, “Power is good” became the single most important take-away of the workshop. Here are the objectives of the session:

• Help you understand power, politics, and influence in leadership and their role in organizations.

• Help you identify your power attitudes and sources.

• Discuss best approaches to influencing others and increase your ability to do so.

• Enable you to transfer the skills to your current job.

In our optional evening “after-sessions,” which took place in the bar or around the fire pit, members of my class agreed that the last bullet was an essential component of a successful session. We were here to learn, but this workshop was not just an academic exercise. We were here to become better managers and leaders. So what did the session offer me that was so personally “powerful?”

Women in Leadership: Networks

 As you make the transition from scientist to manager, you may realize that the technical and mathematical skills that got you where you are won’t help as much as you advance. Although (when mixed with a bit of intuition and common sense) they may be sufficient at lower levels, like department chair, group lead, or principal investigator, these abilities alone will not be enough as you move to higher levels. Even though your undergrad and graduate curricula were packed full of requirements, you may reach a point when you lament that you never took a management course. Your success will depend less and less on the skills that made you a successful scientist and more and more on your human competencies. In a community that is dominated by introverts, this is a particularly troubling realization, and an individual with even mild extroverted tendencies has a natural advantage. There is a joke I heard while I was working in the Astronomy Division at NSF. Question: How do you tell if someone is an extrovert? Answer: When they pass you in the hall, they look at your shoes. It is sort of funny only because it is so true. I worked on the Math and Physical Sciences floor – the directorate that includes Math, Physics, Chemistry, Materials, and Astronomy. I can’t tell you the number of times I passed someone in the hall, and they looked down. I found I had to really focus on keeping eye contact and saying something simple like, “Good morning.” So imagine how an individual in this community of introverts feels when they learn that their career advancement now depends on the one thing they were never good at (and never had to be) - their ability to develop effective working relationships with key individuals.

Women in Leadership: It’s Not Just About Confidence

In her 2014 eye-opening article for the Harvard Business Review, author Tara Sophia Mohr discussed Why Women Don’t Apply for Jobs Unless They’re 100% Qualified:

You’ve probably heard the following statistic: Men apply for a job when they meet only 60% of the qualifications, but women apply only if they meet 100% of them. The finding comes from a Hewlett Packard internal report, and has been quoted in Lean In, The Confidence Code, and dozens of articles. It’s usually invoked as evidence that women need more confidence. As one Forbes article put it, “Men are confident about their ability at 60%, but women don’t feel confident until they’ve checked off each item on the list.” The advice: women need to have more faith in themselves.

Fortunately, Mohr was skeptical of these findings and decided to survey over a thousand men and women, predominantly American professionals. She asked them, “If you decided not to apply for a job because you didn’t meet all the qualifications, why didn’t you apply?” She discovered that the barrier to applying was not lack of confidence, at least according to the self-reporting of the respondents. In fact, according to the table below, “I didn’t think I could do the job well” was the least common of all the responses for both men and women.

Although it is certainly true that many of us could use an extra dose of confidence, if we listened only to the advice from the Lean In/Confidence Code bull horn, we would be doing ourselves a great disservice. We would be internalizing and personalizing the problem, putting all the weight of this dilemma on our own shoulders (sound familiar?), and assuming that the external environment, the world out there, was a level playing field. The bottom line is that there is more to it than just confidence (internal), and this missing societal component (external) is fundamentally important.

AAS Candidate Questionnaire

Community members interested in issues of equity & inclusion have authored a survey for AAS members running for elected office, to request additional details on their policy positions and plans related to their prospective offices. The full questionnaire appears below. It was constructed with input from the community on issues that are important to all of us as we cast our votes.

A star (*) appears by the 5 questions that the authors consider the most important.


Survey responses will be made publicly available to AAS voters in read-only Google documents, and the availability of these responses will be advertised on the Astronomy in Color blog and here on the Women in Astronomy blog.

AAS Candidate Questionnaire

1. In a few sentences, what does equity and inclusion in astronomy mean to you?

2. In terms of racial, sexual, gender, and disability equity in our field, what do you believe the AAS is doing well, and what does the AAS need to improve?

3. (*) As part of the AAS leadership, what equity issue do you most want to address? What challenges do you believe the AAS will need to address in the next three years?

4. How do you see the AAS leading our field to racial, sexual, gender, and disability equity while respecting the self-governance of universities, departments, and other employers?

5. (*) Beyond its astronomy-specific responsibilities, do you see the AAS responding to more general threats to the rights or welfare of marginalized groups in the U.S., even if it risks political backlash?

6. What can the AAS do or continue doing to aid the professional development and employment opportunities for its growing population of junior members from minoritized groups?

7. (*) How will you work with the AAS Committee on the Status of Minorities in Astronomy (CSMA), the Committee on the Status of Women in Astronomy (CSWA), the Working Group on Accessibility and Disability (WGAD), and the Committee for Sexual Orientation and Gender Minorities in Astronomy (SGMA) to ensure that the AAS is continually progressing toward making astronomy equitable for all?

8. (*) What background and experience in inclusion, equity, and accessibility work would you bring to this position that would help you make progress on these priorities? What personal experience would help inform your stance on these issues?

9. (*) Given recent publicized revelations of sexual harassment by senior astronomers, how do you believe that the AAS could help improve the climate in our field to better protect members from experiencing harassment along all axes (including race, disability, sexuality, and gender identification) and to support those who have experienced it?

10. Do you support at least one plenary AAS session per year (either at the winter or summer meeting) that addresses community issues related to equity and inclusion? How would you use your position as AAS leadership to ensure there is ample time and support for this type of plenary?

Astronomy Leadership: Applications, Interviews & Jobs

 

 I didn’t get the job. That’s how this post was supposed to start, but a strange thing happened as I was contemplating the future of my career in astronomy (but more on that later). This was supposed to be a post about the job application process, the invitation I received at the beginning that made all the difference, the boost I got from an anonymous blogger talking about why women don’t apply for high level jobs, the virtual shove I got from my husband at a crucial moment, the help, advice, and encouragement I got from other senior women. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Some of you may know that I was a professor at the University of Memphis with expertise in solar coronal spectroscopy. My department was evolving from physics, where the staff had many different specialties, to materials science. Those of us who worked in other sub disciplines were becoming more and more marginalized. I was unhappy with this trend and was looking to get out. My good friend, Pat Knezek, had just taken the job of deputy director of the NSF Astronomy Division. She asked me if I had ever considered a job as an NSF rotator. I started at NSF in September 2013.

Some of you may also know that I was CSWA chair for many years. It was during that tenure that I met Don Kniffen, a CSWA member. Don was there with me when I (with CSWA’s support) decided to blog about my own experience with sexual harassment. I came out as a victim in February 2011. Through my position at NSF Astronomy, I got back in touch with Don after a hiatus of several years. It was at about the same time that Arecibo Observatory ended up back on my radar. I had spent two years there as a grad student – not happy years, mind you – but I didn’t hear much about Arecibo while I was doing solar physics.

In a very real sense, CSWA provided the means and NSF provided the opportunity for the next step in my career. Because their jobs are temporary by definition, NSF rotators are always thinking, “What’s next?” I was no exception, so I was looking out for possibilities when I attended the AAS meeting in Seattle in January 2015 (OMG – that was this year!). It was there that I ran into  Don. After an exchange of pleasantries, he asked me a question that simply had to be a joke – “You’re not interested in the job at Arecibo, are you?” I laughed. Knowing my unhappy history with Arecibo, I’m sure Don was expecting an answer like, “Not just no, but hell no!” It was a surprise to both of us when I answered, “Wait, are you serious?”

Addressing Gender Bias in the SDSS Collaboration

Today’s guest bloggers are Sara Lucatello and Gail Zasowski. Sara is a staff astronomer at INAF - Padova Astronomical Observatory, in Italy. Her research focuses on understanding, through the study of stellar populations, the formation and chemical evolution of the Milky Way. Gail is an NSF Astronomy Postdoctoral Fellow at Johns Hopkins University in the US, where she studies the Milky Way's ISM and stellar populations; she also runs a space camp for middle school students and works to support public outreach and astronomy diversity programming. Both are active members of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and its Committee for the Participation of Women in SDSS.

 

In July 2012, at the yearly meeting of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Collaboration, a slide was shown that outlined the current leadership structure for the fourth generation of the SDSS, which was due to get underway in 2014. Of the 26 positions shown on the slide, only one was filled by a woman.

 

Many collaboration members in the audience were visibly taken aback, looking around to see who else was surprised. Soon the Sloan Foundation (the largest single source of funding for the SDSS) echoed the surprise and unease, and explicitly mentioned the lack of women in the leadership as a concern in their feedback during the process of granting funding for SDSS-IV.

 

The issue of gender balance is of course a hot topic for those watching STEM groups and STEM culture. A number of measures have been put in place over the last several years to promote diversity and reduce the effects of explicit and implicit bias. These actions have met with varying degrees of success, as discussed frequently on this blog and elsewhere. Such initiatives are, however, generally implemented at the institutional or funding agency levels. But in modern astronomy, work is increasingly done in large collaborations, which bring together many -- sometimes hundreds of -- scientists from a variety of nationalities and backgrounds. These also face the challenge of dealing with a wide range of backgrounds when it comes to diversity issues, but usually without the infrastructure of, say, a university, to log problems and enforce solutions. Therefore, it becomes crucial to find new approaches to identifying issues and devising new practices aimed at creating a climate of fairness and inclusiveness, regardless of sex, gender identity, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, economic background, and religion.

 

With this challenge in mind, in late 2012, the SDSS-III management created the Committee for the Participation of Women in SDSS (CPWS). The initial members were carefully chosen to include both men and women, and to span a range in career stage and seniority. The CPWS was charged to evaluate the gender balance within the collaboration and the leadership, assess the general inclusivity and perceived climate, and make recommendations to get rid of any widely perceived barriers to the participation of collaboration members.

 

We note that this was a genuine gesture on the part of the SDSS management. That is, despite having initially been inspired by the concerns of the Sloan Foundation, the management was truly concerned about the presence of biases against women and other underrepresented groups; it was interested in ensuring an inclusive scientific climate within the Collaboration (which includes approximately 500 participants from more than 18 countries in North and South America, Europe, and Asia). We emphasize this because we feel it highlights part of the problem with these increasingly ubiquitous large collaborations -- even with genuine awareness and goodwill on the part of many individuals, there is often no structure in place for turning that awareness into best practices applied evenly and fairly across the board for all collaboration members.

 

As a first step in establishing such a structure for the SDSS, the CPWS conducted both a demographic survey and a series of interviews of collaboration members, spanning all ages and levels of leadership responsibility. CPWS made some recommendations to the SDSS management to improve the hiring practices and to encourage more people to apply for leadership positions. These recommendations came at a critical time -- just under a year before SDSS-IV would begin full operations, while many positions within the SDSS infrastructure and the individual projects (MaNGA, APOGEE-2, eBOSS, TDSS, SPIDERS) were being filled.

 

In mid-2014, the CPWS conducted another, more extensive, demographic survey, followed by a round of interviews with the PIs from the primary SDSS-IV projects. The aim was to take a snapshot of the incipient SDSS-IV and establish a baseline in terms of gender balance[1], both in general and for the leadership. This was to be the first of a series of annual surveys, in order to monitor the Collaboration in terms of climate, diversity, and equal career opportunities.

 

One critical goal of this survey was to get a sense of what sorts of people were in leadership roles, whether those were officially recognized by the collaboration or not. To that end, we asked people to self-identify as leaders, based on a deliberately broad definition[2], with separate questions about the official recognition (e.g., having a job title) or salary status of their position.

 

About 50% of the active SDSS members responded to the survey, most located in North American or European institutions. About two thirds of the sample are faculty members or research scientists, while about one third are postdocs and graduate students. The fraction of women, both in the general sample and among members who are in self-reported leadership positions, is about 25%. This number is consistent with the fraction in the US astronomical community, but considerably higher than that in the IAU, which is only 15%.

 

While this indicates that the SDSS has been successful in recruiting a leadership that is representative of its overall composition (and of the US astronomical community), the aggregate numbers tell just one part of the story.

 

The details make it clear that there is still a long road ahead to optimize gender balance and equalize career opportunities. For example, it is true that SDSS women have increased their presence in the high ranks of the org chart (compared to the situation described at the beginning of this post), and actually take on self-identified leadership positions at similar rates as men. However, upon closer inspection, the data clearly indicate that women very disproportionately assume roles related to education and outreach, while technical or exclusively scientific positions at the top are almost entirely male-dominated. Full details on the SDSS-IV demographic survey are available in the  complete CPWS report.

 

Another informative dimension was added by interviews with the PIs of the SDSS-IV projects and the SDSS-IV director on the topic of hiring practices. Because of financial and/or time constraints, several of the top level positions were either inherited from SDSS-III or filled, without open calls, by people already networked into the project. Interestingly, the data suggest that openly advertised positions resulted in a higher fraction of female hires. However, the PIs anecdotally reported to have encountered reluctance from female scientists to volunteer or apply for leadership positions at a higher rate than male scientists, even when explicitly encouraged to join or apply. This suggests that taking on the responsibilities and commitments of these positions is not perceived as worthwhile or feasible for women scientists, who are very likely to already be more over-committed than their male colleagues.

 

The 2015 edition of the SDSS Demographics Survey is currently underway. Though largely similar to last year's questionnaire, some changes were made to enable reliable tracking of demographics across time. Now, we more carefully explore the issues described above and assess whether members -- of any gender -- hesitate to apply and/or assume leadership positions, and what the underlying reasons may be.

 

We hope that these efforts will help make the SDSS collaboration an inclusive and fair environment, where every member is afforded equal opportunity to hone and use their skills as scientists, putting forward their best possible work for SDSS and for the community at large.

 

Progress has been made on some but not all issues, and this effort is certainly an ongoing one, with many people taking part. And as many SDSS members go on to work in other large collaborations, we hope that this self-reflection and internal enforcement of fair practices becomes the norm in these incredibly productive and diverse groups.

 

[1] We note that the survey gathered information on more than just gender -- data were also collected on racial/ethnic identity, geographical location, career level, etc. These statistics will also continue to be tracked.

 

[2] We defined a leadership role as any "whose tasks and responsibilities include making decisions that affect other people and the SDSS, organizing regular project discussions or meetings, professional mentoring, or influencing/directing others in their tasks."

 

 

Setting a higher standard

There has been a lot written lately, on this blog and elsewhere, about bad behavior in astronomy and other professions. The human cost is terrible, and responsible scientists should not ignore them, even if they are not directly affected. The blog entries below about sexual harassment, and many of the responses are heart-breaking. And these are just the tip of an iceberg -- much more abuse and suffering is unreported than reported.

Having been head of a large physics department, and now as a university-wide equity officer, I have a lot of data indicating that in its prevalence of people problems Astronomy is not unusual among academic disciplines, nor among professions in general. I've concluded that theoretical astrophysics is much easier than optimizing the success of a talented group of people in an organization. Physicists solve easy problems using idealized models. A different set of skills is needed to solve real-world problems involving real people.

I have a lot of thoughts, a few recommended actions, but no master equation solve the problems preventing people from achieving their potential. Here are a few suggestions.

1. Care. One of my favorite quotes comes from President Theodore Roosevelt: "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." The fact that you are reading this suggests that you do care; if so, please share it with someone else.

2. Assess. Astronomers live on data. Do a climate assessment in your organization to measure the experience and satisfaction of all people, and be sure to do it in a way that gives safety to everyone. There are probably people in your organization who are afraid to speak up. Maybe you're one of them. Find a way to express yourself anonymously in a way that the leadership will hear. Requesting a CSWA Site Visit is one possible way.

3. Lead. Leadership is first about being accountable to yourself, and then being accountable to others. Every faculty member is a leader, whether they acknowledge it or not. (I've often heard faculty say they don't want to become a leader, when what they really mean is they don't want to be a manager. There is a difference.) Indeed, leadership is not a function of rank or role; I've known many students and support staff who are outstanding leaders.

Department leadership (in a university, or in any segmented organization) is especially important, because culture and climate are local. It is therefore discouraging how little preparation is given to department heads and others who fill roles that call for genuine leadership.

Academia is unusual among the professions in having a set of highly privileged actors -- tenured faculty members -- who have great freedom in their actions. If that privilege is not balanced by responsibility and accountability, harm can result. Academic freedom does not convey the right to harm others.

In academia these privileged actors often feel a stronger affiliation with their colleagues elsewhere than at their home institution. After all, tenure, grants, awards, and status are conveyed in large measure by one's professional colleagues in an academic discipline. Weak tenure letters will not lead to a successful case no matter how much one's department colleagues love a faculty member. In effect, academic disciplines set the standards for admission to their practice.

This fact means it is not easy for an astronomer, say, to influence faculty behavior in a department of engineering, law, or medicine, just as it is not easy for a member of one of those fields -- even a Dean or Provost -- to influence faculty behavior in an astronomy department.

How, then, are we to improve the experience of astronomers? The answer seems clear. The astronomy community needs to enter the accountability chain of leadership. That is why it is so important that the AAS has an Anti-Harassment Policy. But it is not enough for the policy to be enforced at AAS meetings; AAS members should not adopt one set of standards for AAS meetings and different ones in other professional settings.

Recently I attended a workshop on abrasive conduct in higher education that was attended by ombudspeople, HR officers, legal counsels and a few university administrators. One of the themes that we discussed was the need to redefine academic success to include conduct, not just individual achievement. This is definitely counter-cultural in academia, where the tenure system focuses almost exclusively on individual achievement. I believe this is a place where professional societies can, and do, play a helpful role.

Although Astronomy is not unusual among professions in terms of its frequency of behavioral challenges, I am proud that it is among the more active disciplines in terms of setting higher standards. The work of the AAS Council and Committees, including CSWA, is helpful in this regard. More can be done, and I hope that the community will continue on calling for higher standards of accountability and professionalism in all settings.

[The image above is taken from the CSWA banner, where it is described as one showing  men and women astronomers interacting collegially. It is from the AAS Congressional Visits Day 2010.]

Leadership, Role Models . . . and Captain Kathryn Janeway(?)

The January 2015 issue of CSWA's STATUS Magazine includes an article entitled, “Senior Women Moving into Leadership Positions: Has ADVANCE Affected Junior and Senior Women Scientists Differently?” by Sue V. Rosser, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at San Francisco State University. Part of the article describes responses to a survey question, “In your opinion, what changes in institutional policies and practices are most useful for facilitating careers of academic women scientists or engineers at the senior level?” The only response that got much traction was, “Training for leadership.”

 

I agree that training is an important, perhaps most important, component for leadership. I can think of another one, however, that doesn’t appear to have made the list: Role Models. This is one component of astronomical life that I, unfortunately, was not able to benefit from during the early stages of my career. When I was an undergrad at an engineering school, I knew other undergrad women but no women grad students, postdocs, or professors. When I was a grad student at a state university, I knew other women grad students but no women post docs or professors. When I was a postdoc, I finally started to become aware of senior women in astronomy, but they were not part of my research group and I was not able to interact with them on a personal or professional level.

CSWA Success Stories and Future Challenges

Recent data on demographics and conversations with my NSF colleague, Lisa Frehill, opened my eyes to a somewhat surprising fact. Young women in astronomy (assistant professors, postdocs, students) from some racial and ethnic backgrounds (white and Asian) may have reached parity with their percentages in the US population!

 

The STATUS magazine article, the 2013 CSWA Demographics Survey, was open on my computer screen. In particular, Figure 1 shows that percentages of women at the level of assistant professor and younger are about 30% (within uncertainties). These percentages are similar to those described in the article, The 30% Benchmark: Women in Astronomy Postdocs at US Institutions. According to this article, which was based in part on data gathered by members of the Astro2010 Demographics study group,

 

-Graduate enrollment for women in US astronomy departments has risen from 25% in 1997 to 30% in 2006 (NSF-NIH Survey of Grad Students and Post-docs in S&E).
-The percentage of Astronomy PhDs earned by women in the US has increased steadily from less than 20% in 1997 to almost 30% in 2006 (NSF Survey of Earned doctorates).
-The success rate of women in both prize fellowships and individual postdocs is about 30%.
-The percentage of women faculty at stand-alone astronomy departments in 2006 was 28% at the assistant professor level.

Leadership and the Myers-Briggs Personality Test

Women of different personality types

In the wake of Kelly Korrick’s post, Becoming a Leader, and my own interest, On Leadership, I took the Myers-Briggs personality test. I know several colleagues, family members, and supervisors who have taken the test as part of their management training. The test is available free on-line. I took this version, which is comprised of 60 yes/no questions. I’ve seen other variations, but they are all similar and take only a few minutes. The final results give you a series of letters indicating your personality types as well as the strength in each of the following categories:

 

•Extraverted (E) vs. Introverted (I),
•Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N),
•Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F)
•Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P)

 

I don’t need a test to tell me that I am Introverted (I), but it also told me the strength of this characteristic. The Extravert-Introvert dimension is a continuum:

Extravert [100% - - - 0% - - - 100%] Introvert

I was reasonably, but not overwhelmingly, introverted.

 

Sensing-Intuition preference represents the method by which one perceives information: Sensing (S) means an individual mainly relies on concrete, actual information. Intuition (N) means a person relies upon their conception about things based on their understanding of the world.

 

Thinking-Feeling preference indicates the way an individual processes information. Thinking (T) preference means an individual makes decisions based on logical reasoning. Feeling (F) preference means that an individual's base for decisions is mainly feelings and emotions.

 

Judging-Perceiving preference in more complex and involves both incoming and outgoing information. It is important to understand that Judging (J) is not the same as “judgmental,” which was my own first (incorrect) impression of its meaning.

Becoming a Leader

 

Today's guest blogger is Kelly Korreck. Kelly is an Astrophysicist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory part of the Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.  She builds solar instrumentation.  She is the Head of Science Operation for the SWEAP Plasma Instrument Suite aboard NASA’s Solar Probe Plus mission to touch the Sun.  Her research interests include shock physics and space weather. In her spare time, she prefers to be on a beach or a sailboat!

 

As a follow on to Joan Schmelz's August 4, 2014, article “On leadership”, I volunteered to share my experience in a yearlong leadership training program, some advice on how to gain some of the experience without a formal program and some thoughts as to why this type of training matters for scientists**.

 

I had the amazing opportunity to spend a year learning and working with 21 other leaders at the Smithsonian ranging from educators to curators to contract specialists as part of the Russell E. Palmer Leadership Development Program (PLDP) at the Smithsonian Institution. The program was started at the Smithsonian in 2007 with the goal of developing leadership skills such as communication and conflict management while strengthening ties between the 19 museums and 9 research centers that make up the Smithsonian Institution.  The program consisted of leadership skills development, working with a mentor, a rotation project and culminated in a large management project that was pan-Institutional in nature.

 

On Leadership

When I try to imagine a LEADER in the field of astronomy, it is not usually the likeness of a woman that comes to mind. I said in a blog comment recently that the front in the battle for gender equality has shifted to the senior ranks. I also know that we all need role models to help us navigate in unknown territory. As a senior woman in astronomy, it is my peers who are the emerging leaders. So where do we look for role models? Where do we go to get good advice from the women who have forged the path that we are trekking?

One place to look is the word of business. Although few and sometimes far between, women have been presidents and CEOs of major companies. Here are some quotes from these successful businesswomen that resonated with me:

“Don’t Be Your ‘First, Worst’ Critic” - Virginia Rometty, CEO, IBM

“I learned to always take on things I’d never done before. Growth and comfort do not coexist.” - Virginia Rometty, CEO, IBM

Working Toward the Ideal Astronomy Department

 

Today's guest blogger is Bruce Balick. Bruce is a former member of the AAS Council, a former department chair, and the past Chair of the Faculty Senate at the University of Washington.  He has been interested best practices for recruiting and retaining outstanding young faculty with long and productive academic careers ahead of them.

There comes a time in the lives of some academics when they wonder whether they are a happy fit into the their department (or similar professional unit).  To quote from an article in STATUS by Meg Urry, "Many of us have worked in unpleasant environments. What happens? You spend a lot of time thinking about the sources of friction, complaining to yourself and to others about the bad things that have happened, trying to calm distraught colleagues so they won’t leave."

Frustrated department members must wonder whether they or the larger unit are to blame.  Then they ask whether there are some objective standards that they are useful for answering this question. 

Yes, there are. 

Sponsorship: the New Hammer to Crack the Glass Ceiling

My recent posts on Unconscious Bias include a personal story, the legacy of patriarchy, schemas, and studies from sociology. You can probably tell that it is a subject that interests me greatly. Therefore, I was delighted to find an article in Sunday’s Washington Post that sheds new light on our biases as well as the importance of “Sponsorships,” which are different from “Mentorships” in ways that are vital to promotion and success. The article is:

Chair of major law firm champions ‘sponsorship’ of women and minorities

By Brigid Schulte

Kent Gardiner, chairman of the law firm Crowell & Moring, sat down to talk about why his firm is partnering with economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett’s Center for Talent Innovation to promote sponsorship of women and minorities in the workplace, how sponsoring is different and why it matters.

Q: Why were you interested in starting a sponsorship program? Women have been graduating from college in greater numbers than men since 1985. Women make up nearly half of all law school students. Aren’t we “there” yet?

Why men should advocate gender equity

Recently I was asked to speak about gender equity at the Institute for Theory and Computation at Harvard.  I chose to elaborate a theme that has been on my mind lately.  In three brief parts:

I. Why men should advocate gender equity

1. Women are half the potential talent pool for any organization.   Broadening the talent pool increases the talent.  Conversely, excluding or discouraging women can only weaken an organization whose mission is not exclusionary.  This applies to individual faculty research groups, academic departments, universities and the entire scientific enterprise.
2. The same practices that improve gender equity improve success and satisfaction for everyone. A good climate for women is a good climate.  Your competitors will be happy to absorb the talent you can't retain.

An example: By working hard to improve the climate and to more effectively recruit women who previously were preferentially declining our offers in favor of the competition, MIT successfully increased the percentage of women graduate students in physics from 13.7% in 2007 to 19.8% in 2013.  We now exceed the national average and our students are better than ever.  This is a good beginning, but significant progress towards full representation requires encouragement and support of women in physics more widely, including at the undergraduate level.