Category: groupworktheory

If you try confronting wrong behaviour, you are in trouble. When people hear they did something wrong, their mind first goes into the question of whether they are a malicious actor, then immediately rejects that idea as unfathomable, then rejects anything else you say as coming from a unreliable source.

Understanding and working with the narrator

In our minds, we are the hero of our story. Standing for truth, culture and goodness, treating others well. Osama bin Laden probably thought he is a hero defending his country, family and way of life first against the Russians and then the Americans. Maria Theresa thought she did well when sitting with those suffering instead of treating them, as those most suffering are most blessed.

But how can you tell whether you are a good person? For starters, I find that good people do no think of themselves as good people. They think: I can do this better, there is still this issue to resolve, I’m not as nice as I could be. Bad people think: I’m good enough and if others have a problem, it’s their problem (and they can keep it to themselves). Our minds like to tell that we are the hero of our story.

So how to work with others – and yourself – given these limitations of what our minds will accept as input?

Working with the narrator

When approaching others, it is best to first describe the problem you are facing, and how it affects you. People like to solve problems. Discuss how a situation is unfair – fairness is a good common interest. Seek common ground. Discuss aligned interests, and larger problems issues both of you face together. Avoid attacking holy cows and the identity of the other person. Instead, discuss behavior, its impact, and make a small suggestion how it could be different.

In many cases, this does not work, at least not on the first try. Habits are too engrained to be changed at once by willpower.

But it might surprise you how much people think about small criticisms. In that case, the story of wanting to be the hero can work in your favor.

For myself, a guideline has been Kantian principle – treat others so that if everyone treated everyone else like this, would it be a good world? When I notice that I am starting to argue for exceptions for my actions … I should really rethink my actions.

Questioning the framework

In western culture, a mythical narrative is that of the knight, single-handedly facing a powerful enemy, and against all odds, defeating them.

That narrative is reflected in many movies as well. While it might be motivational, it is also problematic: It promotes selfish and self-crediting behavior, downplaying the credit of others (who gave you that sword?). It makes others helpless non-actors that must be saved, and demands that they give thanks to the hero. It is really not the collaborative approach of modern work culture requiring a team effort of complementary strengths.

A further problematic aspect is that of self-sacrifice in the final struggle. It is quite absurd, how Hollywood movies regularly let the hero destroy their enemies. If they also succumb, they are celebrated solemnly as having done the right thing. At the same time, western culture finds Islamic suicide bombers gross and uncultured. Self-sacrifice is expected in many work places to the point of burnout, and expected of mothers (but not fathers) – mothers having hobbies or interests besides their children raises eyebrows.

Questioning narrative frameworks, especially deeply engrained ones, is difficult, and requires a equally captive story and repetition. Rational thought alone won’t do.

Another approach to destroying frameworks is to abuse them into comical absurdity. Short-term life hack for women: Create mini-missions for a man in your life and tell them that if they accomplish the victory they are your hero.

The saying goes that those who keep their office door open have a better career. I do not have hard evidence supporting this, but I know that some people shut themselves off in their offices and have then not had a lot of exposure or opportunities.

Chance encounters are quite powerful. “Just a quick question …” through an open door opens the door for something else.

When talking with junior scientists, especially when genders are mixed, keeping the door open is good practice. It avoids the hint of any suspicion that something improper could happen in a meeting. It opens yourself to being audited by a passer-by. This can provide safety to the junior scientist as well. When it is exceptionally noisy, I ask for permission from the junior scientist whether it is okay if I close my office door.

Eye contact is important when giving a talk. If you find it unpleasant to look people in the eye, you can look just above the audience and will achieve the same effect of the audience feeling seen, and you not just bumbling to the screen.

Eye contact can be unpleasant to give but also to receive. Personally, I cannot hold eye contact for a long time, but several close colleagues struggle with this even stronger. It is perhaps related to being on the spectrum, perhaps personal preference, perhaps how socially safe you feel in the situation. I curious to what degree inability to hold eye contact limits people’s social status.

In any case, it is important to realize how important eye contact is for the other person and calibrate accordingly. If my opposite needs it to feel trust and a human connection, I give a bit more than feels comfortable to me. If I feel they cannot stand it, I avoid long eye contacts and make by gaze wonder across the room while I go on a tangent in the conversation.

When you introduce yourself, don’t through your name out a mumbled string of syllables. It is difficult for those whose culture is not the same as yours to catch your first and last name (or others).

Say: My name is (short pause) <firstname> (one second pause) <lastname>.

It will be more memorable for everyone.

I am quite bad at remembering people’s names. A trick to help yourself is to use the name immediately in the first sentence you speak to them after they introduce themselves. “So Francis, what do you think about X?”.

I usually need to get to know a person first and build up some mental image of a person. That helps the person stick in my memory. That will be quite a bit later than when the time of exchanging names. However, I find usually people are not so offended if you say an hour or a day later: “Remind me, what was your name again?” It seems more important that you try.

Resources

Here is the video where I got the “say your name” from:

And two more videos on speaking clearly and slowly:

You can also undermine your communication by having a poor or uncalibrated microphone in telecon (Zoom) sessions. Test it occasionally by connecting both your phone and your laptop to the same session. Use headphones to listen from one device how the microphone picks up your audio. A laggy video, a oversteered or rough audio is similar to poor choice of dressing at the work place – it makes you look like a person who does not care how they appear to others. A crisp sound makes you appear more professional.

A senior colleague of mine once said (paraphrasing):

“We can all manage to fill our week with things to do. It is not difficult to be busy. The challenge is to actively and consciously steer what you decide to spend our time on, and prioritize things that will have an impact.”

When you look back on the last week or two, have you spent the week on something that you are proud of? Something that positions you better for your future?

Busy work

The possibilities what to work on are endless (write observing proposals, write funding proposals, attend or organise conferences, read papers, advise students, collaboration policies, help prepare data for someone, give comments on papers, create press releases, give outreach talks, etc etc etc). Busy work creeps up over time. What you stepped up for once, you feel responsible to keep doing.

You will even feel productive and helpful when filling your work week with such items.

Tasks seem urgent. You may discover things needed immediately by other work. But you will not discover what no one has thought of. If you do not schedule time to stop and think, being creative about scientific ideas and thinking critically is difficult.

You start to feel like you are missing out on progress. You feel like you are getting dumber while young colleagues get science done.

But it is not true. Firstly, research shows that people do not become dumber quickly, with work performance peaking at about 55 years. But juggling more mental items can feel like walking through jam.

Advice and techniques (for myself)

One technique that I could use more is to create four quadrants for tasks:

1. urgent & important
2. urgent & not important
3. not urgent & important
4. not urgent & not important

Then prioritize important tasks.

When you are in charge of administrative tasks, there is a power imbalance. The other person needs some approval from you, whether this is a travel request or a pull request of code. But they are probably highly motivated and for them it is both urgent and important. One technique, that I have found is satisfying for both sides, is to offload much of your administrative work to the requester. To do this effectively and without being a nuisance, it is best to make the requirements for successful approval transparent upfront. But you can require them to make one iteration of improvements, ideally only one.

As I become more senior, I have become more aware of other scientific sub-areas and people working on them. Tracking this larger and larger scope is mentally taxing, regardless of whether out of interest or out of a feeling of competition.

More knowledge and a wider field of view helps anticipate hurdles down the road earlier, and thus spend more time planning projects in your head. This may feel like hesitation and slow progress. But it is actually active work on experiment and project design and increases the likelihood to deliver on time and the scientific impact.