Julie Gould 00:08
Hello and welcome to Working Scientist, a Nature Careers podcast. I’m Julie Gould.
This is the first part of a series about hiring and getting hired in science.
Every year, the Nature Careers team puts together a survey to understand the lay of the land, to find out what their audience is experiencing in the working world of science.
And in 2024, for the first time, the Nature Careers team tried to find out about scientists who hire other scientists.
They wanted to know things like: “Are there a lot of candidates, and what calibre are they?”
But also: “What are all the aspects of the hiring process? Are there screening interviews, and what questions do you ask?”
Linda Nordling 00:57
To understand what scientists who hire other scientists are looking for and what they’re not seeing, and any tips and tricks, so that the people reading the articles (hopefully quite a few of them would be scientists, young scientists, looking for work), so that they can understand a bit better how to navigate the recruitment process.
Julie Gould 01:22
This is Linda Nordling, a freelance science journalist who helped the Nature Careers team to report on the survey results.
But she was also part of the team that wrote the survey, alongside London-based market research company Thinks Insights and Strategy.
I spoke with Linda to find out more about the survey and the results they gleaned from more than 1000 survey respondents from both industry and academia.
I wanted to know what they meant and what some of the more surprising results were.
What did you learn about the scientists who are hiring scientists, from both academia and industry?
Linda Nordling: 01:53
The sort of eye-opening things that we learned was things like the quality of candidates that people are seeing.
And it told a story, because the academics who responded, most of them, said that the quality of the candidates that they were seeing applying for their jobs, had gone down in recent years.
So the quality was going down, and the biggest problem that they faced was finding high-calibre candidates.
The hirers, or the recruiters from industry on the other hand, (so these are scientists working in industry who hire other scientists), they said that they had seen an improvement in the quality of applicants.
And, you know, we, when we saw this, we, you know, it kind of raises a lot of questions, but also creates a few thoughts about, you know, the assumptions that you make.
And one of the, one of the things we wondered was: “Does this mean that better research, you know, that the best young researchers are actually going into industry? That the jobs there are more, more exciting, more attractive”?
Then we found out, you know, what recruiters value and what they think is lacking. And you know, one of the things that comes across all the time is, you know, the soft skills. You know, your communication skills, your project management skill, leadership skills.
You know, those are the things that often candidates don’t have. And we were expecting that. But it just confirmed some of the some of the thoughts we had.
Julie Gould 03:26
I found some of those quite interesting as well, particularly the ones where they were struggling to find quality candidates and the, and the difference between academia and industry.
And so I wondered whether academics are now getting a bit disgruntled with the quality, because they’re no longer training them purely for academic jobs.
They are now being trained for jobs that you know have a broader application, or you know, worthy in industry, as well as in academia, where there is more of a focus on the softer skills, or more of a need for the softer skills, the teamwork that you know, the interpersonal skills, all of those things.
Did anybody say anything about that to you?
Linda Nordling 04:13
We talked a lot about this with science recruiters. And you know, it’s a lot of speculation.
The overwhelming message is that academic training has not changed as much as maybe all that. Because we aren’t seeing those skills, it’s still the same skills that are, that are lacking, if we look at what’s lacking.
You know, it is the communication skills, is the leadership skills, the collaboration skills. But you can also turn it the other way, you know. Does it mean that we are training young training young scientists better so that they are more suitable for the jobs in industry?
So maybe it’s not that the academics are disgruntled that the candidates no longer are purely academic, but it might be that the best candidates now don’t want to stay in academia, because there’s better opportunities somewhere else. So they’re just maybe not getting as good candidates as they used to, rather than the candidates not having the skills that they’re looking for.
Does that make sense? (Yeah. Yeah. It does. It does.)
One of the really interesting things we found was the answers to where recruiters find candidates, where they prefer to find candidates.
And it turns out that personal networks, the professional personal networks, the people you know through your professional networks, is a really powerful way to sort of find candidates for jobs.
And so something that came out across the whole survey was the importance of networking. And I know that this is something that many young scientists don’t like to hear, because it’s also one of those skills it’s really difficult to, sort of, train.
You need a mentor, or you need something like that. But it’s incredibly important, and perhaps concerningly so.
I mean, jobs boards and other recruitment platforms were way down there compared to personal networks.
And also when you ask, you know: “What will make you hire someone?”
You know, the fact that you have a personal connection with them, or that you know someone you know, someone you know who knows them makes a huge difference.
So networking, networking, networking comes across as a huge, hugely important thing.
And it’s, again, you know, it’s a difficult thing to do. If you’re sat in a in a country where you can’t travel much, or you can’t go to conferences, it’s challenging to make those connections.
Julie Gould 06:29
And is that why you said it was a concerning thing?
Linda Nordling 06:33
Yes, it is a concerning thing because it kind of keeps people in their lanes and in their silos.
And to a certain extent, I mean, this is not from the survey, this is my personal observation, yeah, networking is a skill that you pick up from other people you know, maybe even your parents, or maybe someone that you see networking or you know.
Or you know, it’s not something you can read up on, necessarily, and it’s a social skill that if you saw your parents networking or went to school where somehow, you know, networking was the name of the game, and you know, you met all these important people, so your network suddenly, you know, built, and you weren’t an outsider.
You know, you have a much easier time understanding networking than if you came from somewhere that when networking was not important, or where you didn’t get those skills by the time you you go to university and have to sort of apply them.
Julie Gould 07:23
Yeah, I understand. The other thing that I found really interesting, and this was in your article, which was called A step-by-step guide to landing your next job in science, and it’s right at the bottom of the piece, and it was the stats about the frequently negotiated elements of the job offer.
And what I found really interesting was that across all three things, so with salaries and bonuses, benefits, which included pension, flexible hours or relocation support, and contract length, there were far more negotiations in industry than in academia.
Can you talk to me a little bit more about that? And what you found out about that?
Linda Nordling 08:05
Yeah, well, unfortunately, that was one of those things that we sort of went out, “Oh, we should have asked more questions.” (That’s a shame.)
There were many of those, and it always happens when you do surveys, you’re like, “Oh, we should have asked that question, the follow up.”
So I don’t know. I think what we heard from industry hires is that, you know, first of all, I think there’s an expectation that industry is more of a negotiating game.
You know, .like, it’s a job that you do for pay. It’s not the same sort of idea of academia, where, you know, you’ve got a vocation and, and you’re, you’re doing it for the great benefit of mankind, you know.
And you maybe don’t realize that you can actually negotiate salaries, you know. You probably do think that university’s budget isn’t very flexible.
And also, you read in Nature and elsewhere about how poor the salaries are.
So I guess it kind of maybe creates a feeling of, you know, I better not kind of rock the boat, or whatever.
But the message that comes across is that you can.
I mean, sure it was, it was a higher percentage that negotiated, you know, benefits in industry, but even in academia, you know, 28% negotiate a compensation package. So that’s almost a third, or just over a quarter.
So if you do ask for maybe, see, if there’s more compensatiom or maybe other benefits that you can get, you’re not going to be like completely coming from Mars, you know?
But others have done the same, and the worst that can happen is they say, sorry, you know. But there might be something that you can you can get.
I think it’s like a positive message that that you can negotiate in academia.
Julie Gould 09:50
Yeah, and I’m very much in the camp of “If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” So it’s worth asking.
So with that mindset, we’re heading into the hiring and getting hired series, we’ll be asking some of those questions that the Nature Careers team didn’t get to ask, as well as offering some tips and tricks to make the whole process of finding a job, or finding a candidate, easier.
So to set the scene, I want to get back to something Linda told us that they were looking for: what the recruiters value.
Now, recruiters’ values will differ depending on where they’re based and who they’re representing.
But something a candidate should be aware of, says Llana Wisby, a quantum physicist turned deeptech entrepreneur and the previous CEO of Oxford Quantum Circuits, is that these values will underpin the entire recruitment process.
Llana Wisby 10:36
The values of an organization should define who hires, who thrives, who grows, who is hired ultimately. It drives those key decisions.
So do not underestimate, if you’re applying for an organization, the power of actually researching, like, what are the company values? Because that is something that certainly people will be looking towards.
Now, when we were hiring, the way that we created our hiring model was, and it is difficult, because it is exclusive process, right?
You need to hire for the best people within the team.
The best people within the team are not necessarily the smartest people in the room. They’re not necessarily the people that are the loudest or the most confident or the most experienced.
You’re often looking at it from the lens of, well, values and team dynamics and potential. And for us, that was all about emotional intelligence, and high sustainable performance and drive. It was always growth mindset, right?
So you’re hiring on the potential of somebody, because you can’t expect somebody to join a company and know everything.
But can they learn? Are they driven? Are they curious? Are they people that, from a values lens, are going to be able to interact well with the team, and a lot of that is emotional intelligence.
So when you’re asking competency-based questions of, “Give me a time that you receive difficult feedback, and how do you respond to it?”
What’s really being asked is, “How did they react? What did they learn from it? Are they okay with admitting their mistakes?”
And then if you’re looking at that person, you’re asking that question, “If I was hiring I’m also looking at, how are they talking about this?”
Are they genuinely talking about it with humility and as a learning experience, or is there still, like, this toxic resentment around the fact that they got difficult feedback.
Or often the biggest flag was, “I’ve never had it. I’ve never had it. Never had feedback”, which often comes comes through. So that’s kind of how we go about it.
Julie Gould 12:32
But it’s not just the companies or the lab’s group values that you as a potential candidate might need to be aware of.
When it comes to looking for a job you also need to be aware of your own values, knowing what you believe in, where your moral compass stands, what’s important to you to be happy and successful in your job will impact what jobs you go for.
It isn’t worth applying for a position at a company or a lab where your values don’t align with theirs.
Llana Wisby 12:56
I would argue, if you’re going to attend 50 interviews that aren’t aligned, that is a huge waste of everybody’s time, your time and theirs, over maybe spending a day or two doing some deeper work, deeper introspection.
Julie Gould 13:12
This means taking the time to do a bit of self-reflection.
Over the years, I’ve heard a lot of early career researchers say that this is something they don’t have time for.
They’ve got a million and one things to do as part of their PhD project or postdoc contract.
But trying to understand what is important to you and why Ilana says is worth it in the long term, even if it can feel a bit uncomfortable.
So make the time
Llana Wisby 13:34
If you think about how you might project manage and the four quadrants, right, of you’ve got what’s urgent and what’s important.
So you’ve got what’s urgent, not urgent, important, not important.
Often people operate within what we call quadrant one, which is it’s urgent and important.
So “I need a job. It’s urgent and important. I’ve got to find a job. I’ve got to apply.”
And it drives action-oriented things, where you feel like you’re making progress because you are acting.
Whereas, actually, if you invest in the important when it’s not urgent, then you’re going to be able to set yourself up for success.
In the longer term, you have less things in Q1.
You’ll be more intentional and more successful and waste less time and less energy because you’ve done that forethought.
It’s really, it’s not what you’re used to. You’re used to operating in a world where it’s high-frequency and where output and action is what’s valued. But there’s huge value in introspection.
Julie Gould 14:34
So if you’re someone looking to find a new job, maybe this is something you could do alongside listening to this series of episodes whilst learning about how different scientists hire, how AI is or isn’t used in recruitment, or how to negotiate.
Spend some time thinking about what is important to you.
In the next episode of this series, we’ll try to do what Linda Nordling and the Nature Careers team set out to do with the survey: to learn more about the recruitment process.
We’ll hear from a career coach about the different factors that drive recruitment in academia and industry, and I speak to a recruiter who is embedded in companies to find the best scientists for their research teams.
And we’ll also hear from someone who is centralizing the postdoc hiring process at a scientific Institute in London. Thanks for listening. I’m Julie Gould.
