Julie Gould 00:09
Hello, and welcome to Working Scientist, a Nature Careers podcast. I’m Julie Gould.
This episode is going to run a little differently to our usual style, in that I’ve got two guests on the show, and we’re going to have a chat about the different values that younger and older scientists have when it comes to hiring and getting hired in science.
Because we know that today’s workforce consists of four different generations, which, ordered from oldest to youngest are the baby boomers, generation X, millennials and generation Z.
Now people from these different generations were raised in different social and political atmospheres, and so have experienced different childhood upbringings and familial environments which could lead to different values, wants and needs in adulthood.
So the Nature Careers team, based on the survey that they ran last year on hiring and getting hired in science as well, wondered: Do people from different generations value different things within the hiring process?
We’re particularly looking at the recruiters in this episode to help you listeners see if you might need to adapt your interview style and application to the age of the people that you are being recruited by.
So joining me to discuss this is Margot Smit, a junior group leader at the Center for Plant Molecular Biology (or ZMBP) at Tübingen University in Germany, and Professor Dietmar Hutmacher, the Distinguished Professor of regenerative medicine in the Faculty of Engineering at Queensland University of Technology in Australia.
Welcome to the Working Scientist podcast.
Margot Smit: 01:36
Thank you so much
Dietmar Hutmacher 01:38
Thank you so much. Yeah, thanks for having me, and it’s great to see you, Julie,
Julie Gould 01:42
Well, because you’re both at very different stages in your academic careers, you know, we’ve got Margot, who’s at the very beginning of a junior lab leader, and then we’ve got yourself Dietmar, who’s at the other end, you know, more senior, distinguished, not the very end, not yet, don’t say that you’re not there yet.
But before we talk about the main topic of our conversation, which is the different values that you might have as different scientists from different generations, I want to do a really quickfire round of questions, just to warm us up and keep you on your toes.
So I will ask each of you the same question. Try to answer them very briefly, like maybe one sentence, and then we’ll go from there.
Okay, so here we go. First one, Margot, I’m going to send this one to you first. What is a current research trend that you find exciting?
Margot Smit 02:31
Oh, I think this is like, in like, a lot of single cell stuff, but then sort of using that not just to build resources, but to answer questions we weren’t able to answer before, right?
So I think every new technology will open up a new window into a question we had long for a long time.
Julie Gould 02:47
Okay, same question to you then, Dietmar. What is the current research trend that you find exciting?
Dietmar Hutmacher 02:52
Definitelynot single cell. I’m a more modular person. So a topic I have been (sorry, it’s more than one sentence). Okay. One sentence is: water structure and organization in biology.
Julie Gould: 03:10
Okay, cool, right. Question number two, back to Margot. What skill are you trying to improve at the moment?
Margot Smit 03:17
Keeping track. Organization, prioritizing, making sure I’m on top of everything I should be on top of.
Julie Gould: 03:24
What about you Dietmar? What skill are you trying to improve at the moment?
Dietmar Hutmacher 03:28
To be more and more, again, a scientist and less of a manager?
Julie Gould 03:32
So, totally at the opposite ends there. That’s really interesting.
Okay, question three. How many people have you hired in your career? Margot, you go first.
Margot Smit 03:41
Three, two PhD students and a postdoc.
Julie Gould 03:45
Okay, and what about you, Dietmar? How many people have you hired in your career?
Dietmar Hutmacher 03:51
I think 200 plus.
Julie Gould 03:53
Final question, something a little bit different.
Margot, what are you reading at the moment that is not a scientific paper?
Margot Smit 04:00
I haven’t had the time, really, but I was recently reading The Wizard and the Prophet.
That book about climate change and, like, different views of technology.
Julie Gould 04:12
Okay, great. What about you, Dietmar? Do you have time to read anything other than science research papers at the moment?
Dietmar Hutmacher 04:17
Well, I take the time which, which I really enjoy, and I think it’s important for my sanity.
So at the moment, I’m reading the book Lessons in Chemistry.
Julie Gould 04:27
Quick side note. Lessons in Chemistry by Bonnie Garmus is a great book about a female chemist who hosts a cooking show in 1960s America.
Okay, that’s it for our quickfire round.
But that showed up some really interesting differences between the two of you at very different ends of the career spectrum at the moment in academia.
But now you are ready for the proper questions of this conversation. So, right. Let’s go.
The thing that I know is difficult in academia. (Margot, you and I were talking about this just before we came online for this recording), was that getting training to do anything other than being a scientist is is difficult.
You don’t learn, you don’t get official training in, you know, project management, lab leadership, you were saying accountancy, that sort of thing.
So I was wondering, because we were talking about hiring in science, you know, how much training did each of you have in recruiting people?
Dietmar, let’s start with you this time.
Dietmar Hutmacher 05:22
Well, I think my career is not really representative in that way, right?
Because I spent 10 years in industry before I went full time into academia. So actually, I learned a lot of those things in industry. And I did an MBA. So I did learn all the things before, which helped me a lot.
Just to give you an anecdote, You know, when I when I did my executive MBA, actually in England, in your home country, it’s the Royal Henley Management College.
You know, a lot of my peers were from Siemens, from BMW, from GE, and so on.
And they all became, you know, top managers in their different industries.
And they always told me, at reunions, that my MBA was a waste of time. They said, ”You know, why did you do an MBA if you want to go in academia?”
And I think it’s the opposite. I think the MBA helped me so lot, you know, to really progress in my career, because I did learn all the things you were asking about in that time.
Julie Gould 06:31
So can you then maybe give us the top three most useful things that you learned about recruitment when it comes to hiring people for your lab?
Dietmar Hutmacher 06:42
Yeah. So I think the top one is to be transparent. Transparent what you think about the performance of the candidate, and transparent about what you would expect of the candidate, right?
Number two would be that I like to have somebody, and it doesn’t work out always, but, but somebody who fits, you know, the philosophy I have.
And it doesn’t mean that I have the ideal philosophy, but it must fit in the philosophy I have, how I run a team, right?
So can that person fit in that team philosophy?
And then number three, I would say it is important that the candidate also really goes realistically with me through where they want to be in five or eight years, and that I give them realistic feedback if they come to my lab?
If there would be a realistic way which could get them where they want to be.
Julie Gould 07:50
Alright? Well, so Margot, you you have a very different experience. You haven’t been out in industry yet.
You’ve gone you’ve been on a very much more traditional academic career track, where you did PhD, postdoc, and now junior group leader.
So you haven’t had that opportunity to gain insights from industry. So have you had any training at all in in recruiting people for your lab?
Margot Smit 08:10
No dedicated training whatsoever. So previously, I had, of course, like recruited students, like bachelor, master students, to to do projects with me, but I was all much shorter, and I had a lot less influence in that. I would be involved when, like my lab, like professors, they when they were hiring new lab members.
So you get to see a bit of that process, but no specific resources. So actually, when I started here, I think the most important thing for me was that I was just asking a lot of people for advice, right, and asking them to sort of give advice, also specifically on certain candidates, what they would do, what they would prioritize.
Julie Gould 08:49
Okay? And did you do any sort of reading around the subject? Did you, you know, go to books and literature to maybe sort of give you advice as well, or is it just focusing on the network that you had locally?
Margot Smit 09:01
A large part was networking, but there was one book which is called Lab Management, that I really felt was super useful. I have, like, also a lot of, like, tips and suggestions for also the hiring process.
So that’s really helped sort of visualizing, because I like, think more specifically, like, what are things to focus on and to make sure, like, this process is smooth when you get all the information you need from people.
Julie Gould 09:28
Okay, all right, so can you give us maybe the top three things that you have learned so far in your hiring journey that have you found really useful?
Margot Smit 09:38
I think for me, the most important is been like communication. Like, how well am I able to communicate with the person? Like, how transparent can I be? How transparent Are they back to me? Like, can we understand each other well?
The second has been like trying to figure out if our motivations match right. Like. This is the thing that I actually look for the most, like, what is people’s drive, their curiosity. Why are they here? What did they want this job?
And then I think. I don’t know for the third. I think the third would be to listen to other people’s opinions from in my case, like whether that is lab members that I’m involving in the process, or earlier on, when I was asking co workers for advice, is that was really helpful.
Dietmar Hutmarcher 10:26
But Margot, but what about mentorship?
Margot Smit 10:31
One of the directors on our floor in developmental genetics, like there’s a professor that I go to for advice, like, when I we don’t have assigned mentors, partly because the traditional German structure is relatively hierarchical, and they’re working like, like, they’re very motivated to try to get rid of that, right?
So they’re on purpose, not really assigning specific, responsible professors.
That does mean, like, in the institute, everyone’s super open. So I can ask everyone for advice, but it’s much less a dedicated person, and much more like me reaching out.
Dietmar Hutmacher 11:02
I actually, I think that’s great. And I’m not a big fan, fan of assigned mentorship. It’s more like, you know, chemistry, right? That? Yeah, you meet the professors, they meet you, and then there is a chemistry and the, you know, naturally, somehow, they work with you, right? I have seen official mentorship programs, but I think they are way too stiff, and so on.
So it’s the same for me. I always tell my postdoc and junior faculty next to me to go out and, you know, just explore. And if there is somebody, you know, I have no problem at all. And when they come back and they say: You know, Tom said this, I said, Great, let’s, let’s discuss this, right? Yeah, that’s great.
Margot Smit 11:52
Multiple people, right? Yeah, like a lot of people are going to give you advice, and I listen to everyone’s advice. I don’t take everyone’s advice, right? I listen to a lot of people. Then I decide myself what to do next, and that’s helpful not just to have one person, Have a group, yeah,
Julie Gould 12:07
Okay, well, this level of chemistry, I think, is something that’s really important when you’re working through the hiring process as well, because often you can feel a connection when you’re hiring people for your lab.
And Dietmar, you were saying earlier that for you, something that’s really important, is it people fit in with or, you know, sort of match philosophies with you, and then the way that they work and they are.
Is this something that you when you started your first lab, before you hired anybody?
Did you sort of have a think about the lab philosophy that you can have? Or did you set any values or mission statements, or anything like that for your lab?
Dietmar Hutmacher 12:43
No, I didn’t set mission statements. Even so I could have, right? I have written a lot of mission statements when I was in industry, and I didn’t feel compelled to do that at the beginning.
I mean, later, when my centre was established, we had a mission statement for the centre and so on, right?
So I think if you have a structure, like a center developed, then you have that, but that is more for the outside, I think also, and you need to have already inside, a philosophy, I think, which is important.
So I guess in a way, one could say that I did this naturally, right? So, so I knew that to get this team philosophy, I needed to be available, needed spent the time and so on.
So purposely. Also, I did grow my group very slowly to have just a couple of people who worked with me two or three years which I could really develop this philosophy and spend time with them on the research, but also on the science character and ethics and so on which we wanted to really practice in the group.
So I think one of the problems I see, and I’ve seen this with some of my junior faculty, when they move too quick into senior roles, that if you grow too quickly and you don’t have the time to do that, then it can become quite turbulent, very fast.
Julie Gould 14:13
What about you, Margot?
Did you ever think about any sort of values or or beliefs that you wanted to sort of have as part of the way that you run your lab and do your science that you set up and thought about before you started hiring these people into your group?
Margot Smit 14:27
Not specifically thinking about like a mission statement, but I did notice, like previously, when working with thesis students, but then now also, this has been reinforced now in the in the lab that I think we should There’s a unifying sort of ideal that I would like us to stick to, which is like: we’re here to be excited to do good science together.
So I really when, when hiring and recruiting, look for people that have that motivation and curiosity, but also willingness to help out other people and to collaborate, and I think most importantly, the ability to ask critical questions in a supportive way, right?
The goal is not to tell everyone how nice they are, but the goal is to try to get to the best science together. And I think that’s for me, like, what I try to, then recruit people that have similar values to sort of reinforce that, right?
So I think I agree with Dietmar. When things go too too quickly, you can lose sort of some some sense of control that a lot can grow in a direction that might not be what you intended.
And I really was, like, very lucky, but I think it’s difficult to recruit people that fit and that have that same philosophy, so that we can sort of build a core group together, right?
So when new people join rhis is what we do, and this is what we stand for, and this is how we do things together.
And I think if you get unlucky and hire someone who doesn’t fit that, it can be, have a very big effect on the lab. And that’s, I think, my most, my main fear, okay,
Juie Gould 16:16
Dietmar, you were saying that, you know, you took some time as well to to build that sort of philosophy, that, that value within your lab before you started growing it.
Can you give us a sense of of what that philosophy is?
Dietmar Hutmacher 16:28
Yeah, sure. Also, as Margot said, right?
One is that we want to do really excellent science, right? That we really know that what we do in science is really based on really very good work.
Right from the beginning, I had a big focus on reproducibility of the data sets, to give one example, right, and then the other important part would be also that everything is collegial, but, but I would go further, not not just to ask questions, but also have a very intensive and deep scientific discussion, and allow this, this disagreement.
And then don’t have the philosophy if I scientifically critique you, You are hurting me. You know that this becomes emotional, that we keep it on that level, right?
So that was also very important to me, because that’s also the way I discuss science, right? Which, which sometimes is not so easy. If people don’t know me, they seem, you know, because I’m also engaged, because I’m so interested in the science.
That everybody understands now, we discuss science, we we go into this, we critique each other, and so on, yeah. And afterwards, we walk out of the room, and as we say, we have a we have a beer, we have a glass of wine, we have a coffee, and we discuss, you know, how are the kids, you know, what are you doing on the weekend?
So I think that was always and still is very important to me, and I think that’s actually one of the big problems.
In a lot of institutes, universities, at the moment, that we can’t do that anymore, that it is so hard for for the younger generation to follow this and to live this philosophy.
Because the rest of the world tells them no, if somebody critiques you, take it personal. How dare your professor say why did you do this experiment this way?
Margot Smit 18:31
Thing to add to that is sort of like I want the communication to be open, and I want us to assume that we’re all coming from a place of not attacking each other, but like the best thing you can do for someone is to engage with their project and to engage with their research, research,
And to help them get better and help that project get better is to be critical, but then to to assume from each other that we’re not here to attack each other.
We’re here to solve a problem together, or we’re here to improve things together. So I think that does require a certain level of trust and good communication in order to then, like, go to that level of having good, critical discussions, because that is the best way to grow.
Julie Gould 19:16
I think, I think, it’s really interesting that even though both of you will come from different generations, that you both see that value as something really important to how you run your research groups and your labs.
And I was wondering, I don’t know if, between the two of you, you could maybe sort of figure out, are there any other values that you both have, or values that you don’t have, you know, compared to each other?
Dietmar Hutmacher 19:39
Well, I guess mutual differences are based on, based on my age and career stage, that I have a much larger team, right? And that based on that I have a larger team, I guess the management is different.
So for example, I have junior faculty and I have postdocs, and I give them a lot of freedom and delegation and so on.
And then I think that’s more difficult for Margot, right?
So in that sense, coming back to my statement, I still go with the PhD students. I’m the main supervisor to the lab. I still do experiments with them, and so on.
But that also means that the junior faculty and the postdocs, that they have a lot of responsibility and so on, and that I’m less involved in that.
But then sometimes things go wrong, and then I have to step in from the management side, right?
So I guess that that might be the biggest difference, that I have a different managerial role as Margot.
Margot Smit 20:45
I agree with Dietmar. Actually, there’s probably the largest difference is actually a career stage and a lab age difference, right?
Well, the new people that joined my lab, like, I’m still training them on most of things and like, I spend a lot of time in the lab.
Basically, once the lab is probably more grown, right, and everyone has more experience, people are training each other, teaching each other certain things, and then also my role becomes different.
So I think that there are probably, like generational differences, but I think the biggest difference is probably just age of the lab, and what then the role of the PI is in sort of shaping the lab. And in sort of managing and recruiting you are looking for different things.
I also think when I talked actually with my my PhD mentor about this, he mentioned he was much more of a micromanager when he was starting out as a group leader, versus now, partly because the group size is different, because now I have much more time to spend on each individual project, right, and to be involved.
And then I imagine, as I’m mature and the lab, grows that that will change, right? Of course, it also depends on people themselves. I think as people are starting a PhD, they do need a different level of involvement and different mentorship, but that will depend on the person and on the project, but also in the time that I have available.
Julie Gould 22:13
Of course, of course. Dietmar, do you have anything else to you want to add to that?
Dietmar Hutmacher 22:17
Well, I guess you know, Margot, we, we come from a very similar cultural background and so on, right?
So even so, there is the age difference, but, but we come with again, similar cultural background and so on, in which Margot did grow up, and I did grow up, and so on.
So that’s why I think there’s quite a number of overlapping thoughts.
So I guess this would be very different if, if I would be an Indian professor and Margot would be a Chinese group leader, and vice versa, right?
I think that that is for me, with which I also see in my lab, because I have a lot, obviously, international PhD students, postdocs and so on, right?
So I think that that’s a major thing when, when I get a PhD student from China or from India or from from Iran and so on,
It’s very different than when I get a PhD student from Holland or from Germany or from the UK.
So I think that is in the formal global world. I think that is a major difference in science and how you harmonize this, right?
Because, again, when a Chinese PhD student talks to an Indian postdoc, it is quite interesting to see how they communicate. It’s very different. You know, when a German postdoc communicates with a Dutch one, yeah.
Julie Gould 23:46
So when you are recruiting people from these different cultures, and you’re talking about how you look for these, these particular philosophies of values that these people have, how do you get out of them whether or not their philosophies and values match with yours, if they’ve come from such different backgrounds?
Like, are there specific interview techniques and questions that you might ask them that help you see whether or not they would fit in with your philosophy in your lab?
Dietmar Hutmacher 24:13
Yeah. I mean, in a way, you learn this, right? And I never hire somebody just based on my interview. Usually we we do a couple of interviews, and it’s always like two or three of us interviews the candidates.
So there is a PhD student, which is part of the interview team, a postdoc and so on right. And then I encourage also the applicants to talk to my postdocs and PhD students without me right? At the same time, I have hired people which didn’t fit the team in the past. You know, it’s not a 100% success rate.
Absolutely not, right? And then the question is, how everybody goes on to this journey that the team adopts to the person, and how the person adopts to the team.
And again, I guess overall, most of the time it worked out, but not always. And I think then it’s really important to be transparent and open and then have the discussion about that you have to depart, that it’s not working out, that you don’t wreck this out,
Julie Gould 25:20
Those aren’t easy discussions to have for sure, which is why it is so risky to hire people as for group leaders, and that’s why these processes often are quite thorough, which again, is why I’m always quite surprised that academics don’t get formal training in recruitment, given how expensive time and financially it is if things go wrong.
So one other question that I wanted to talk to you about for this particular episode is the physical interviews themselves, and whether or not you both have different ways of presenting yourselves in an interview to people, and how people can learn to read the room depending on what kind of generational person they’re speaking to.
So you know, when you walk into a room and you walk into an interview, you always have a look at the kind of person that you’re facing, whether they’re younger, older, how they’re dressed, how you’re dressed, and you make all these snap judgments, and you alter the way that you behave appropriately. So I was wondering if you have any perspectives on how you expect people to behave, how to hold themselves, dress themselves, when it comes to an interview itself.
So Margot, why don’t you go first? Is there anything that you particularly look for, that you value for a person to do and be in an interview?
Margot Smit 26:35
I think this is probably where more of the differences will come in, right, whether that’s generational or just the real stage.
Because I am relatively young. I don’t have very specific ways. I want people to present themselves, of course, like it’s going to be relatively informal, because we’re most like quite similar in age.
I usually start, actually, with a zoom conversation to just get to know each other a bit and talk about sort of the global projects, but also about their motivation and their goals, and it will usually give me a good indication of how the communication is going to be.
And whenever I’ve had red flags, this is when they show up, right? And this is, you know, sometimes I’m interviewing someone that is that is older than me. And the thing is, like, I don’t need someone to call me Dr Smit, but I do need someone to let me finish my sentence.
So one of the things I would advise people is like, read the room in like, what has been communicated is the goal of this conversation.
Prepare yourself for what information or what you want to sort of bring across during this this interview or conversation. And also think about what you want to learn. So like, what questions do you have for the people interviewing you?
But don’t change the goal of the conversation. I once had one question interviewing with me, and I was like, you know, I just want to, like, I had email in advance. I mean, like, the goal is to just talk about your goals and to talk about the project in a more global sense, never a shorter, more informal conversation.
And based on that, we decide, like, for a longer interview, right?
And this person, at some point, just interrupted me and was like, and now I would like to share my slides, and they went ahead and presented their, their PhD project.
So, I mean, I like, was kind of overwhelmed. I let them finish their slides, I asked them some questions. And I mean, I didn’t invite them for my interview, because if already doing a first conversation, you completely like, cut me off and take over.
That level of communication, if that’s sort of the first indication for what a longer term relationship is going to be, I don’t want to be in that so I think that not being being a bit younger, I really watch out for people like immediately speaking over me or taking over and, like I said, I don’t need a great amount of respect, but I do need basic respect, and I do need to be aware that I acquired funding for a position. I need someone to execute that project, and this is the role that we’ll have.
Dietmar Hutmacher 29:05
Maybe, maybe again, because of the age difference and the seniority, this doesn’t happen much to me.
But what I distinguish is if it is really an official interview, an interview, interview, or, you know, sometimes people write to me and they say, ”Ah, I’ve seen you giving this keynote in this conference, and so on. Would you mind if I come and talk to you and so on, right?”
And I say, ”Yeah, of course. Come, come approach me after my talk, and so on, right?”
So then they come after the talk, and then, you know, when I talk to them, it’s much more casual, and so on, right?
And then when I say, ”You know, this sounds interesting, let’s do an official interview.”
Then it’s really an official interview. And then, yeah, I have expectations that they have prepared, that they present to me, you know, why they want to come to my lab, what they want to work on, if they know what the lab is doing and so on. Yeah, and not this, yeah, let’s let’s talk what I can do that is what I expect.
Julie Gould 30:07
And one thing I wonder is whether or not gender plays an important part in the way that that you expect people to behave to you.
But Margot, because you are a young female academic, do you find that people behave to you in a certain way that you might not expect them to? For example, to Dietmar, who’s a senior male academic.
Margot Smit 30:29
It mght play a role. My sample size is too small to say anything about that, but I do have to say I am, of course, hesitant, especially when interviewing people that are the same age or older than me, that of those that I’ve interviewed, there have been some men who tend to be the ones to then talk over me. Or like it does raise a red flag, maybe earlier.
So maybe in that sense that that I am then biased, that I am expecting this more from from male candidates, but I try to sort of set that aside. Like, in the end, it’s not for me, it’s not relevant, and I, as long as I don’t feel like for them, it’s relevant, right?
Or people that are wanting to join my lab, this should be a non issue. And if they have an issue with that, then, then probably they don’t fit in this environment with me.
So I just try to sort of see if I can filter that out, that people that that seem to have a conscious or unconscious problem working for a young woman.
Julie Gould 31:30
Glad to hear that, and I hope, hope that trend continues to go down.
Now I know we are running short of time. We’re coming towards the end of our call, so I would like to just ask you both one more question, which is: what advice would you have to any scientists that are listening right now about the hiring process, or any values that you might have as to how you go through the hiring process?
Dietmar, would you like to take this one first?
Dietmar Hutmacher 31:56
You know, there’s so much negativity about science and so on, and how difficult it is.
So I think it’s really important firstly, that you are clear for yourself why you are in this career, but then show the passion why you are in it. And don’t show that you think it’s so difficult to get grants and fellowships and short term contracts and so on.
So really go for for your passion, and why you want to be a scientist, and why what you want to create new knowledge and demonstrate this in the interview.
Julie Gould: 32:30
Okay, I can see you nodding. Margot.
Margot Smit 32:33
Yeah, I very much agree. It’s like the motivation, like we’re here to do, like great science.
But also, I think part of the sort of the output from from my lab and from universities, is not just the papers, it’s also the people, right?
So if you like being a mentor, I hope that if you’re a group leader, that that is the case, because you’re going to do it a lot, it’s going to be a lot more satisfying if you like it. I think indeed, coming from a place with, why are we here and why do we like this?
And then like, what is the lab we want to build, and how do we find people that help us grow that environment?
So I think looking for the skills that are necessary for the project, but also looking for the characteristics, the communication, the excitements that people have, that they’re bringing to the lab.
And I think my other piece of advice is to ask for advice, to look for people around you, especially, I think in the career stage that I’m in, to ask for then co workers, but also I think regardless of your career stage, ask for help and input from your lab members, because they have to work with these new people as well.
Julie Gould 33:40
I think this is something Dietmar that you talked about before that you you encourage people to go and speak to the people in your lab so that they can get a feel for them too.
Dietmar Hutmacher 33:50
Yeah, absolutely, because I can tell them a lot, so do I walk the talk?
Julie Gould 33:55
Yeah, absolutely. Well, both of you, thank you so much for joining me for this conversation. It’s been really great to get to get to know a little bit more about your hiring processes and your philosophies and how you want your labs to be run and to to run by the people that are in it. So thank you both for joining me.
Margot Smit 34:13
Thank you so much, Julie for for inviting me to join. It’s been great.
Dietmar Hutmacher 34:16
Thank you, Julie, It was so great to hear you again, and you made it so easy for us to be in this trialogue.
Julie Gould 34:30
I think what we gleaned from this triallogye, as Dietmar called it, was that even though there are generational differences between himself and Margot Smit, that is not what creates the biggest difference in their hiring styles.
The main differences come from their different career stages and how at these stages, they have different responsibilities and needs within their research groups.
And the fact that Margot and Dietmar were also originally from Europe, meant that the similarities in their values stem from their similar upbringings and cultural backgrounds.
In the fourth episode of this series, we’ll explore negotiation. The survey that Nature Careers team ran last year on hiring and getting hired in science shows that candidates are negotiating more when they’re in the final stages of getting contracts in industry-based roles compared to academic ones.
So we’ll look at why this is whether or not there is room for negotiation in these academic roles, and we’ll share some advice on how best to manage those negotiations. Thanks for listening. I’m Julie Gould.
