by Steven R. Shaw, McGill University

@Shawpsych

“It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of ’em was one kinda sombitch or another,” he says. “Ain’t about you, Jayne. It’s about what they need.” — Malcolm Reyolds

A daily occurrence is hearing about some famous or important researcher engaging in some form of misconduct. It seems that all of our academic and scientific heroes have been credibly accused of engaging in harassment, neglect, data manipulation, white supremacy, temper tantrums, plagiarism, racism, being a bad boss, exploiting students, stealing authorship, punching down, fraud, or otherwise being a severely flawed person, scientist, and principal investigator. Consequences for such behavior are fairly rare. But even more common than misconduct is run-of-the-mill lousy supervision. Lack of clear standards, unknown expectations, lack of resources, unavailability, microaggressions, discouraging students, overall poor treatment of students, spiteful behavior, public excoriation of students, and general assholiness are rampant in academia. It is possible to be a strong and productive research leader and not be a jerk. Really.

Diversity of Lab and Supervisory Cultures

Teaching, research approaches, and service are not all that different between professors. Sure, some are better than others. But the nature of the job and approaches are similar from one academic to the next. Everyone in a specific program or department generally has similar expectations and goes about their business in a manner consistent with the field of study and local culture. But principal investigator styles, philosophies, interpersonal engagement philosophies, and lab cultures vary wildly within programs.

There are no norms for what a lab looks like and how the PI leads. There are many successful PI styles. And more unsuccessful PI styles.

Universal Nature of Complaints about PIs

One of my least favorite roles in the position of Graduate Program Director is the management of student complaints. I would say that about 98% of student complaints are legitimate and about 60% require action. Most striking is that every single one of our faculty members who is functioning as a PI has had a student complaint made against them. And many of these people are not only fine scholars, but run outstanding labs; are kind, supportive, and conscientious; and several have won national and international awards for their mentorship and research supervision. Our graduate school has created a website, rules, and requirements for research supervision in order to create a shared set of expectations. These are helpful efforts to create a culture of quality supervision, but complaints keep coming. Most complaints are related to emails not responded to, late letters of recommendation, belittling behavior, delays in giving feedback, lack of direction, research mismanagement, and authorship concerns. Being a PI is hard, we are often not well trained for the role, we tend to revisit the way that our PI supervised, and being the boss always opens folks up for complaints.

Comments about My Lab

I have learned a lot about being a PI based on the complaints I have fielded. I have also observed other labs and interviewed PIs to borrow ideas and structures. I have started to have a lot of undergraduate volunteers and other folks wanting to work with me as grad students. The volunteers are telling their friends. The weird thing is to hear students say, “I have never been in a research lab like this.” I am assuming this is good because they are volunteers and keep showing up.

I am a long-distance from being an outstanding PI. I know some students have complained about me as a PI. Some have left my lab for other labs. I can be a slacker. Competing priorities get in the way. Recently, it has been difficult to concentrate to the degree required because...well, you know...all of this. But I have learned a lot in the process of improving.

Background and Personal History

I am not really an academic. I worked for 16 years as a psychologist in clinical settings. I am generally poorly socialized in academic culture. In addition, my primary purpose in an academic setting is in a professional graduate program. My students have multiple job offers upon graduation. My field is one of the few with a shortage of academics. I also have minimal ambition. I just like to do the work. Mostly, I want to be useful and have no one bother me. If what I do is not appreciated here, then I will find somewhere else where it is appreciated.

I don’t much like being a boss. I have been a lead psychologist in a hospital setting. Personnel choices and letting people go are not much fun. Although I don’t like being a boss, I strongly value being a leader. If you are a good leader, then most of the unpleasant aspects of being a boss can be avoided.

General Framework

Here are the eight big points for being out front of big issues and being a leader of a lab rather than a boss.

Modeling

I recall a parent referring his 11-year-old child to my practice with this exact quote, ”This little f**k is the most disrespectful POS I have ever seen. This sh*t is more than I can handle.” Not a terribly difficult diagnostic issue. Behave exactly as you want the students in your lab to behave. It is shocking how students in a lab take on the personality and habits of the PI. Modeling care, detail focus, professionalism, generosity, engagement, ethics, and kindness help make a quality lab environment.

Teaching by Doing

Research supervision is teaching. But teaching by doing. A big question from a student should be met with, “Let’s set up an experiment to answer that question. But first, let’s do some reading so we develop a quality question.” This is far better than simply answering the question.

Contributions

Valuing all lab members from visiting professors to first-year undergraduates is important. It honestly freaks undergrads out when I ask their opinions. But the second time I ask, they are ready for it. Also remember the most reinforcing response is not to say, “good comment,” but to build and extend on their ideas. We codify this with a regular group lab segment called, “Stupid idea time.” SIT is when we have data that are hard to figure out and we brainstorm the wackiest possible explanations. This is fun, encourages out-of-the-box thinking, decreases fear of being wrong or silly, and often creates the germ of an idea that is genuinely useful.

Serve Others

Do right by your students. Help them find more money, write letters of recommendation, introduce students to other professionals, look for opportunities, and listen to them. The last one is the big one. Listening is caring. Hear what they are saying to you and what they need. You are helping them. This isn’t some charity thing. When you help them, they will be motivated to be excellent lab contributors.

Organization

Communicate the big picture of where the lab is going. I refer to it as the “evil plot.” BTW—the evil plot is not to spend grant money and produce papers like widgets. It is the big theoretical or clinical goal—and often a bit grandiose. If everyone knows what the lab is trying to achieve then there is space for folks to be innovative in their efforts to advance the evil plot. If they only know how to do data entry, then there is not much room for innovation. Everyone knows the big picture and they will apply their efforts to find creative ways to advance the evil plot and have ownership in lab success. When you know where you are going it is far easier to organize the details.

Diversity

My preference is for demographically diverse labs. Yes, this is consistent with my worldview of increasing opportunity for people with less privilege, but it isn’t really about that. Students from different cultures, languages, ethnic group status, SES differences, and differing levels of experience and age all bring a different way of looking at the same problem. A diverse lab can be a creative lab.

Authorship

I am fairly generous with authorship. Not that authorship is not earned, but all labbies have the opportunity to earn authorship. There is an order of authorship on all projects that is agreed to before the first words are written. If there is a need to change the authorship because someone’s contributions are more or less than planned, then I will suggest a change in authorship, and the authorship team reaches a consensus on the new authorship order.

I also understand that my university’s incentive structure allows and values student authorship. And this formal incentive structure allows for more student authorship.

Addressing Problems

I am fairly simple about this. Praise in public and fix problems privately. I make sure that the expectations were understood and that the individual had the resources to meet those expectations. Another thing, if we have a face-to-face or remote meeting when I am working to remediate shortcomings, then that is no big deal. If I send you an e-mail, then that is a big deal (I am starting a paper trail to consider more severe action).

Conclusions

There are so many valid ways to be a leader as a PI. There still will likely be some complaints because not everyone’s leadership style meets the needs of all students. But if you think like a leader rather than a boss there is a higher likelihood of increased productivity, decreased turnover, better ideas, and an overall atmosphere of enjoyable and useful scholarly activity.