Employer’s Note

Dear Sir or Madam:

            I compose this note, not to make demands, but in the hopes that it will improve our soon-to-be relationship on both a working and a personal level.  My past experience states that it is best to make strategies, expectations, and methods explicit, so as to prevent any confusion or discovery of failure at a late stage in the project.  As such, I wish to make my general working tendencies and desires clear.

            The most important point: in order to perform well, I need a structure, or sense of structure, within which I am working.  In plainer English, this means that I want to have a relatively stable plan, with time set aside to study the theory, regular progress checkpoints, and clear goals embedded therein.  This gives me a clear and stable list of semi-independent goals, which allows modularization of the project, i.e., a definition of the expected inputs and outputs of each stage of the project, the development of implementation and testing strategies for each module, and clear goals after the attainment of which I can consolidate results, write reports, and determine which topics continue to confuse me.  Such a structure should ideally build communication into the broader plan in the form of regular meetings, reports, and explanations of theory and methods.  Such communication structures can assist me—or force me—to clarify questions and problems that I have not yet been able to answer, and may have difficulty vocalizing in a clear or coherent fashion.  In addition, it will force me to maintain a line of communication.

This brings us to our second point.  Unfortunately for both my prior supervisors and myself, it has always been difficult for me to judge or maintain the adequacy of my communication with my supervisors and colleagues.  This is partially a personal trait; I am introverted, very much so, and so I prefer to think over a problem alone.  However, it may be partially ascribed to a consistent shortage of self-confidence, which provokes an intense drive to prove myself worthy of trust, or capable of high performance.  This provides powerful motivation, but can also provoke self-destructive levels of independence and hesitance to ask for assistance.  High levels of stress or concentration often exacerbate these tendencies, causing me to forget or fail to devote sufficient energy to communicating in a clear or complete fashion.  Prior projects have demonstrated the severity and chronic nature of this problem, and I wish to avoid it in future ones; but it can be avoided only if both parties are aware of it, and if there is a structure in place to bring it to heel.

In addition to causing a hesitance to ask for assistance or guidance, this shortage of self-confidence can often lead to my failing to ask for references or feedback on my performance or any bad habits that may have been noted over the course of the project.  Further, it can exacerbate the previously noted communication problems by letting me convince myself that my presence is not welcome, or I will interrupt or offend a coworker or supervisor by intruding.  Although I have taken steps to address these issues, and although the shortage of confidence is not so serious as when beginning my M.Sc., it has by no means been eradicated.  As such, it bears mentioning that this can be an issue…and if I appear withdrawn, it is likely shyness and confusion rather than arrogance.

Finally, the modularization of the project also serves to enforce concentration on a single aspect of a problem at a time.  This is an aspect of my mind that bears some mention.  It is extremely difficult, and usually counterproductive, for me to attempt to work on—or even remember—more than a single problem at a given time.  As such, it is to my benefit to clarify which element of a project I am to work on in a given week and place the rest in a definite plan of attack.  This prevents the need to remember unnecessary details, and thus reduces the possibility of distraction or the forgetting of such details.

            I recognize that this may appear obvious to most experienced managers, but it has not been obvious to me.  Upon my arrival in Switzerland, I did not have a system in place, nor did I anticipate the dramatically greater freedom—and correspondingly looser control—afforded Swiss M.Sc. students.  On more than one occasion, this culture clash caused my supervisors to, as we say in the States, give me enough rope to hang myself with.  The only benefit derived from such misadventures and miscommunications has been the recognition of the need to formally define such personal management, and implement a strategy to avoid repeating such miscommunications in the future.

            After accepting this project, our first step must be to meet and open communication with all participants and advisors.  There will be no better time.  In these meetings, we must define the questions being asked, to wit, what scientific hypotheses do we have, and what engineering problems may we face?  Without these questions defined in the minds of all involved, it will be too easy to become lost.  Once these questions have been asked, then we may proceed to the remainder of the planning:

• Split the project into modules
• Theoretical basis
• Basic background
• Specific problem
• Basic method or pipeline
• Additional modules
• Define function of these modules
• Separate these modules from basic function
• Place modules in a hierarchy of priority, and begin with the most urgent
• Define an archiving system based on this hierarchy
• Separate directories for each module
• Separate directory for final script and report
• Write a report for the theoretical basis
• Break into sub-reports as appropriate by modularity
• State initial background knowledge
• Explain additional background knowledge gained in literature search
• Write a summary and a review of project-specific literature
• Note any clear questions
• Describe any points that still appear unclear or confused
• Define each module before it is begun
• Goal (singular) of phase
• Milestones
• Theoretical basis
• Foreseeable difficulties
• Outputs expected
• Tests to be run on these results
• At the end of each implemented module, write a sub-report
• Goal of module
• Purpose of module in broader project plan
• Hypotheses addressed
• Theoretical basis for this module
• Methods and reasoning behind these methods
• Milestones achieved
• Any deviations from original plan
• Outputs generated
• Results of output tests
• Location of outputs and test results in archival structure
• Discussion of results
• Conclusions
• Unresolved questions or points of confusion
• Each week, have a five-minute presentation with following discussion
• Presentation
• Structure of current module
• Place of current module in broader project
• Status of current module
• Work in past week
• Results:
• IF results are available, explain them.  What do they mean?  Are they as expected?  If so, why, and what does that imply?  If not, why not, and what does that imply?
• IF results are not available, explain why there were no results this week.  What does that imply?  Does the approach have validity?  If so, defend it.  If not, why not?
• Goals for next week
• Discussion:
• Potential meaning and implications of current status/results
• Potential problems with current approach or work
• Realism or problems with next week’s goals
• Goals of presentation and discussion
• Consider any problems or confusions that have surfaced this week
• Remember: ignorant men do not know that they are ignorant, and so cannot remedy their situation
• Discussing your approach may allow your supervisor to spot problems early
• Consider the relevance of this approach to the broader problem
• Consider what your results mean, and how that message might be consolidated.
• Prepare for module report
• IMPORTANT: presentation of results is NOT the primary concern.  Thinking and consolidating is the primary concern.

By maintaining such a structure, it will be difficult for me to, as is said, hang myself with my own rope.  Although I desire and relish the freedom implied in possessing a personal project and being allowed to implement it as I wish, I also recognize the danger of independence too quickly or too freely given.  It has happened before.  I do not wish it to happen again.

It is, I hope, clear by now that I am highly motivated but also high-stress.  This brings us to another important point: barring truly exceptional circumstances, I do not wish to work on weekends or more than 9 to 10 hours per day.  I include searching for jobs or academic posts as part of those hours.  Such a schedule is counterproductive.  In order to provide top-quality work during the workday, I must rest, exercise, see friends, pursue relationships, and obtain mental space with which to examine strategies with a critical eye.  To ignore these needs, to attempt to be on at all times, in my experience rapidly leads to burnout; and although it is possible for a short time, such times frequently end with collapse.

Another point that bears mention—and do try to understand this, for it is important—I am not a naturally expressive person.  I am not what might, in the U.S., be described as a “people person”—that is, the sort who makes friends easily, who picks up cues easily, or who can sense and manipulate the energy in a room.  Often I am afraid of giving offence or placing myself where I am not wanted, and in such scenarios my natural reaction is silence.  This is one reason I wish to have our reports be structured and predictable; if we are forced to rely on intuition or impressions in order to communicate, the question is not if there will be a breakdown, but when.

For precisely this reason, I wish to—indeed, need to—feel included in the workplace.  Given the temporary nature of most of my projects thus far, it has not been easy to fully assimilate into my prior laboratories, and often I felt that I was missing the social life of the office.  It should not be understood that I wish to treat the laboratory as only a workplace; knowing colleagues as friends as well as coworkers is extremely important, and as such I do wish to participate in laboratory activities and social gatherings.  However, it may be difficult for me to ask for invitations to such events, due to the concerns expressed previously.  As such, if there is a social list or another method by which lab members announce events or gatherings, I wish to be part of it, and I would like to know of any events in which I would be welcome.  As noted before, my working mode is intense, but it is not all facets of my personality; I would like to demonstrate the others.

Finally, I will almost certainly want a reference at the end of this project.  Obvious?  Perhaps, but asking for such a reference has always felt somewhat mercenary to me.  My family has more in common with WASP society than we might like to admit; we do not to talk about money, we simply have it.  Experience and references are not so different.  Yet I will want, and need, a reference at the end of this project, and so it must be said.

I recognize that this may seem impertinent from a new hire.  However, my experience states that this is how large projects should be approached.  To simply cut a young worker loose is too often to lose him or her in a failure of discipline that he or she does not realize is needed; to dictate his every step is micromanagment, which is always resented and prevents meaningful growth.  A middle ground must be laid; a structure must be established and revisited regularly.  Without such a structure, it is too easy to become lost in the details, to hurtle onwards without checking our direction.  We must maintain a hierarchy of ideas, cut the branches one by one, and maintain discipline in doing so.  The lack of any one of these three things can easily lead a project to failure; and such failures have been only narrowly averted in the past.