Are you a chemist and over 50? Write in!

A phenomenal request from Logan's Run:

I would be much more interested to read "how chemists keep their jobs past 50," but I think that getting enough anecdotes to write a story would be challenging. 

Are you a chemist, still a chemist, not a "boss of bosses" and over 50? I would love to publish your story. Please write in to chemjobber@gmail.com, and I would be happy to publish your story. Anonymous or not, that's up to you.

(My father, whom I love, spent the last ~15 years or so of his engineering career basically working his heart out, running completely scared of being laid off from his employer before he could reach retirement age. He woke up every day determined to be a great asset to his company, thinking about his job pretty much every waking moment that he was not thinking about his family or his other (few) responsibilities. I'm not sure that's attainable for most folks.) 

Ask CJ: what to do when there are layoffs of rumors at your company?

Readers, a question from the inbox for which I have relatively little experience: when rumors of layoffs start at your company: what should you do?

A. Nothing. Plan a little, brush up your CV, that's about it.
B. Work on plans for career changes, think about going back to school.
C. Get out ASAP.
D. Other

Please don't take the above choices as the only one.  

Postdoc: biochemistry postdoc, University of South Florida

From the inbox:

We have an opening for a joint position in the labs of Professor Michael White (Department of Global Health) and Professor Jim Leahy (Department of Chemistry) at the University of South Florida.  This is a post-doctoral position to join a drug discovery project focused on identifying new treatments for malaria.  The successful applicant will establish new methodology for assaying kinases that are difficult to express and develop protocols using the new assays to screen small compound libraries.  Candidates with biochemical experience are preferred.  Interested candidates should contact Jim Leahy (jwleahy@usf.edu). 

Best wishes to those interested.  

Ask CJ: What to do about managers who get stuck on irrelevancies or pet peeves?

From the inbox, a good question:

Hey, CJ:  

I have a manager who gets stuck on mundane items that are not relevant to science or business, like keeping the lab tidy or making sure notebooks are in the right format. They seem to worry about this much more than, say, keeping projects focused on meeting budgets or deadline. 

They have this habit of bringing these issues up during all-hands meetings where it's clear that these issues aren't relevant to everyone, but they are at the forefront of the manager's thinking.  

How do I learn to work with this person? How can we redirect their thinking? Should I just knuckle under?  

Signed, Confused in [redacted]

Gee, Ci[r], I wish I knew. I guess I'd just say "knuckle under, it's the price of your job", but I am not very experienced in these matters.

Readers, what do you think? 

Ask CJ: How to develop an industry mentor?

From the inbox, a great question:

I've recently moved into industry after doing a postdoc (in inorganic/materials chemistry). Having gone through a few academic interviews before shifting my career focus, I get the impression that many new professors are matched with a mentor in their department, who can help them in their professional development. Several new professors have told me these mentor relationships were extremely important and useful. 

However, I haven't found anything remotely similar in my experience in industry to date. I suspect this may be due in part to the size, focus and location of my current company (small, industrial chemistry/chemical engineering, and [redacted], respectively), and the lack of available time to devote to a non-profitable activity.  

I have been wondering what I could do to deliberately and effectively cultivate useful mentor relationships and a stronger professional network. Is this something you or your readers might be able to offer advice toward?

These are great questions - I wish I had a really good answer, but all I have is my own experience.

If you're looking for mentors at work, I might suggest picking one or two people and routinely asking their advice on things one-on-one and seeing if that builds a relationship that could grow into mentorship. I've found that local professional society meetings (ACS, AICHE, that sort of thing) can also be of use in finding people who like to give advice on different issues. If you're attending local section meetings (which are usually held around a meal or a cup of coffee, that sort of thing), most folks are very open to conversation.

Readers, your thoughts? If you're a more experienced chemist, how have your mentorship relationships grown? How do you do it in places that are relatively remote and may not have a lot of kindred spirits? 

When the boss is wrong about chemistry

How do readers handle it when senior chemist managers routinely give bad (as defined by irrelevant, against literature precedent or simply wrong-on-first-principles) chemistry advice?

There are a number of tactics, all of which I have employed at one time or another:

• Ignore the bad advice. Keep doing what you're doing, show milestone success (however defined) and move on. 
• Nod noncommittally at the bad advice, run a few experiments to placate the manager, keep doing what you're doing. 
• Quiet, subtle resistance. Questions like "are there concerns about neighboring-group participation?" 
• Open, direct confrontation. "I don't think that's correct, and here's why..." 

Obviously, Tactic Four is to be deployed on a limited basis only. 

I'd like to hear reader experience and advice with these problems, if you have them. 

[When I hear incorrect chemistry counsel, it can really frustrate me and knock me off my flow. Speaking the chemical truth is important to me, and it makes me unhappy when senior people do not. (That was one of the really wonderful things about graduate school -- the likelihood that your professors knew exactly what they were talking about was better than 95%. In industry, it's... lower than that.) I should really learn to deal.]

UPDATE: Before anyone trots out the old, old joke about Rule 1 and Rule 2, I note I've been there already.

Will "be unique" advice for academics work for industrial scientists?

Be your own special flower (gag)
Credit: flickr user tlchua99

Derek Lowe has a long look at E.O. Wilson's latest book Letters to a Young Scientist; it is worth reading. To me, Wilson's advice seems to be fairly standard stuff, including this advice:

(DL) Here's how to pick an area to concentrate on: 

(EOW) I believe that other experienced scientists would agree with me that when you are selecting a domain of knowledge in which to conduct original research, it is wise to look for one that is sparsely inhabited. . .I advise you to look for a chance to break away, to find a subject you can make your own... if a subject is already receiving a great deal of attention, if it has a glamorous aura, if its practitioners are prizewinners who receive large grants, stay away from that subject.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard this advice in graduate school from a seminar speaker, I'd have a lot of nickels.

I wonder how this works at a large or a small industrial organization. It seems to me that, at a large company, branching out on one's own does not necessarily lend itself to being "a good team player" (or whatever the term for being conformist enough is.) It always seems like glamorous areas are great places for people to find success and rewards and promotion, the benefits of which are not to be completely denied. At a small company, the temporal and economic demands that require everyone to wear multiple hats does not easily allow for the time and focus to be a specialist. I also recognize that every good idea had a start somewhere -- the image of Hewlett and Packard in their garage is a testament to that.

I think that scientists (especially Ph.D.s) love, love, love to become specialists in weird fields and understand them deeply, potentially to the point of potential irrelevancy (said the obscure topic blogger.) I just hope I can, like Wilson suggests, turn this tendency to success in industry.

Beginning the Endgame: a midcareer chemist's musings

From the inbox, a really interesting comment from NJ on a long career as a chemist:

I am a 50-year old industrial chemist. I am blessed with an excellent resume. I went to great schools, had pretty good grades, got a Ph.D. and have worked for desirable companies. I've been awarded patents, published papers, given presentations, etc. I'm a member of multiple professional societies. In short, I have a great resume. I also keep up on the literature. I'm a new employee’s worse nightmare: I know everything they do and more. Plus I have experience. Interviewers, recruiters and HR people all have told me that I have a great resume. While that is important, I've had a trump card in my pocket for getting a job. I kill at interviews. Whenever I’ve gotten an onsite interview, I always received the offer. Always.

Then something happened recently that changed this. It started innocently enough when after an onsite interview, I didn't get the offer. OK., all streaks must end. I really wasn't concerned until it happened a second time, and then a third time. It's happened so many times now that I have to stop and think about what the exact number is.

I'm sure CJ has younger readers who think that at 50, I am getting ready to retire. No. I'm old enough that I can't collect full social security until I am 67. That means that I am working for at least 17 more years. 17 years! Think about it. I've only worked for 23 years. I'm barely halfway done with my career. Retirement is not in the picture at all. I also doubt that any employer looking at hiring a younger person expects them to stick around 17 years.

I started becoming concerned with the difficulty of find my next job, but another thought has arisen that has totally scared the living-daylights out of me: I now realize that there are very few moves left on the chessboard for me.

If you're not familiar with the game of Chess, let me explain. People who study the game generally break it into three different phases. First there is the opening. This is usually the first dozen or so moves that each side makes. It is usually as tightly choreographed as a Broadway musical number. White does this, then black does this. There is very little thought involved since the opening are usually memorized from books. Next comes the middle game. This is the exciting part plans are laid and put into action, traps are set and most of the pieces are captured. Books can provide guidance, but the options are many and it is often difficult to see what the correct move is except with hindsight.

Finally there is the endgame. This is when there are few pieces left on the board. It is impossible to predict at the opening of the game what pieces will be left in the endgame and where they will be, but that doesn’t prevent people from putting intense effort into studying endgames. What’s ironic is that the endgame is usually just as tightly limited in choices as the opening is even as it appears otherwise. The board is wide open so that a lot of moves CAN be made, but most of them are bad moves. There are very few correct moves in any given situation. Very good chess players will never finish a game entirely. Once the endgame is presented, it is pretty academic as to how it will turn out. The players acknowledge this outcome and end the game.

I now see that my career has been like a chess game.

In the beginning, I did what everyone else did. I applied for jobs in my field, hoping to get an entry level position. Every newly degreed person does the same thing using more or less the same procedures. This was the opening. Then I got to the middle of my career where after having gained some experience, I started to move around through promotions, lateral transfers within a company and leaving for another company entirely. There were lots of options to consider. While the moves I made usually seemed like good ones at the time, it is only with hindsight that I can see which ones were truly good and which ones were awful.

And now I am at the endgame. I am sure that I will eventually find another job, but I can see already that that's going to be it. Wherever I end up will most likely be my last job. The next employer will keep me until I retire or am laid off. That's what scares me. Not only do I now have to hope to get an offer, but I have to decide if that employer and I are going to want each other for another 17 years. Because if it doesn’t work out, if I get laid off before my 17 years is up, I may never be able to recover, and that’s what really scares me.

My search goes on, but it is a far more serious venture than ever before. These additional worries are now hanging over me, and they will never go away.

So this is my situation. I’ve always heard that finding a job is more difficult for older workers and I find that to be true, but I’ve never really heard others describe this phase of my life, at this young age of 50, as the endgame: that there are few moves left, that every move now is critical, and how scary the recognition of that is.

Thanks to NJ for an excellent essay.

Advice for someone new to the workplace?

I recently got a question about how newly hired people, fresh from academia, should act in the workplace, specifically address clothing and work hours. 

Regarding clothing, I've really adhered to "business casual", i.e. no jeans, khaki pants and a button-down shirt for my wear. That's the extent of my knowledge. 

As for hours, I like arriving earlier than my coworkers and leaving about the same time, but that has to do with enjoying sitting at my desk when no one else is around. Introvert much? 

Readers, what say you? 

Advice from younger readers to more experienced ones?

Last week's request for things that annoy more experienced Chemjobber readers (those above 40, say) about their younger colleagues turned out to be quite mild. No long diatribes, no broad generalizations, just some gentle comments about etiquette (technology-related and otherwise.)

I've worked with lots of older chemists; I've found all ranges of behavior, great and not so great. The thing that concerns me the most is an adherence to failing memories for all manner of managerial tasks and details -- it seems that consulting notepads/e-mails/references is just too much trouble. I don't think people realize how much credibility they can lose when they do not rely on notes in a public setting and get all manner of fairly key details incorrect. Of course, I don't think this is something that's unique to older people -- I suspect it is simply that they are more likely to be in a situation where they're the ones talking, and everyone else is listening (and perhaps critiquing) intently.

[I also suspect that I've been exposed to one particular type of older chemist and precious few others.]

So, Chemjobber readers under 40, what gentle advice do you have for your older colleagues?

Advice from experienced readers to younger ones?

This has been a post a long time coming, but a recent conversation that I had crystallized it. Someone that I respect is a hiring facilitator (not technically a HR-type, but deeply involved in interacting with hires at non-degree-requiring, entry-level positions). This person complained about their interaction with Millenials, noting that they tend to show up to interview positions not correctly dressed, not armed with enough social graces (i.e. bad at small talk with new people) and just not very good at being in the working world. 

I am sure some of those comments are relevant to me as well; my generation (Gen X) was known as "the slacker generation" for a while there. (I don't doubt that macroeconomics plays a big role in all of this.) 

So, older Chemjobber readers (say 40 and above), what do you have to say about your younger coworkers (and people who wish to become your younger coworkers?) What criticism of their behavior do you have? E-mail etiquette? Time spent on their phones? Do they not afford you enough respect in meetings or listen to you well enough? Give it to us straight, so that we can change. 

[Chemjobber readers below 40, you'll get your turn next week. Please hold your comments until then.] 

Senior Dow manager writes on #chemjobs

In this month's Nature Chemistry, there's a series of commentaries, including an article titled "The changing landscape of careers in the chemical industry", by Keith J. Watson. Dr. Watson is a senior director at Dow Chemical Company in Midland, MI. While I find his article to be at least a little grim, I think it offers some good advice to the aspiring industrial chemist. I quote extensively below, because I feel some of his advice is quite important.

The Grim: While it's not DOOOOOOMing, Watson is pretty clear about the changes to the structure of the industry:

The transition from graduate school to a large company's central research organization has traditionally been a common and straightforward way for top graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to become industrial chemists. However, because speciality chemical investments tend to create products with shorter life cycles, and traditional long-term research has focused on feedstock refining and associated processes, many large companies are either reducing their investments in central research or applying significantly more rigorous business assessment to existing projects. [snip] 

Research budgets have become more focused on near-term business activities, and it is more common to have dispersed researchers embedded within business units than in previous eras. The 'not invented here' syndrome, defined as a mistrust of technologies that haven't been developed in-house, has been replaced with active external research arms that scour universities and start-ups for technologies that have already been significantly de-risked. [snip] 

In addition, instead of Western universities attracting the best of the best from around the world by default, more top talent candidates are staying in their home countries to obtain their graduate degrees. Big chemical companies have responded in kind, opening up state-of-the-art research facilities in countries such as China, India and Brazil. As manufacturing has been transferred to where feedstocks are available, stable and comparatively cheap, in many cases so has the accompanying research. The need to have research in close proximity to manufacturing is often not fully understood. Cycle times for the development and implementation of new technologies are shorter when researchers and operational engineers work together in person.

None of this makes me happy; much of this points to instability, uncertainty and no clear increase in jobs for chemists in the US or Western Europe. That being said, there's no percentage in leaving your head in the sand about these changes.

Counter to many articles about #chemjobs, Watson has some very specific skills that any scientist that is committed to their career can attempt to learn almost immediately. The bold headers are my own:

Keep learning: "Industrial chemists can expect to work on dozens of technologies during their careers. Although a certain amount of mastery of a single discipline is needed to complete a dissertation, it is important that potential industrial chemists demonstrate that they are willing and able to learn new technologies. There are several ways to demonstrate this competency to potential employers, including learning and mastering the research of other professors within one's department. Another approach is to learn a new area of research every 6–12 months. This can be accomplished by investigating and reading the leading literature in the area, or by participating in a different, focused conference outside of one's speciality every year. Whatever the approach, the value that can be derived from diversification is significant."

P-Chem FTW: "The surest way to demonstrate the ability to become a technical generalist is to master the fundamentals. Basic thermodynamics, kinetics and engineering skills will always prove useful — much more so than specific knowledge of narrow fields that happen to be in vogue today. These foundational skills form the basis of all future learning, and can often be overlooked in the rush to specialize."

Project management skills: "Understanding the concepts of the critical path, resource management and stakeholder analysis are important in many aspects of life. In an ideal world, graduate schools would require formal project-management training for graduation. Without this, candidates would be well-advised to learn project management on their own, and treat activities like writing papers or dissertations as formal projects. As a rule, any set of activities that takes more than two–three hours of dedicated work should get at least 20 minutes of planning, including a detailed and thorough answer to the following four questions: What is success? What is needed for success? What is currently rate-limiting? What resources are already available?"

Watson also talks about the ability to understand finance and communicate to non-scientists (like senior managers, government regulators and investors.) He suggests learning other languages and being willing to travel globally for work. I'll note that Dr. Watson ends oddly with a section on paying attention to one's 'personal brand.' While I think there is real value for journalists and other more obviously individual endeavors to rely heavily on this concept*, I find the concept ill-defined and potentially ill-fitting for the more collaborative environment of industrial science.

Overall, I found Dr. Watson's article to be important and informative about the changes chemists face and the things that both potential and current industrial chemists can do to adapt to them. I'll probably be revisiting the article and mulling over some of the specific passages. I strongly encourage you to read it (and, as always, to leave your thoughts in the comments.)

*For journalists, it makes a lot of sense -- I followed William Langewiesche from The Atlantic Monthly to Vanity Fair because of the types of articles he writes, a.k.a. his personal brand. I'm not quite sure how a chemist is supposed to develop one and what it means to do so. 

Extend your network to younger chemists

Also in today's Chemical and Engineering News is Lisa Balbes' article on networking. In her comment, she advocates for mid-career chemists to extend their network to younger chemists. To wit:

The 2009 ACS Starting Salary Survey showed an unemployment rate of 11.4% across all degree levels for new chemistry graduates; that number excludes the 3.1% not looking for work. In comparison, the unemployment rate in 2009 was 3.9% for ACS members as a group and 9.3% for the general U.S. population. 

Although a direct comparison of new graduates and experienced chemists is unfair, the difference in their ability to gain employment is real. One of the biggest factors is the difference in their ability to network. The average ACS member is 47 years old, has been in the workplace for more than 20 years, and has many more professional connections than a new graduate. Seasoned professionals have had more time to practice their networking skills—not that they all do. 

Most younger chemists these days know that they need to network, but they’re not sure how to do it. Contacting a fellow professional to explore career options, inquire about growing or changing companies, identify in-demand skills and knowledge, and learn about job openings is a daunting challenge for anyone, but especially for recent graduates. 

If you’re a midcareer professional, you can help your younger colleagues by giving them honest feedback on their job search strategies and résumé and curriculum vitae portfolios. Show new graduates the basics of networking, and remind them that they probably have a more extensive network than they think. Encourage them to contact former graduates from their research group, other alumni, and professors and other professionals whom they have met along the way. ACS local, regional, and national meetings are great places to network, but many new graduates are hesitant to approach more-senior colleagues. Serve as an ambassador to the younger generation by simply saying hello to a group of younger chemists huddled in a corner by themselves, and introduce yourself to expand their network as well as your own. 

More senior chemical professionals often have extensive professional networks and know how to tap into them. If you do, use your connections to introduce unemployed members to key individuals, including hiring managers. Volunteer to host networking events in your local section and share tips and success stories from your own career. Younger professionals, who may not have any contacts in a particular field, would benefit tremendously from an introduction or recommendation from a more-senior colleague.

I definitely think that there are mentoring roles to be played by mid-career professionals to their younger counterparts. Certainly, many of our commenters have done so through this blog -- for that, my undying gratitude for reading and sharing their wisdom.

A reader question: how should a young chemist use their time wisely?

A reader (we'll call them IW) writes in with a question:

I plan to accept a job in a new start up as a chemist. The start up is on a solid platform (well backed by a [important biotech geographical area] VC), so there is no issue about stability for a few years. My question is: how should I use this opportunity to stabilize myself professionally in the drug discovery chemistry field. I am hoping some of your readers might have started their careers in a similar fashion and have some advice for the rough future.

My advice to IW (even though I am not too far from their position is this): attempt to achieve some depth first (really get to know your project and your project's chemistry), and then start to see what kind of breadth you want as well. 

Recent interviews offer good advice: MQ talks about the "building depth" as such:

Keep learning. Take the time to learn as much as you can about the biology going on within your project, especially your primary assays. Talk to the biologists; ask them how they are run, and how to best interpret the data. Talk with the pK folks as well, and anyone else your project interacts with for data. Try to attend as many higher level meetings as you can to get a feel for how the decision making process is handled in your company. Make it a point to go to general informational seminars in other therapeutic areas. Keep learning new things because you just may find yourself transplanted on very short notice.

Kay talks about the importance of keeping up your communication skills (always a difficult thing for somewhat introverted chemists):

Make sure you keep up your writing and presentation skills. When you're busy in the lab, it's easy to brush off writing reports or presenting your work at meetings. But those skills are important in the long term. You can be a terrific bench chemist but if you can't communicate, you will have a hard time getting jobs and advancing in your career. You have to sell your work and you also have to sell yourself. Those skills are also crucial if you ever decide to leave the bench or move into another career.

It's all very difficult and confusing for a young chemist starting out in the industry -- I seem to recall a premed advisor in college (don't ask) saying something like "You know, to get into medical school, it helps to walk on water." But it seems to me that between the learning in the lab, and the learning by talking to people, there will be more than enough opportunity to really start a career on the right track. 


Readers, what do you think? Am I crazy?