Transcript Document
1 2 3 • 1000 staff and students, 150 postdoc, 150 Technicians, 150 PhD, 80 Faculty • Successful, very focused, 50% grant income, £40 pp, Mission ‘Train next generation of cancer researchers’, expectation that will leave ICI, c25% turnover, 2/3rds FTC, 7 year rule • But challenges of Post Doc – PI career path… • Trades union has little impact Faculty not that interested (benign neglect?) need partners to assist Filling the talent pool...... 1 Empowering researchers –A hand up or washing hands 2 Pathways – Build it and they will come 3 Where do we go from here? 4 Empowering researchers – a hand up washing hand washing? In the beginning there was darkness... ‘Handed over training budget… Set up committee, address list, What could possibly go wrong? 5 Empowering. If you have or intend to set up similar… 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. First steps? What’s your offer? How do/ did you get buy in How do you measure success? How do you keep momentum? Risks and benefits? Empowerment involves people in assuming control or mastery over their lives (Rappaport) A management practice of sharing information, rewards, and power with employees so that they can take initiative and make decisions to solve problems and improve service and performance “You are the only ones who think it’s a problem, maybe you had better sort it out…here’s some money, off you go’’ 6 Empowering. Risks Pathways: Build it and they will come… No money We are not big enough No one is asking for it No data to prove the case Contrary to our business model: Go forth and multiply …(the number of great scientific teams…) No leadership interest 8 Build it and they will come… No money… SDP Grant from LFHE We are not big enough… prestige collaborators, start up funds attract No one is asking for it… No one doing, USA models, CROS, PIRLs, PDAC, Stakeholder TNA (Dragon’s Den question) No data to prove the case… TNA and PDAC gathering data Contrary to our business model…assist multiplication and follow up No Leadership interest… there was now, CEO championed 9 What was different? Inbetweeners Post docs were neglected group – why fund leavers? Preparing to transition – we thought v they thought? Practitioner led Looked at wider stakeholders for this group…. 10 Pathway to Independence: Collaborators Partners Funder – Small development project grant Dragons’ Den Questions Would you invest £1,000,000? Never managed a team Limited previous investment Numerous wellestablished global competitors Never managed a budget Never run a business High fail rate in the industry Never negotiated for resources Unproven technology/ ideas Limited organisational savvy? “The people have spoken, the bastards.“ -Dick Tuck's concession speech following his loss in the 1966 California State Senate election) We thought -Focus on people management -Central London location -Budget for speakers -Good and Great, aim FRS -Division heads nominate -HR select (less pressure) -We manage comms -Just focus best few eh? -We do work, you get credit They said That’s for later Cambridge College We have contacts, no fee Also CDF, nearer to us Self nominate + reference Research Directorate select They manage comms What about the rest? Poster session Sounds good to me -Success have many fathers while failure is an orphan… Evaluating the programme Pre-course self-assessment identified the following perceived weaknesses: • Negotiation with potential employer • Recruitment process and legislation Immediate feedback 8 month feedback 2 year feedback Control group, use of Linked IN What the evaluation said Key learning points (delegates) •Need scientific vision/the bigger picture – not just next set of experiments. •Variety of routes to securing an independent position. •Negotiate in terms of the offer/package. Don’t rush to accept the first offer you get. •A number noted the usefulness of individual feedback on their project proposal pre-course work. Follow up 23rd September 2013, The Royal Institution 1. Strengthen networks between delegates 2. Explore two key themes out of the scope of the initial 2.5 day residential programme: •move to a university for a PI position. •financing of research/managing grant funding 3. Link this event with feedback to evaluate 8 months on, where our delegates have gone (progress) and the impact of our programme. Indicators of success Oversubscribed Speakers learned something Attending a follow-up Successful fellowships Framework used as an examplar, developing national collaboration clinician scientists with BRC, Acad Med Science et al Building on progress C80% engaged in activities Leading on technical training Scientific Officer Conference, sponsorship, CEO Revise promotion process inc mentors Travel fellowships Attitude survey questions Expanding networks Postdoc seminar series Joint PI to Postdoc with Imperial, LRI Sounding board for projects, conference committee, ‘What do the XXX think of this” Regular meet CEO Keep renewing committees – survival as success indicator http:// 2007 Post Doc Association 2010 Career Development Faculty Association 2010 Scientific Officers Association 2013 Corporate Services Managers Forum Still not engaged everyone, still bigger issues e.g insecurity, lack pay,,, 2014 Attitude survey tracking progress re engagement and career development