Last week I used a talk I attended by Dr. Aarron Carroll to make the case that all scientists are in fact science communicators. This week I recognize that this seems simple in theory, but for those of you who have not had occasion to “communicate” with non-academics regularly before this maybe a little terrifying.

Starting something new is scary. Especially in the academic world, where we are trained from baby graduate students to choose one area and dig and dig and dig into that area until we are the world’s foremost expert on that topic. The idea of switching gears, giving up on all that work and effort seems stupid. And even if you do start over what if you choose wrong and your idea for making an impact isn’t good?

I read a lot of personal development and leadership books. Now it’s to enhance my skills. But that wasn’t always the case. When I was younger, I struggled knowing how to talk to people about my work, how to have hard conversations, and how to advocate for myself. I’ve found these books, and the stories about other people’s lives, instructive.

So, what is my problem with this book, and frankly many others like this one? These authors have already won (made the change, built their dream life, got the money etc…). The books miss the “messy middle”.

A slight diversion for the weather.

If I’ve learned anything from my professional life so far, it’s that change is constant and you can always try again. And really that is all any of us is trying to do, testing out a change and trying again. But using the guidance provided in this series should help you not only shorten the learning curve for reinvention but also build a happier team doing it.

In the academic world any call for speeding up research or research processes is likely to be met with at best mild annoyance and at worse outright hostility. While I have grown to appreciate the care and consideration academics can give to a topic, I have also seen this care and consideration become a significant impediment to institutional change.

Rewiring in the business context is about disassembling and reassembling how work is done so that old structures don’t get in the way of reinvention. The question, “What organizational rewiring can help us shift?” is really asking about the resources you have that can be leveraged to drive reinvention. These resources can be financial (ex. overhead money, one-time money from your chair or dean, or grant funding opportunities), people power (ex. collaborators, graduate and undergraduate students, and other trainees), or time based.

As promised you will find some forward looking posts below as we consider with the official start to the New Year in just a few days. While I always feel hopeful during this time of year about new beginnings, there is also an undeniable pressure to “get this one right”. I want to encourage you not to let that pressure overwhelm your efforts this time.

Happy Holidays! Here’s some light reading for your holiday break.

Today we are back into the McKinsey and Co article and working our way through the second question of the reinvention change level: How can I play a central role in the emerging ecosystem? According to the article this question is really challenging you to consider your work within a larger, more interconnected, and consolidated context.

This week we are going dive into the fourth change level, reinvention. In the academic space I think of reinvention as changing content areas, which means reading new literature, adding new research methods, and seeking feedback and engagement from other disciplines. Reinvention means EVERYTHING must change.

Like everyone else I’m starting to think about both the end of this year and the beginning of the next. I am not one to make resolutions per se, but I do like reflecting on what’s working in my day-to-day (and what’s not) and setting some intentions for my year.

Since my last post about hedging research findings, I’ve been thinking about how to improve the little CBC (clarity, brevity, context) Model example I shared. So of course, I dumped it into ChatGPT for a revision session.

One of the first lessons I learned as a baby researcher was to not overstate my research findings. So, I learned early to hedge my research findings, “We seemed to see a pattern”, “But more research is needed”. While all these hedges and limitations are justifiable from a research methods perspective, when translated to the public or policy makers it is easy to see why they might ask the question, “So what’s the point of your work?”

It’s the time of year again. The semester has past the halfway point, and we’ve officially entered the season of, “How much can I cram in before Thanksgiving (in the US)?”

I read this piece, “Downplaying your value isn’t humble – it’s lazy” by Colleen Bordeaux, a couple of weeks ago and I can’t get it off my mind. In particular, the following line has been circling my brain on repeat, “It puts the work on others to infer your value, then blames them for not getting it.”