On Friday of last week, I was having a causal conversation with my supervisor and we were talking about stress and creativity. I mentioned that despite the increased pressure to meet deadlines, I felt less stress. It was because I didn't feel alone and unsupported, as I had in academia. In my current job I am given all the tools I need to succeed and that includes mentoring, especially when it comes to things like grant writing. Grants, you say? Are you writing grants?
Yup, grants and papers. Kinda surprising. What I did in academia is very similar to what I am doing now - this is probably not typical and has more to do with the company I am in than the wider community of biotech itself. Plus I'm drinking a lot more
wine (the expensive kind!) these days...
And that brings me to part II of what I've observed to be differences between academia and industry.
4. Those who can communicate rise, the rest just sound stupid.
This is pretty much a no brainer. Although communication is certainly important in academia, the principal audience of academics are other academics, and more often than not those within the same discipline. Learning to communicate in a non-technical jargon-free manner is a must in industry. I am constantly providing updates (downloads, according to Jodi Glickman in great on the job) to not just my supervisor but to other members of the team, who are
not specialists in my area. I have to be able to summarize my experiments and data in a way that synthesizes and distills the key points. As Glickman points out in great on the job,
"
Nothing is more irritating than a conversation that goes on and on, winds around a topic, and never gets to the point. Don't expect your listener to do the work of sorting through information to arrive at the meaning of your key points. You need to do the work for your listener.
Think of the download as an omelet. The punch line is the finished product, the dish itself. The supporting details or highlights are the key ingredients and the steps needed to make the dish. When you give someon an update, you shouldn't start by telling them about the eggs, and cheese and butter or milk. Instead, you'd start off expounding the virtues of your fabulous omelet and then go into the details of what's in it and how it's made. The download is no different. Start with the big picture, the finished product, the main idea. Then narrow yourself down to talk about the ingredients and the details - the reasons why or the way in which something is happening or has happened."
I have seen major communication fails during my few months on the job; and they have led to serious consequences.
5. Milestones
These are short-term goals. Every financial quarter, scientists have to be accountable to goals that are set for the entire company, team/group, and then more specific ones for the individual. In industry shit has to work. This is because money is time in industry, especially in start-ups where
every day, hour, and minute that passes, the company is bleeding money.
And sometimes when you reach either the short-term goal or your "board goals", it involves a bonus. In academia, if you get a paper published the best you'll get is a pat/smack on the head and the question - so when's the next paper ready?
In some places you have stretch goals - these goals are supposed to only be achieved by really extending your limits - both physically, mentally and emotionally. And there is some debate as to whether setting goals that are difficult to achieve can cause workers to become de-motivated while others suggest it pushes people to strive for excellence (a la Steve Jobs). In academia, postdocs and grad students are always doing the impossible on little resources so stretch goals, meh.
6. Money and toys.
A big wealthy lab in academia probably has a comparable level of toys. Unlike most academic labs, industry (even some of the small companies) seems to throw money at a problem. Money is a major driver both in terms of solving problems as well as incentivezing scientists. Both HippieHusband and I were given share options as part of our compensation package. The right to buy the underlying share at a set price. You don't actually get the shares immediately but at some point in time you have the right to buy
x amount of shares for a given price. Think facebook. All employees when they joined facebook were given
x number of options with an exercise price (the average estimated options is 33, 990); employees that came early on probably were given lower exercise prices than later employees. If say that exercise price is $0.50 and the company is lucky enough to an Initial Public Offering (IPO) and at first sale to the public, the stock is valued at $38.00, then if as an employee you could buy and immediately sell your stock, you would make $1,274, 625.00. But companies don't tend to allow employees to buy and sell all stock immediately - there's usually time and share limits. So for example you might only be able to exercise 25% of your options per year for every year you've worked or you might have to own the stock for a year after the IPO before you can exercise the option. Last I looked share price of facebook dropped more than $10.00. So don't expect as a scientist to make boatloads of money in biotech. The only people that make off like bandits (especially in this economy) are the 1% who front the investment and maybe the company's muckety mucks (chief executive officer CEO, chief technology officer CTO, etc)
