In any area of life, and particularly in science, it is important to know who you are, where you are, and where you want to head. This is true not just for individuals but also for institutions and communities. This then leads to discussions about mission, vision, goals, strategy, objectives, ... And as time passes how do you evaluate progress and adjust course? This is even more relevant today because the pandemic has upended so much.
Such discussion, and our thinking, can quickly become confusing because some of these terms mean different things to different people. Furthermore, it is easy to start conflating the terms. This is particularly unhelpful when "means and ends" and "inputs and outputs" get inverted, as when people become obsessed with metrics. For example, when the mission of a university becomes to rise in the global rankings or for an individual to increase their h-index, then things go pear-shaped.
Here I just want to try and clarify, partly for my own benefit, what all these different terms might mean, interacting with some of the literature out there. However, I should stress that there is no consensus on either the terminology or approach and it is not clear to me that there needs to be. Rather I think the most important thing is to have some sort of clear framework that is agreed upon by all the participants in these types of discussions. Note that it is hard to be completely precise with the definitions and the distinctions between them.
Mission: this is your identity and purpose (your passions, gifts, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities)
Vision: this is the future that you would like to see become reality
Goal: a concrete outcome
Strategy: the approach you take
Tactics: the short-term actions you take to implement your strategy
Objectives: things that can be evaluated to see whether your tactics are moving you forwards and your strategy is working. [Personally I think it is best is these are qualitative rather than quantitative, but perhaps that is an over-reaction to metric mania].
This figure is taken from a Harvard Business Review article
Mission: this is your purpose and identity (your passions, gifts, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities)
Sarah is a theorist working at the interface of soft condensed matter and biological physics. She has tenure and works at a leading research university.
Vision: this is the future that you would like to see become reality
To see a new scientific synergy between the cell biology and soft condensed matter communities. This synergy will be valued by both communities.
Goal: a concrete outcome
That a major open question in cell biology will be answered by the use of concepts and/or techniques from soft condensed matter. That cell biology would provide a new model system to be studied by soft condensed matter physicists.
Strategy: the approach you take
Play the long game. Learn. Educate. Be humble. Build trust, interest, and collaborations.
Tactics: the short-term actions you take to implement your strategy
Learn as much as possible about cell biology by reading and talking to cell biologists in her university. Attend their seminars and conferences. Invite some cell biologists to give a physics colloquium and to attend Sarah's group meeting.
Objectives: things that can be evaluated to see whether your tactics are moving you forwards and your strategy is working
Get an unsolicited invitation to speak at a major cell biology conference. Build a local collaboration that results in one joint paper in the journal Cell and another in PRL. Get a joint NIH grant. For Sarah to have some of her papers from physics journals cited in Cell. To see several soft condensed matter concepts, results, and/or techniques described in an introductory textbook on cell biology.
What do you think? Is this helpful? Are there any particular tools or articles that you have found helpful?
I think the distinction between strategy and tactics is particularly important. Because scientists and engineers are "problem solvers" we often jump directly to tactics and discussions can then get bogged down in details. It is typically important to be genuinely thoughtful about strategy before worrying about tactics.
ReplyDeleteA related observation is that tactics often change over time in response to outside forces. Strategy should change much more slowly.
This is a very important piece, and helps me to see where I made career mistakes. Most often these were driven by bad motivations. For example, I always wanted to prove myself by publishing in the highest ranked journals etc. I also used to compare my citations etc to others from graduate school.
ReplyDeleteOf course eventually I reached my goals, and was the main corresponding author on a Science paper, had multiple other fancy papers, invited March meeting talks etc. Of course... nothing changed.. I continued in research but fell into depression for probably 4 years now.
Post-confinement, I've just told our head of department that I won't be applying for tenure and it feels fantastic! Time to find a healthy mission :-)
I would say that a major reason for the above is years of short term contracts. These leave people stuck in the 'tactics' phase, and eventually one forgets the long term research goals and only focuses on the next paper.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading about Myriam Sarachik last week (?) and how she battled personal disaster and recovered with a "not very productive decade". There is no chance in the present system to pause for a moment and come back to physics after a period of reflection. Up or out...