Chromatography Forum

Hi,

This is not an LC-question, but it is related to our work as scientists.

I am looking into different ways of organising highly specialised staff (such as LC and LC-MS experts). Most commonly there are no career pathways for scientists in the companies. That means that many good scientists become line managers, without contact with the laboratory. Or they change employer frequently.

Does anyone have any good examples of career development for specialists? Or references to articles or books about this "softer" subject?

BR

More often than not I find specialists are driven to management roles as there are few stages in the specialist line (which I originally wished to pursue) which offer similar wages and benefits. The 3 m (not 3M) careers which have a hold on the wage front (money, management and medicine) occupy an area where effort and talent in science was once rewarded. Until companies start pinning down those with experience with good long term prospects you will have the carousel effect resulting in one specialist manager leading a team of analysts ranging from "fresh graduate" to "about to leave". I have worked with some outstanding chemists that have found the next step on the ladder being a move into catering, plumbing, accounting or in one case floristry.

Interesting subject and I agree with Scanter that specialists are driven to management roles especially if they start their carrer with a PhD. From the moment you become a "group leader" chances are that you won't have the opportunity to go to the lab too often.

However, if you do not take this next step, you compromise your wages and at some point you might have line managers that are not as competent as yourself (in that case you become either the right hand or a threat to your line manager depending on respective personalities).

Interesting problem...

Hi Mattias,

Good discussion topic.

I agree with Scanter and Kostas on the economical part of the matter and I’d like to add an extra dimension to it. And it is the prestige ting. I think the times are changing with some frequency of 30 – 40 years, so what was prestigious once (being competent and professional) is complete waste today. The tendency today is: Either you are a manager of some kind, or you’re nothing. And this includes the wages. I know of businesses consisting of 2 – 3 persons personnel and they’re all managers/presidents and vise presidents.

When you meet this kind of attitude everywhere you automatically begin thinking of your own possibilities and you eventually change course however competent in your field you might be.

For instance, I know a company (without being too specific) where a chemist has 7 - 8 management layers until he/she reaches the top manager/ president. So all these leaders transfer information up and down all the time and I can promise you: If you hear the original information and compare it to the one you get after all these layers have influenced/modified it, you won’t believe it’s the same thing – and it isn’t.

I have a question for you all: How many managers/leaders do you think is reasonable to have on top of each other (layers between a chemist and the president) in order to have a profit making company bearing in mind that creativity needs some kind of freedom/democracy?

Best Regards

I guess I've been fortunate, or maybe I've done a good job selling "experience and expertise".

Too often one who struggles for months then comes up with a solution is "highly regarded" where someone whose experience and expertise allows for a two-day or two-hour solution is glossed over because, in appearance, that task was "easy". Stuff frequently looks easy when one knows what he's doing. The pro golfer hitting a two-iron 250 yards over water is impossible or not even tried by those with lesser talents.

CPG
I play off 4 so I know I can't do that unless there is a hurricane behind - in which case I wouldn't be able to hold it on the green or I would be blown into the water!!
David Howell for the Masters - nice guy.

WK

WK - I used to be an eight, even dropped to 7 for a few months, but that was 25 years ago. I played two years for my HS team, wasn't that good, did manage to shoot par twice. I haven't even swung a club now for 3 years, semi-waiting 2 more years until my youngest gets through with club and varsity softball, that consumes a lot of time. Now, my older brother: he was a good golfer....

My comment on last Thursday night to the wife was "who would put a bet on Zach Johnson?" - the answer - a rich one! Like my brother-in-law for instance!

Is the last part of the thread in code?

Hi scanter,

No! But it indicates that money is more important than anything else e.g. professional satisfaction, innovation, etc. And this underlines my point, doesn’t it?

Best Regards

Scanter,
For same age:
My brother in law is in IT and earns 1.5 times my salary.
My wife is in marketing and earns 1.5 times my salary.
My friend is part of a company finance and earns 2 times my salary.
Another friend in sales earns 2.5 times my salary after bonuses.
But I enjoy my job....
Oh dear!!....
The UK doesn't manufacture much anymore but excels in selling services and adding up profits - something I wish I knew would happen 15years ago. Margaret Thatcher knew
It is hard to get anywhere in a scientific discipline generally unless you work for big institution.
Happy with less money - less happy with more money?
WK

That is why the industry (pharmaceutical in my case) needs to change!

Innovation is the only thing that create value in the long run, and the scientists/specialists are the ones to do it.

If it was possible to create a "career development" for scientists where the true value of the work could be appreciated (both in tems of money and influence), it would gain the industry. Innovation is surely not performed in labs consisting of 95% fresh graduates.

I just don't know how...

I agree Mattias. I'm also pharma. WK I do love my job. There is a karmic reward and a sense of pride when I know I've validated a drug method that'll benefit someone out there and I've done a great job at it adding hours of extra time to the process just to make sure the job is done properly. Starting (without complaint) a 48 hr test from scratch because of a minor (but essential) detail or change is a quality you find in few people these days but I'm glad to be one of them. I just wish that the reward good analysts got these days fitted the effort put in.

Happy with less money or less happy with more money is a null point when you have kids.