1. Collegiality – October 4, 2005 (Barbara King)
2. Professional Development Plans - November 9, 2005 (Barbara King)
3. Establishing a research agenda – January 10, 2006 (Barbara King)
4. Bridging Career Goals and Responsible Research - February 9, 2006 (Barbara King)
5. Understanding the federal budget - March 9, 2006 (Barbara King)
6. Balancing Work and Personal Time - April 11, 2006 (Barbara King)
7. Navigating the Federal Bureaucracy -  May 15, 2006 (Barbara King)
8. The Value of Networking - June 12, 2006
9. Mid-Year Reviews - July 11, 2006
10. RPES – Unraveling the Mysteries - August 15, 2006 (Barbara King)
11. ARS Manuscript Peer Review - September 8, 2006
12. Survey Results and Regular Communication - October 24, 2006 (Barbara King)
13. Work: Life Balance - December 14, 2006 (Barbara King)
14. Mentoring Philosophies - January 2007 (Barbara King)
15. Protégé Strategies - February/March 2007 (Barbara King)
16. Effective Communication—the Building Block of Relationships - April 2007 (Barbara King)
17. Checking-out Assumptions - May 2007 (Barbara King)
18. Fact or Fiction – Dealing With Rumors - June 2007 (Barbara King)
19. Time Management - July 2007 (Barbara King)
20. When Leadership Changes - September 2007 (Dr. Gary Snowder)
21. 2007 Survey Results - October 2007 (Barbara King)
22. Stick to the Plan - Be Flexible - December 2007 (Dr. Richard Beeman)
23. "What to do if…:" - February 2008 (Dr. Jeff Pedersen)
24. On Connecting The Dots - March 2008 (Dr. W. P. Kemp)
25. Developing Support Personnel—One Key to Building a Consistent Research Program - April 2008 (Dr. Jon Hanson)
26. Reciprocity in Mentoring - May 2008 (Barbara King)
27. Ethics: Handling Ethical Dilemmas - June 2008 (Barbara King)
28. Mentoring Handbook - July 2008 (Barbara King)
29. Making Your Voice Heard - August 2008 (Barbara King)
30. Career-Building Skill Sets - September 2008 (Barbara King)
31. Coming up with a Plan - October 2008 (Dr. Mark West)

(Starting with the most recent additions)

31.  Coming up with a Plan - October 2008,  Dr. Mark West

Hello. If we haven't met, let me introduce myself, my role in the NPA and how I may be able to help you. My name is Mark West and my job title is Area Statistician. I love my job which is to provide statistical support to you. I have nineteen years experience consulting with agricultural scientists. I joined ARS in 2000. Prior to joining ARS I was on the faculty at Auburn University from 1989 to 2000 doing what I do now but also teaching service courses in statistics. Many of my experiences as consultant involved helping out with analysis and interpreting results after the experiment was already conducted. These interactions were just fine when the experiments were well-planned. However, I have run across quite a few poorly planned experiments and well-planned experiments that failed for reasons that could have been avoided. Poorly planned and poorly executed experiments waste your time and resources. One of my roles as Area Statistician is to provide assistance in helping you plan your experiment correctly so that your work will meet the level of scrutiny of your peers and that of OSQR. Most of all your experiments should provide information that you can use to help carry your science forward. Needless to say this is a very challenging role and carries a heavy weight of responsibility for you, those involved with your research and me. When planning your experiment, please have someone check it over with a critical eye. I would be very happy to look over your plan and offer my suggestions but I would also encourage you to ask others in your field for their opinions as well. I hope to hear from you. Please visit the NPA Statistics page for contact information and a description of other services that I provide.

Back to top

30.  Career-Building Skill Sets - September 2008, Barbara King

Career planning can take any number of directions – from the initial “what kind of job do I want?” to the more specific “how do I advance in this job?”  For the purposes of this checking-in topic, it is assumed that each of you have answered the first question and are beginning to think about your first RPES panel and perhaps are starting to think about how you define career success, which likely includes the issue of advancement.  (Then again, if the assumption is wrong and if you’re a protégé you probably should call your mentor right away; and if you are a mentor, maybe you should call your protégé!)

While a visit to nearly any bookstore or library will give you seemingly limitless resources on career planning, the following are highlights from an article in the October 2008 issue of AMSTATNEWS (American Statistical Association magazine), courtesy of Dr. Mark West (NPA Statistician).  Although the article “Snakes and Ladders: Building a Career in Statistics” by David Banks, Duke University, deals specifically with statistical careers, the skill sets he lists are easily relevant to any professional career.  I took Banks’ seven skill sets, added some narrative, and also added an eighth skill set – collegiality – that I consider to be equally important:

1. Technical Strength.  This is almost a given, and is a never-ending process of maintaining currency in your field.  If you move into management, though, you will not only need to have the technical knowledge, you will also need to have developed an expertise with management skills.  Talk to your mentor or your RL about the types of opportunities you can pursue to help you figure out if management is something that appeals to you and what sorts of courses or details (temporary job assignments) you can take that will give you the knowledge and experience needed for those jobs.
2. Computational Ability.  Numbers matter and how you design and interpret studies are key steps to having results that will stand up to scrutiny.  Statistical literacy is becoming more important as publishing standards require more statistical sophistication.  Just as other technologies are rapidly advancing so are the methodologies of statistics.  Remember that Mark West is available for assistance with statistical design of your studies.
3. Public Speaking. The importance of being able to communicate orally cannot be underestimated (see checking-in topic #29).  If you doubt this, just think of all the dull lectures and conference presentations you have attended where the speaker either did not have a coherent message, or stumbled and stammered his or her way through what could have been a dynamite talk. Even speaking up during meetings is an opportunity to either be heard or ignored, largely depending on what you say and how you say it.  Public speaking begins with organized ideas and ends with an effective delivery.  Putting effort into how to organize your ideas and developing an effective delivery will serve you well whatever direction your career takes.
4. Writing.  This is just as important as being able to convey your ideas orally.  Both skills take practice and a commitment to always trying to improve your skills. Besides writing, another way to improve your writing is to read (for pleasure or work), because really good writers are also most likely prolific readers.
5. Social Networking.  While networking among and within your professional field is important (see checking-in topic #8), Banks points out that it is equally important to seek the company of people who are not in your immediate field who can complement your strengths and interests, and generally keep your mind and life active and rewarding beyond your profession.
6. Organization.  Learn how to manage paperwork, deadlines, and responsiveness to inquiries. Your ability to do so ensures that others will have confidence in you and also reflects to others that you are reliable and productive.
7. Time Management.  Demands on your time are a given.  Learning how to manage your time and energy is critical.  Find a system – task lists, calendars, daily schedule, etc. – that works for you, and use it.
8. Collegiality (see checking-in #1).  Some people may be able to get away with being prickly, aggressive, and/or generally unfriendly, but most of us cannot.  Even if we could, it is far better to be the kind of person others seek out rather than someone who is avoided or worse, reviled.

Banks also noted that your reputation, capability, and social capital are strengths that you should constantly nurture.  What you say and do, your science, how capable and reliable you are, and your ability to read signals and get along with others – are all equally important.  As you assess your current job and think about where you want to be in three, five, ten or even 15 years down the road, keep in mind these eight career-building skill sets.

Back to top

29.  Making Your Voice Heard - August 2008,  Barbara King
Preparing and delivering presentations is a skill set that every ARS scientist should learn how to do, and do well.   Whether you are making a presentation at a professional conference, explaining your research to the general public, or even making a point during a staff meeting, you want your message to be clear and have meaning for your audience.  Despite good intentions, presentations are almost sure to falter unless you take the time to carefully prepare your content and practice your delivery.  For most of us, public speaking is a learned skill. Mastering public speaking though, takes time, effort, and practice.  Having a meaningful message and effectively delivering that message are keys to effective presentations and to successful communication in general. 

I have two recommendations to help start you on the path of making truly effective presentations.  The first one is an exceptionally good and readable book that contains lots of tips: “Presenting to Win:  The Art of Telling Your Story” by Jerry Weissman, Prentice-Hall (2003) ISBN 0-13-046413-9, $25.00).  This book is a gem and I highly recommend it as a resource you will return to time after time.

The second resource calls for a definite commitment on your part. With that said, consider joining a Toastmasters group. The structured and inclusive approach of Toastmasters (types of speeches, instant evaluation, extemporaneous speaking, etc.) is a proven method to help individuals develop and polish their presentation skills.  Regardless of where you are in your career and no matter how comfortable or uncomfortable you are with public speaking, Toastmasters is a terrific way to further develop and hone your communication skills.  Most communities have at least one Toastmasters group – if your community does not have one, recruit some other employees and form your own group.  Information about Toastmasters can be found at:  http://www.toastmasters.org.

The time and effort you put into learning how to give a good presentation that your audience will appreciate and remember will be time well spent.

Back to top

28.  Mentoring Handbook - July 2008, Barbara King
The Mentoring Handbook (“Mentoring Handbook: July 2008 has been revised, and is now available on the NPA web site here. This revision of the handbook incorporates the previously stand alone “Getting Started” file and also includes a listing of recommended topics for mentors and protégés to discuss.  A very short list of recommended resources is also included, and mentors and protégés are invited to add to this list (send your recommendations to Barbara.king@ars.usda.gov).

Back to top

27. Ethics:  Handling ethical dilemmas… - June 2008, Barbara King

Ethical dilemmas can surface in any number of situations, and learning how to spot potential conflicts and resolve them can help researchers avoid even larger problems later on.  For instance, according to a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, an emerging ethical problem involves researchers “touching-up” or otherwise altering images in order to make them easier-to-read.  Probably every scientist has encountered, or will encounter, an ethical situation where they are uncertain as to what action should be taken.  In the above example, suspecting an altered image is just part of the dilemma.  Knowing what to do, or who to report your suspicions to, is not always clear.  Ethical dilemmas can crop up at any time and can present early career and senior scientists with difficult decisions and sensitive situations.  Learning how to identify and deal with ethical dilemmas is a topic worthy of discussion at any time with mentors and protégés.

Back to top

26.  Reciprocity in Mentoring - May 2008, Barbara King

Reciprocity, or honest give and take between individuals, is often the bedrock of meaningful relationships. The mentor-protégé relationship also relies on reciprocity and exchange of information.  Without the social exchange of information, where both parties benefit, mentoring relationships will likely wither.  Both mentors and protégés have consistently reported that they hope to benefit in some way from the mentoring relationship.  In the book Power Mentoring (by Ellen Ensher and Susan Murphy), the duality of benefits to mentor and protégé is discussed extensively, and the value of reciprocity is captured by the assessments of several protégé and mentor pairs.  In one pair, the protégé noted that her mentor has a great deal of experience and comfort in dealing with senior executives, and in turn is a valuable sounding board who not only asks the tough questions to ensure that she covers all the bases before presenting an idea to her supervisors, but can also help line up the support of senior line management.  Her mentor, in turn, reported that she has benefited by having someone new to the organization, and from a different demographic (in this case, a different generation; in other cases, gender, or racial or ethnic group) give a fresh perspective and honest feedback to her about her perspective.  As your mentoring relationships build over time, keep in mind the reciprocity each of you have to give and receive information and advice.

Back to top

25.   Developing Support Personnel—One Key to Building a Consistent Research Program - April 2008, Dr. Jon Hanson

One of the most important aspects to the establishment of a consistent research program is the development of good technical support. A major aspect of assuring such support rests in the development and implementation of performance plans for those you supervise. Performance reviews are one of your most important forms of documenting an employee’s contribution to your project. Development of the performance plan requires planning on the front end, monitoring throughout the year, and an honest assessment at the end of the year. Discuss with your mentor the performance plans your have developed for those you supervise. Use the following points to guide your discussions with your supervisees.

1. Planning Performance

• Develop performance plans that are accurate, measurable, attainable, reasonable, and allow for performance above the fully successful level.
• Describe standards in terms of quality, quantity, timeliness and/or method of work.
• Focus on expected results and outcomes and ensure that expectations are aligned with agency/unit strategic goals and objectives. Avoid duty statements. Standards should tell the employee how well they must perform in order to meet the fully successful level.
• Involve employees in the development of performance plans.
• Be timely in setting performance plans in place.
• Revise plans if performance expectations change during the rating cycle.
• Be prepared to explain to employees how they can exceed their standards.
• Communicate to employees that "Fully Successful" performance is good performance. Work at the expected level of performance is of good quality, quantity, and accomplished within established time frames.
• Ensure that plans are consistent and equitable within your program.
• Establish meetings with employees to set plans in place. Clearly communicate expectations and clarify generic or vague standards. To the extent possible, ensure employees understand your expectations.

2. Monitoring Performance

• Continuously monitor and provide performance feedback often during the rating cycle.
• Maintain written records of feedback and specific accounts of employee performance during rating cycle.
• Conduct timely mid-year reviews.
• Inform employees of performance falling below last formal appraisal of performance.

3. Performance Assessment

• Notify your Research Leader immediately when performance problems begin with anyone you supervise.
• Performance assessments should not be a surprise at the end of the rating cycle.
• Do not inflate the ratings. Supervisors are often tempted to use an inflated rating to motivate improved job performance. This does not achieve the desired result. When a manager later tries to blame poor performance for an adverse employment action, those dishonest appraisals open up a land mine of credibility concerns.
• Ensure continued accuracy of performance plans.

Back to top

24.  On Connecting The Dots - March 2008, Dr. W. P. Kemp

Quite a lot of what has been written in this series is very helpful to those of us negotiating the intricacies of the civil-servant/scientist world that we find ourselves inhabiting these days.  This missive includes, should you choose to accept it, a reading assignment as well as some thoughts on being useful to someone near you.

Some years ago, 2005 in fact, Steve Jobs – yes, the Steve Jobs of Macintosh-Apple-Pixar fame – gave a very insightful three-part address to the Graduating Class of Reed College.  For those of you who are not already aware of this address, it can be found at the Stanford University News Service web site address -  http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html  - and for those of you who vaguely remember reading this address some years ago, I encourage you to quickly revisit this link.  Now that you’re back, and regardless of how you feel about Steve Jobs, the businessperson or the human being, his reflections for the benefit of the Reed College Graduating Class of 2005, as well as the rest of us, I suppose, are indeed quite moving.

Looking forward to an ARS career that will likely span 5-7 OSQR cycles and a greater number of Executive Branch Administrations, might appear rather daunting, but one can find great comfort in Jobs’ admonishment that you can be sure that the dots will somehow connect, but only when looking back.  Of course, the dots are – and please excuse the OSQR reference here – personal milestones that extend over an entire career.  In my singular (N=1) experience, over the course of more OSQR cycles than I care to admit, I have found the “dot-connecting working hypothesis” that Jobs espouses to be rather useful, I mean, comforting, not only while negotiating large steps associated with moving from one OSQR cycle to the next, but even when facing choices made within an OSQR cycle that resulted from discoveries as well as failures.  Admittedly, though, the thrill of discovery is far more enjoyable even though failures, again in hindsight, frequently resulted in more progress being made. 

In sum, Jobs is suggesting that cautious optimism - of course, in addition to careful attention to detail - has an important place in the short journey that we have as scientists in this world.  Jobs is also careful to note the importance of others that influenced and/or assisted him in his singular, but far from lonely, journey; and yes, luck and timing are both in one’s lifetime equation. So, recognizing that each replicate or personal scientific experience is likely to be attended with struggles that would be familiar to our peers, one can’t help but wonder just what might be gained as an agency if we devoted perhaps an additional 1% of our precious time - say, five minutes of a normal schedule - in assisting each other with “Connecting the Dots.”

Back to top

23.  “What to do if…:”  February 2008, Dr. Jeff Pedersen

Barbara King asked me to write a short piece to be used as a “checking-in topic” and suggested that I look over some of the past articles for perspective. The one that caught my eye was Work:Life Balance. In a dissimilar vein, we are too frequently tempted to find balance between integrity and practicality. As scientists, the integrity of our work is everything. Our professional integrity is critical too because it translates directly into trust, which is the stuff career opportunities arise from.

So when checking-in with your mentor/protégé this month, consider discussing some real-life scenarios, each of which I’ve experienced more than once:

1. After months or years of work, actual sample identities are somehow lost but their identity is still obvious to you.
2. The probability that your desired outcome is significant is P=0.06 and your data set contains several unexplainable outliers.
3. You are serving as a referee on good friend’s manuscript or proposal that does not represent good science.
4. A stakeholder threatens you with adverse action if you release certain information or materials.

Back to top

22.  Stick to the Plan - Be Flexible:  December 2007, Dr. Richard Beeman

Dr. Richard Beeman, 2007 NPA Senior Scientist of the Year, kindly supplied the following musings on his 27-year career with ARS.  As evidenced by his essay, Dr. Beeman reflects on the choices, challenges, and opportunities he encountered during his journey with the Agency.  Clearly, maintaining an open mind, keeping creatively engaged, and following through on unexpected opportunities led Dr. Beeman to forge a spectacularly successful career with ARS.  I think you will find his story provocative. 

Many ARS scientists have (unlike me) kept to the path they originally charted, and have had great success.  The reflections below summarize my personal research journey, and I do not presume to suggest that my experience will be relevant or useful to anyone else.  Even the most intelligent and insightful people fare poorly at predicting the future--even the near-future.  One of the corollaries to this fact is that five-year research plans often do not play out as foreseen.  Perseverance and long-term commitment are noble traits, but inflexible adherence to a plan that is faltering might reflect mere stubbornness or lack of creativity, rather than good discipline.  The recent ARS directive allowing changes in CRIS milestones represents an acknowledgment of this truth.  These milestones should be viewed as flexible and temporary guideposts, or as one snapshot of a possible future, not as rigid requirements. 

I was hired by ARS in 1979 as a toxicologist to conduct research on insect chemical control issues and develop pest-control alternatives in the stored-product arena.  For at least the first several months on the job, I had no clear vision, even of a possible near-term path for my research, never mind a long-term path.  I considered the idea of developing a program in pesticide residue analysis and environmental monitoring, but eventually decided to try to document the status of insect resistance to the few chemical pesticides then registered for direct application to stored grain.  My surveys of insect resistance inevitably led to the field of genetics, since all resistance to toxins has a genetic basis.  I was quite surprised by the emerging realization that I was fascinated by genetics, and that my heart was not in chemical toxicology and never had been, even though I had spent years of study to earn credentials in that field.  It was therefore a natural step to modify my research plan to begin to investigate the genetic basis of pesticide resistance and to become interested in better ways to engage in gene discovery.  I had been working with the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum, in large part because it was an important pest of stored grain; it had proven to be highly adaptable to all classes of insecticides in terms of resistance development; and it was easy to rear and manipulate in the laboratory.  It now became evident that Tribolium also had excellent potential to become a laboratory model for genetics research, along the lines of the fruit fly, Drosophila.  It was at this point that I began to deviate sharply from my position description, and began to invest effort in developing basic techniques for genetic manipulation of Tribolium.  These efforts had no direct relevance to, and were quite separate and distinct from, my prescribed studies of pesticide resistance or pest control technology, although I was hopeful that in the long run, a useful connection could be made.  My supervisors reacted to this change with skepticism, although I realized then, and now, that keeping your supervisor informed and in the loop is critical.  While times change, and bureaucracies expand, ARS continues to remain open to different ways of addressing problems.  

Twenty years later, my willingness to pursue an unexpected and uncertain opportunity has led to success, and now might seem prescient.  It was not.  No one can see the future, especially 20 years in advance.  I did sense that Tribolium could be a good genetic model, but I could not have imagined that this new path would lead to the first entire genome sequence of a pest insect, a complete catalog of all 16,000 Tribolium genes, the discovery of hundreds of good candidate genes for biopesticide targeting, or the development of sophisticated methods for germline transformation and functional genomic evaluation.  The lesson I’ve learned from my experience is that maintaining a receptivity and responsiveness to a changing environment, and listening to your inner voice, are as likely to lead to success in ARS as subordinating yourself too completely to others, including supervisors and customers.  Of course it is important to listen to these other voices, but they should not always be allowed to drown out your own.  You might actually have a better idea than your supervisors and customers how to achieve a goal that you all share.  Everyone wants their problems solved ASAP, but all of us should know that the shortest distance between a problem and a solution is seldom a straight line, and often involves an unpredictable meander.

Back to top

21.  2007 Survey Results: October 2007 (Barbara King)

Thank you to everyone who took the time to respond to the survey on the mentoring program.  The results indicate that, overall, mentors and protégés report high levels of satisfaction with the Framework (structure, materials, frequency of interactions); Transitions (to job, worksite, community, work:life balance); and General Usefulness (advice, networking, collaborations, etc.); while  questions dealing with Recruitment reveal that most respondents heard about their current job through some type of word of mouth.

Yet, despite this overall satisfaction with the program, only about half of the mentors and protégés report communicating with one another once a month.  While the monthly checking-in topics apparently serve as a spark for contacting one another, the open-ended comments indicate that some mentors and protégés are not especially satisfied with the frequency of their interactions.  An additional tool that could be used is the Discussion tool on the Sharepoint site.  Discussions can be used for general questions, comments, or threaded discussions.  Everyone (mentors, protégés, and RLs) has access to the Sharepoint site (https://arsnet.usda.gov/sites/NPA/NewSY/NASPDP - type in your user name and password used to access Outlook).

The Executive Summary has been saved on the NPA home page, and both the Executive Summary and full report (saved as Report-2007) of the survey results have been saved on the Sharepoint site.  In the coming months, some of the program materials will be revised, and if any of you have any changes or other suggestions to the program materials, please feel free to share your ideas with me and/or Dr. Chandler.  And, of course, do not hesitate to give your match a call!  Also, as always, if you have a topic for a future Checking-In topic, give me a call or email me your idea (or write-up).

Back to top

20.  When Leadership Changes:  September (Dr. Gary Snowder, Geneticist with the Genetics and Breeding Research unit in Clay Center, NE)

It is inevitable that leadership in ARS will change.  In my almost 20 years with ARS, I have worked under the leadership of seven Research Leaders and five Area Directors while having worked at only two ARS locations. Each Research Leader had a different management style, personality, and often new idea or strategy for research direction.  To a scientist, changes in leadership may be disruptive or productive.  The outcome generally depends on the attitude and actions of the individual scientist.  Early career scientists could benefit from practical advice related to leadership changes.  This advice might also help new scientists work more effectively with their current research leaders.

Although I have some personal advice to share, as a scientist I must refer to research (that obviously agrees with my philosophy).  A recent study in the Harvard Business Review (Surviving Your New CEO by K. P. Coyne and E. J. Coyne, May 2007) identified critical factors that new leaders are quickly looking for.  Basically, new leadership wants team players and people to accomplish new goals. Here are a few of my interpretations of their study:

Catch the vision. Although it may be tempting to take a “wait and see” attitude about a new leader, this is a wrong approach.  New leaders are looking for players, teammates, action figures – not sideliners or fence sitters.  Understand the vision of the new leader, buy into that vision, and let the new leader know you are supportive.  Silence on you part does not equate into agreement, but leaves new leaders to draw their own conclusions about you.

Play hard. Be proactive by demonstrating your willingness to accept new changes, policies, and direction. Let your actions validate your commitment.  Of course, all of this must be done with sincerity and without being sycophantic (flattering, apple polishing).

Leave your baggage at the door.  Whatever personnel problems, or past disputes over lab space, funds, equipment, technicians, vehicles, computers, have been, bury them in a deep abyss. Bringing up past battles, historical preferential treatment, and old wounds to your new leader is a waste of everyone’s time.  Be focused on the future.

Accept change. New leaders have their own agenda and your agenda is not necessarily of great interest to them.  Your short and long term goals may not now be aligned with those of new leadership – your goals and research may have to be modified.  Never attempt to thrust your own agenda ahead of the new leader. (This is a tough concept to grasp for some scientists who are personally attached to their own research program.  You must realize, ARS scientists are hired to conduct agency research not personal research.)

Be honest.  When discussing your research with the new leader, present the facts as clearly and as honestly as possible.  Sugarcoating is the wrong approach.  The truth will eventually be found out and no leader is supportive of a scientist who is not trustworthy.  If you fail to identify the negatives of your projects (things gone wrong) the leader will either assume you are not smart enough to recognize problems or you try to hide the truth.

Get’er done.  It is most important to demonstrate your worth to the new leader by accomplishing important projects in a timely manner.  Identify solutions rather than moan about problems.  Always follow through on assignments.  Establish your value quickly.

Learn to disagree.  Every individual has their unique style for dealing with differences of opinion.  Effective leaders expect subordinates to have differing opinions and to share them in a constructive and non-confrontational manner.  Subordinates must realize that they are offering options and alternatives.  The key is to offer choices that help the leader achieve his/her vision. Once the decision is made, discussion is over.

In the business world, when subordinates fail in any of the above actions, they have a high likelihood of needing to update their resume. 

Whether a leadership change is disruptive or productive, is truly a matter of how you respond to change.

Back to top

19.  Time Management:  July 2007 (Barbara King)

The responses from the survey are trickling in – thanks to each of you who have taken the time to complete the survey.  While we haven’t done any real analysis yet, one theme that has emerged from the survey for protégés is the question that asks proteges to list their most pressing concern(s).  Several protégés cited their most common pressing concern is time management, especially finding time for conducting research while also completing paperwork and administrative duties; to working with support staff who are limited to working 40 hours a week; to balancing work and personal life.  While there are tons of books on time management, mentors should be able to help their protégé figure out some strategies that will reduce (maybe even eliminate!) much of the aggravation and heartburn that comes from that sense of being over scheduled.

Back to Top

18.  Fact or Fiction – Dealing With Rumors:  June 2007 (Barbara King)

There has been nearly an endless flurry of rumors and worries concerning possible reorganization of ARS.  Dr. Blackburn addresses the reorganization proposals in his annual ARMPS discussion, so there is no need to discuss the different proposals in this column.  However, this recent spate of rumors and associated “what-ifs” is a good reminder of the importance of keeping things in perspective.  Regardless of what organization or institution one works in today, one thing that can be counted on is that what was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow, or three months from now, or even next year, but then again, things might not change a bit.  At any rate, new scientists may or may not have first-hand experience dealing with the uncertainties surrounding the array of rumors and political maneuvering that has occurred with the proposed realignment of ARS.  Mentors, who probably have “seen it all and heard it all” can be an important sounding board, as well as provide their insights and experiences, and be able to share with their protégé the types of coping skills they have employed in the past in dealing with the various rumors that are bound to occur within any large organization when change is contemplated.

Back to top

17.  Checking-out Assumptions:  May 2007 (Barbara King)

Regardless of where matches are in their mentoring relationship, it is always a good idea to assess the relationship to determine if the interests and needs of the protégé and mentor are being met.  One barrier to meeting the needs and interests can be unaddressed and in some instances unacknowledged, assumptions on the part of mentors and/or protégés.  A simple yet effective method of addressing assumptions is for mentors and protégés to ask themselves the following questions:

1.       What is my role? 
2.       How would my “match” (mentor or protégé) describe my role?
3.       What do I expect to learn from this role?
4.       What is the role of my “match” (protégé/mentor)?
5.       How has our relationship evolved?
6.       Are my needs and interests being met?
7.       Are the needs and interests of my match being met?

New and seasoned matches are urged to use these questions as a basis for assessing the effectiveness of their mentoring relationship and the future direction of their relationship.

Back to top

16.  Effective Communication—the Building Block of Relationships:  April 2007 (Barbara King)

The two previous checking-in topics on relationship building between mentors and protégés touched indirectly on the need for effective communication.  A key aspect of mentoring – for both mentors and protégés – is the ability to effectively communicate.  Establishing good communication in a mentoring program such as this one that relies on telephone and email can be problematic, especially since classic non-verbal signals (smiles, frowns, and gestures) are not visible to the other person.  Email, although notorious for misinterpretations has two distinct advantages: interruptions are impossible, and messages can be re-read and considered before replying. 

Regardless of the situation (face to face, telephone, or email) the foundation of good communication is the ability to actively listen to what another person is saying.   Active listening is crucial in any meaningful relationship.  Briefly, to be an active listener – for both mentors and protégés – means:

• Giving full attention to the speaker and minimizing distractions.
• Rephrasing what the speaker has said.
• Asking for clarification.
• Providing feedback.
• Minimizing interruptions.
• Being open to hearing other viewpoints, ideas, etc.
• Being willing to set aside your need or desire to control or otherwise dominate the conversation and/or the relationship in general.

Active listening for mentor/protégé partnerships is especially valuable in building and maintaining the relationship.  Too often, attempts at communication fail either because the message was not clearly conveyed or the intended target failed to grasp the significance.  

Back to top

15.  Protégé Strategies:  February/March 2007 (Barbara King)

In the January message, four mentoring philosophies were briefly touched on, and mentors were invited to think about what approach best fits their motivations for being a mentor, while protégés were urged to think about what sorts of expectations they have for the mentoring program.  Both mentors and protégés were encouraged to talk with one another about their motivations and expectations.

While mentors typically fit into one of the four philosophical approaches described in the January checking-in message, there is not a similar set of styles identified for protégés.  Although there is not a set of recognized “protégé styles”, Ensher and Murphy (Power Mentoring:  How Successful Mentors and Proteges Get The Most Out of Their Relationships, 2005, Jossey-Bass), have identified four basic strategies that protégés are encouraged to follow.  These four strategies are:

• Have a plan.  Protégés must be able to articulate to their mentor what they hope to accomplish in their career and what they anticipate doing at the peak of their career.
• Bring something to exchange.  In the NPA program, several mentors have noted that they hope to benefit, and those benefits can take the form of improving their communication styles as well as gaining technical knowledge from their protégé.  Protégés should be able to state what they can give back to ensure the relationship is a win:win for each partner.
• Make a good impression.  Protégés are encouraged to exhibit self-confidence and to develop an “executive presence”, the ability to see and project yourself as an equal.  Accordingly, protégés should pay attention to their non-verbal signals (body language, eye contact, mannerisms) as well as their ability to effectively articulate their thoughts and ideas.  The NPA program relies heavily on e-mail and telephone exchanges, and protégés (and mentors) need to be cognizant of the pitfalls inherent in electronic communications.
• Communicate positively and with passion.  Protégés should frame issues and questions in a constructive manner, and be able to clearly articulate what they expect to gain from the mentor, what sorts of advice they are seeking, and the types of problems they either are facing or perhaps anticipate eventually facing.
  Following these strategies should help start and maintain a mutually beneficial mentor:protégé partnership.  Protégés can use these four strategies throughout the mentoring relationship as a means of self-awareness.  Keep in mind that as the relationship deepens, both parties will test the other.  Mentors want to be assured that his or her time is not being wasted, and protégés expect that their mentor’s advice has value.

Back to top

14.    Mentoring Philosophies:  January 2007 (Barbara King)

What type of mentoring philosophy do you as a mentor practice?  What would your protégé say is your mentoring philosophy?  What are the expectations of your protégé?  Ellen Ensher and Susan Murphy, in their book Power Mentoring:  How Successful Mentors and Proteges Get The Most Out of Their Relationships (2005, Jossey-Bass) talk about four mentoring models:  Corporate Citizen; Pragmatic; Global Citizen; and Master.  While no one philosophical approach is better than any of the others, the philosophy influences the mentoring relationship, especially in terms of shared expectations.  According to Ensher and Murphy, the underlying goal for a Corporate Citizen mentor is to help prepare the next generation of leaders for the organization.  Pragmatic Mentors, on the other hand, tend to view mentoring as egalitarian, with mutual benefits for themselves and their protégés.  Some pragmatic mentors seek to identify and develop their own successor so as to ensure their agenda is carried forward.  Global Citizen Mentors are more concerned with imparting their life knowledge in general rather than focusing on helping their protégé advance in a particular job or career path.  Finally, Master mentors focus on getting to know their protégé’s as individuals so that they can tailor their approach to the needs and interests of the protégé. 
 
As your mentoring relationships develop, think about what sorts of approaches and expectations each of you bring to the relationship.  It is important for mentors to think about the underlying motivations they have for mentoring, and for protégés to think about what they expect to gain.  At the same time, it is important for mentors and protégés to discuss with one another their expectations.  If the mentor perhaps doesn’t know what the protégé is looking for (and vice versa) the relationship may not be mutually satisfying.

Back to top

13.   Work: Life Balance:  December 14, 2006 (Barbara King)

With the end of the year rapidly approaching and the holiday season in full swing, finding time to fit in all of one’s responsibilities and personal interests can be a challenge.  While the holidays can be especially full, balancing work and non-work lives challenges almost every employee throughout the year.  In fact, as shown by the survey we conducted earlier this year, while protégés are very satisfied with advice from mentors on balancing work and non-work activities, 64% of the protégés reported that they didn’t even discuss work:life balance with their RL.  Balancing work and personal time, though, is probably just one of the many challenges facing employers and employees, including ARS.  The workplace is changing – from the way work is done, what type of work is done, and where and even when work is performed.  At the same time, the workforce is changing, and the two younger generations may have very different perspectives from the two older generations on this whole notion of work – the how, what, where and when. One major change already impacting ARS and NPA is the change in emphasis from “classic” agricultural field-related degrees to more lab-based and interdisciplinary academic preparation.  Many mentors have already established themselves as reliable sources of advice on balancing work and personal time, and hopefully mentors and protégés will be able to turn to each other for advice on issues that are likely to arise as the workplace continues this evolution of change and renewal.

Back to top

12. Survey Results and Regular Communication:  October 24, 2006 (Barbara King)

The survey results were recently posted on the NPA home page as part of the New Scientists section in the Spotlight section.  Overall, the return was very high, and the results were quite favorable.

If you’ve not yet checked out the results, you’re encouraged to do so at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Aboutus/docs.htm?docid=14078
(then click on Results of Survey…).

The results were presented during the Administrator’s Council meeting in Beltsville in September.  Several other Areas have expressed interest in developing similar mentoring programs for their new scientists, and the Area Office has fielded several inquiries about the mechanics of our program. 

We continue to look at the results to help continue improving the program.  The results showed that many protégés are concerned about balancing administrative duties with their scientific duties, identifying their role (in their unit, at their location, and in ARS generally), and preparing their first case report.  Developing a mentoring relationship takes time, commitment, and a sense of direction from both parties.  One key to successful mentoring matches is regular communication, and the best way of ensuring that mentors and protégés talk on a regular basis is to establish a date and time for talking.  While there is not a magic formula for the frequency of such discussions, certainly once a month would be a minimum. Additionally, having some sort of agenda or “talking points” for both mentors and protégés is also recommended.  One challenge for mentors and protégés is the geographic distance between many of our matches.  While face to face meetings are bound to be helpful, that’s not something that all matches will be able to accomplish, so it’s imperative that matches find other methods to develop and maintain active and meaningful discussions.  Hopefully, these monthly checking-in topics serve as a reminder for matches to maintain a dialogue.

Back to top

11. ARS Manuscript Peer Review:  September 8, 2006

Dr. Gary Snowder, with the Clay Center research center, submitted the following:
Before most manuscripts can be submitted to a journal, ARS requires manuscripts to be reviewed by "qualified peer(s) with knowledge and familiarity in the field of research."  The first impression of this process by new ARS scientists may be that it is a waste of time because the manuscript will be reviewed by peers selected by the journal editor and that a pre-submission peer review slows down the time to publication.  A new scientist is always eager to publish and desires as few hurdles as possible to get a manuscript in print.  However, ARS's requirement for qualified peer review can only improve the quality of the manuscript and sometimes the scientist.

It is the Research Leader's responsibility to assure that the scientist selects qualified peers to review the manuscript. Ask your RL for recommendations. Never select peers to rubber stamp a manuscript; rather select peers who will be helpful, even critical. Although only two peers may be sufficient for review, sometimes it is wise to select more to meet the broad spectrum of a manuscript.  For example, a manuscript on the genetics of disease resistance may benefit from a review by a statistician, a geneticist, and a veterinarian.  More than one reviewer in the same scientific field could be sought after.

Remember the objective of peer review is to improve the manuscript.  So expect and welcome suggestions, comments, and even criticism.  Science should always be open to criticism.  Learn to accept criticism and to learn from it.  A reviewed manuscript with red ink all over it should be appreciated because a reviewer made a sincere effort on your behalf.

There are several benefits to a peer review that a young scientist must recognize. Experienced reviewers can:

1. Quickly point out errors in format to meet a journal's requirement.
2. Improve writing style of inexperienced authors.
3. Point out embarrassing errors before the journal editor does.
4. Identify weaknesses that will cause the manuscript to be rejected by
   the target journal.
5. Contribute to networking with other scientists with similar research
   interests.

These benefits result in a successful submission of a quality manuscript.

Yes, this process may slow down the time to publication; but it helps you as a scientist to publish higher quality manuscripts. Despite the delay in submission time, every scientist should schedule the production of manuscripts by taking into account the time invested in the peer-reviewed process. Again, it will only be in your best interest.

ARS scientists are held to a higher standard than most of our colleagues.  The manuscript peer review process helps us rise to that higher standard.

Back to top

10. RPES – Unraveling the Mysteries:  August 15, 2006 (Barbara King)

While many protégés have a couple of years before they first encounter the RPES process, now is as good a time as ever to begin understanding the process, especially in terms of what documentation is required and guidelines for best articulating your accomplishments.  As with any evaluative method, knowing in advance what is required is the best way of preparing. Research Leaders are definitely one source of information and advice, and mentors can also provide their insights and guidance.

Back to top

9. Mid-Year Reviews:  July 11, 2006

Dr. Gary Snowder, with the Clay Center research center, submitted the following suggestions for mid-year evaluations:

It is the time for mid-year performance review. Be sure to be prepared for this important meeting.  Review your Performance Standards and make notes of what you have completed on each accomplishment.  It is your responsibility to make sure your RL understands your accomplishments.  Never assume the RL knows everything you have done.  Be sure to inform the RL of your future plans to meet your goals.

Also, make notes on items you need special assistance on from the RL, such as lab equipment or supplies, data analyses, data collection, etc. Do not hesitate to politely address these items with your RL.  If you have a problem to address, offer a possible solution or alternative solutions.  Remember, the responsibility for the final decision lies with the RL.  If you do not agree with the decision to your problem or the logic of the decision, let it go.  Life is too short to worry over things you have no control over.

Most things in this life are accomplished in a step by step approach.  The Performance Standards is an outline of your step by step accomplishments to meet a goal.  Take them seriously.  If you can not meet one of your listed accomplishments within the year, let the RL know as soon as possible.  Never surprise the RL at the end of the year with a list of excuses of why something was not accomplished.  A second "never" item is: never go into the interview with the idea of listing everything that needs to be fixed.  The purpose of the mid year is to check on your personal progress.  IF the RL asks you about any concerns, start with the positive things and then offer suggestions to remove "hurdles".  Conflicts with other personnel can easily be identified by simply stating "My working relationship with so-and-so needs to improve."   I think you get the jest of what I am saying.

At the end of the interview, recognize and thank the RL for all of his/her efforts to support you and your research.  I make it a point to leave with a handshake and eye contact.

Back to top

8. The Value of Networking:  June 12, 2006

Dr. Gary Snowder, with the Clay Center research center, submitted this description of the benefits and the “how-to” of networking:

The value of networking is often overlooked by young scientists.  Webster's New World Dictionary defines a network as a "group, system, etc. of interconnected or cooperating individuals." Networking involves communicating with fellow researchers at other ARS or university settings.  These contacts can be a dependable source of information about a research area in which you are unfamiliar.  Research Leader's should play an active part in assisting young scientists to network by recommending names, encouraging participation on out-of-house research committees, and by talking up the young scientists to the RL's contacts.  Mentors can also take an active role by promoting protégés in a similar manner.

It is amazing how well networking works to promote a person's career. The more people who are aware of your strengths, abilities, and research interests, the greater your opportunity to be sought after for cooperative research and presentations.  It is generally a false assumption that every one will become aware of your research and interest because they read your publication.  If you want to get your name out in your field of science, be sure to communicate with colleagues.  Every scientist enjoys talking about their research so it is easy to get others to initiate a conversation.  One can simply include a question about their research when requesting a reprint.  Or ask a colleague for their opinion about your own research.  A good researcher should already know "who " is conducting similar or related research from the current literature.  From this list, one can network by email or phone call.  At committee meetings, young researchers should take advantage of interacting with other researchers.  Active membership in a related professional association or society is a start at networking, but the key is to be an active member by attending meetings, joining committees, reviewing manuscripts, etc.

The benefits of networking are many fold. There is name recognition, increased opportunities to join committees, gain a greater understanding for lab or statistical procedures, recognize new opportunities, establish new long term relationships that you can depend on for assistance, see a whole new side to a problem, find additional  mentors to model your career after, etc.  As your own career advances, everyone will know you and begin to seek your assistance or opinion on related matters.   Remember that research in a vacuum is usually of little worth.  Networking is bi-directional, by expecting assistance you must also place the expectation on yourself that you will be a source of assistance to others.

Back to top

7. Navigating the Federal Bureaucracy:  May 15, 2006 (Barbara King)

One major aspect of successfully building a career with ARS is understanding how the  ARS bureaucracy operates.  Acronyms are just the beginning.  More important is navigating the morass of rules and procedures without becoming disenchanted or frustrated.  The seemingly endless protocols, forms, and approvals can be daunting, especially to new scientists.  Mentors, by virtue of their experience are in a position to explain the internal workings of ARS, particularly the organizational structure at the national level.  For example, the National Program Staff (NPS), the Office of Scientific Quality Review (OSQR), and the Office of Technology Transfer are three units whose activities directly affect research unit operations.  If you and your match haven’t yet discussed the role and impact of at least these three offices, now would be a good time to start those discussions.

Back to top

6. Balancing Work and Personal Time:  April 11, 2006 (Barbara King)

Striking a balance between work and personal time can be an endless game of give and take with job demands, dual careers, and desires for family/personal time all seemingly in competition with one another.   This balancing between work and personal time can be especially tricky for new scientists as they learn a new job, maneuver through a new bureaucratic structure, and possibly acclimate to a new community.  While science can be an all-consuming profession, many employees seek a balanced lifestyle.  New scientists may not have a firm grasp of what sorts of options are available, or how best to approach their supervisor about work:life conflicts.  New scientists may be wary of broaching this topic with their RL, or with their mentor, although mentors should be comfortable in bringing up these topics with their proteges.

Back to top

5. Understanding the federal budget:  March 9, 2006 (Barbara King)

The recent release of President Bush’s budget recommendations to Congress have resulted in a flurry of media attention, with earmarks, rescissions, omni-bus bills, deficits, and entitlement programs the topic of many news stories and editorials.  How the federal budget impacts ARS, and especially how earmarks, rescissions and omni-bus bills affect ARS is something that mentors can help proteges understand.  Along with the budget implications, mentors are also in a position to describe to proteges the importance of customers/stakeholders, the ins and outs of working with customer groups and other interested parties, and the need to understand the various rules and regulations governing budget related activities. 

Back to top

4. Bridging Career Goals and Responsible Research:  February 9, 2006 (Barbara King)

The January topic discussed developing research agendas.  This month, the research thread is once again raised, with the focus on responsible research.  Responsible research entails a wide range of activities and practices, from organizational ethics to meaningful outcomes to individual career aspirations.  The ARS Code of Scientific Ethics addresses the general parameters of responsible research.  For instance, the importance of scientific debate, authorship issues, conflicts of interest, and the treatment of human and animal subjects are some of the issues included in the code.  Additionally, the ARS web site provides linkages to overviews of ARS research as well as detailed descriptions of the entire ARS research enterprise.  While those sites are very useful, conversations about organizational and professional ethics and how scientists resolve individual moral dilemmas can also be very useful.  Mentors and protégés can benefit by talking to one another and gaining insights, comparing experiences, and generally brainstorming.

The ARS code of ethics can be found at: http://www.afm.ars.usda.gov/hrd/ethics/ethicscode.htm; to learn about the ARS research structure, click on http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/Research.htm.  The link from the Indiana University http://poynter.indiana.edu/mr-main.shtml provides several case studies dealing with moral dilemmas that can be used as a starting point for general discussions. 

Back to top

3. Establishing a research agenda – January 10, 2006 (Barbara King)

Happy New Year!  This is the third installment of "checking-in" topics for mentors and protégés.  One of the more critical planning stages for new scientists involves establishing a research agenda. The ARS structure, and general federal bureaucracy, can both help and perhaps hinder even the best intentioned plans.  Developing thoughtful, well-conceived research agendas require time and patience, as well as a solid understanding of ARS guidelines and RPES expectations.  Research leaders are a valuable resource, as are mentors.  If you and your match haven’t yet had conversations about how to go about laying-out a research agenda, now is a good time to start those discussions.  At the same time, scientists are urged to give some thought to developing collaborations, learning about various publishing venues, crafting a writing style, and of course, answering the RPES questions always posed by Dr. Roos: ”So what?”, “What is the Impact?” and “Who cares?”

Back to top

2. Professional Development Plans -- November 9, 2005 (Barbara King)

This is the second installment of the “checking-in” series. 

With the calendar year rapidly drawing to a close, many protégés will experience the ARS performance review system for the first time.   Although mentors do not have a role in the evaluation process, they nevertheless are in a position to demystify the process and answer any questions or concerns protégé’s might have. The review process includes the Individual Development Plan (IDP).  The IDP is an opportunity for employees to discuss with their supervisor the types of specialized training that might be valuable.  For example, new scientists might be interested in supervisory classes through the Texas A&M Supervisory Academy or the OPM Management Development Centers, or the Congressional Briefing class (see the attached documents).  The ARS Human Resources website also includes a listing of courses: http://www.afm.ars.usda.gov/hrd/empdev/index.htm   Mentors might have recommendations concerning any of these courses or other courses not listed.  Additionally, you might want to review the portion of the NASPDP document, especially the section on performance evaluations. 

Best wishes for a restful Thanksgiving. 

Back to top

1. Collegiality – October 4, 2005 (Barbara King)

From time to time I will send an email message to all pairs as a “check-in” and include a suggested topic for mentors and protégés to pursue.  Hopefully each of you has been able to make contact with your “match” and that a meaningful conversation has been started.  If that conversation hasn’t yet started, give me a call or email me. 

The “Getting Started” document provides one sketch of how mentor and protégé relationships develop over time.  Collegiality is one topic that was listed in the Building Trust phase.  For new employees, the direction a relationship takes with co-workers is often established during the first several months of employment.  Getting along with your supervisor is just one relationship.  Working together with support staff - managerial, technical, clerical, and custodial - is also critical. At the same time, ARS scientists are expected to forge positive relationships with customers, focus groups, faculty, and other scientists.  Additionally, scientists will likely have supervisory responsibilities, and may not have had any previous supervisory experience.  Mentors will probably have their own stories and strategies and advice on what steps to take to enhance collegiality as well as what pitfalls to avoid, and have some advice on supervision.  If you and your partner haven’t addressed collegiality, now is a good time to begin that discussion. 

As always, if you have questions, concerns, or suggestions, please give me a call or send me an email.

Back to Top

The user-friendly URL for this page is: www.ars.usda.gov/npa/checkingin