(original post at My Lab Your Lab’s Tip of the week: ” What makes scientists happy?”)
From the beginning I need to say that I can’t claim to have the definitive answer to this question. However the subject has been interesting to me as an educator and manager of scientists, and here are some personal comments triggered by looking at the 2009 surveys published by ‘The Scientist’, a magazine specializing in the life sciences, as well as other independent studies I found on this topic.
In their 2009 annual survey of “Best places to work” in academia, they listed the ‘top ranked 40 places’ in US and the ‘top 10 ranked internationally’ (you can see their surveys and methodology here). As scientists usually do, as soon as I saw data, potential explanations immediately came to my mind (as well as more questions, that generated hypotheses I think would be nice to test…) But let me start with the data collected and made widely available thanks to ‘The Scientist.’
What makes an institution a great place to do science?
I will make the assumption that overall the responders’ sense of satisfaction for their place of work is related to the strengths that have been listed. Venture some guesses? The strengths most often cited by all top 40 were: ‘Research resources’ and ‘Infrastructure and environment’ (x 17 each), also ‘Job satisfaction’ (x11) and ‘Teaching and mentoring’ (x9).
At my very first inspection, as one would expect, what caught my eye were places I am very familiar with (two of my previous home institutions). More specifically, Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia made the list within the top 5 (at #5), while Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Boston, MA came in at #39. The strengths listed for Emory were ‘Peers’ and ‘Job Satisfaction’, while for Brigham and Women’s these were ‘Management and Policies’ and ‘Infrastructure and Environment’.
Interestingly I think the ‘Pay’ category is cited as a strength only for 10 out of the 40 top institution, and only once in the top five (University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK). Furthermore, what then struck me when looking at the other survey about salary levels, was the specific observation that the average pay in the state of Georgia is lower compared to almost all other US states (with the exception of Ohio). Of note is that another Georgia institution, the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA also made the top 40 list this past year at #14. Again, I’m making the assumption that the “happy customers” of the first survey were the same with those paid less than the average US academic pay (a ‘side thought’ came to mind that they might become less happy after seeing this US salary survey!) Thus, the pay per se did not seem to dampen scientists’ enthusiasm, at least not for these two GA work places.
So, the 2009 survey results seem to be consistent with the fact that scientists are happiest when they can do the best possible science. This requires not only passion, curiosity, resilience, dedication, hard work, from the researchers but also a supportive environment, specifically collaborations and institutional policies and infrastructure.
Also, worth noting are the specific reasons for which some institutions climbed really fast in the ranking. The institution ranked as #1 in the US, Princeton, is small (only 203 full-time life scientists), which helps foster – indeed forces! – interdisciplinary collaborations/relationships. Max Planck’s Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics which ranked as the top institution internationally, also encourages strong cross-field collaborations and social interactions between scientists, encouraged by their unusually democratic leadership system.
Do these findings surprise you in general/ do you work in any of these places? Any additional insights?
What makes people happy with their work in general?
I have wondered if there is research to indicate if things that make scientists happy are any different from those important to other professions?
The results of these scientists’ surveys seem to challenge the conclusion that ultimately “work IS about money”, as Susan M. Heathfield had drawn from her own research about what motivates people at About.com Guide, yet they likely do not surprise many of us. We all know many great (even if not famous) scientists who think more about giving through their work, rather than obtaining something from it, unless one would say they obtain the satisfaction of being able to figure out things that will ultimately “save the world”? Ms. Heathfiled does indicate – seemingly in an effort to recognize that some people have different motivation that: ’Some people work for love; others work for personal fulfillment. Others like to accomplish goals and feel as if they are contributing to something larger than themselves, something important. Some people have personal missions they accomplish through meaningful work. Others truly love what they do or the clients they serve. Some like the camaraderie and interaction with customers and coworkers. Other people like to fill their time with activity. Some workers like change, challenge, and diverse problems to solve.” Nice summary of why most scientists do their work, don’t you think?
An older theory known as the “Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory”(or the “two factor theory,”) suggests that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are determined by different factors. This already indicated that the salary per se is not a positive motivator, but rather an “hygiene” factor.
- Factors that are work ‘motivators’ include challenging work, recognition, responsibility which give positive satisfaction, which arise from intrinsic conditions of the job itself, such as recognition, achievement, or personal growth.
- The work ‘hygiene factors’ which Herzberg suggested do not trigger positive satisfaction, are related to the work environment (e.g., company policies, supervisory practices, or wages/salary), and not necessarily related to the work itself, include: status, job security, salary and fringe benefits. However their absence leads to dissatisfaction, hence the name “hygiene” (its absence is hazardous).
What defines a great work day?
A Harvard Business Review study published in the latest issue (Amabile, T. M., Kramer, S. J “What really motivates workers”, HBR Jan-Feb 2010) concluded that the biggest factors in defining a workday as great was the perception of “making progress” and collaborations.
The authors underline the important role of the manager in making workers feel they had a great day. PIs take note!
What a leader/manager should do:
- Clarify goals
- Use glitches as learning moments
- Cultivate a culture of helpfulness, including rolling up own sleeves to pitch in
- Recognize real progress (otherwise it loses value)
The top three things a manager should avoid doing:
- Changing goals autocratically
- Being indecisive
- Holding up resources
What makes people happy: common denominators and “diversity” in happiness
Harvard experts cited by Physics.org suggest the following rounded approach is most likely to create personal happiness:
- Eat thoughtfully, exercise often, have daily ‘quiet’ time,
- raise your children well, teach them to be kind!),
- stash a few bucks away,
- and ‘stop thinking it’s all about you! ‘ Giving money away creates lasting happiness compared to spending it on oneself which only creates a ‘buzz’, the kind of happiness that wears off quickly
In studying how personal factors contribute to the overall human feeling of happiness, another report revealed that in fact both women and men share the two main sources of happiness: achieving professional/financial aspirations and… being married! (Plagnol and Easterlin, the Journal of Happiness Studies) The authors also discovered an inter-relationship between gender and age and happiness. Their conclusion was that… “Women end up less happy than men” because they feel less able to achieve their life goals. Women begin life happier than men but the difference wears off and by 48 yo, men are in average happier that women. Here are some age milestones that stood out from the gender comparison:
o 41: Age at which men’s financial satisfaction exceeds women’s financial satisfaction
o 48: Age at which men’s overall happiness exceeds women’s overall happiness
o 64: Age at which men’s satisfaction with family life exceeds women’s satisfaction
What makes working couples happy?
Sharing responsibilities for paid (professional) and unpaid (house chores) work apparently works well in making working couples happier and more productive (for more insights see “Power couples”, The Scientist 2010, Volume 24 (1): 55).
What makes YOU happy?
References:
• Best Places to Work 2009: Academia, The Scientist Volume 23 (11) Page 43, 2009-11-01
• Heathfield, Susan M. What motivates people, About.com http://humanresources.about.com/od/rewardrecognition/a/needs_work.htm
• The two factor theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivator-Hygiene_theory
• Plagnol, Anke C. and Richard A. Easterlin, “Aspirations, Attainments, and Satisfaction: Life Cycle Differences Between American Women and Men.” 2008, Journal of Happiness Studies, http://www.springerlink.com/content/4j11681jx415315k/
• Wiens Carl, Power couples, The Scientist 2010, Volume 1: 55, 2010-01-01
Comments are closed.