The employer-mentor tension

I've been reading a lot on the movement to normalise the working conditions of a PhD. A PhD is a lifestyle choice more than a job. The work permeates into your evenings, weekends and holidays. It is difficult to mentally dissociate from the work due to the emotional investment placed in it, which frequently leads to mental health issues. A growing number of students want the PhD to become a more normal "9-5" job, to work just the standard hours they are paid for, in conditions similar to any other profession. This is entirely reasonable.

At the same time, I am seeing a great desire for personal mentoring of students. Professors should be more than a scientific advisor; they should be a coach, a mentor, a career guide and a cheerleader. In this regard, the Professor is much more than a simple employer. This is also entirely reasonable.

Are these two goals, each reasonable in their own right, compatible? To me they pull me in opposite directions. If I support the student's right to be a normal employee, isn't the natural corollary the right to be a normal employer? If I make a point of not intruding on my student's home time, surely I have the right to not let my students intrude on my home time? 

There are two additional asymmetries to consider. First, the asymmetry in power. An email from the Professor to the student on holiday is more invasive then the reverse, due to the nature of the relationship. I am training myself not to send emails on the weekend (my prime thinking time), because even though I intend them to be read on Monday, my students may feel obliged to read them on the weekend. The second asymmetry is less well recognised, the asymmetry in numbers. The student has one professor, while the professor has many staff. I have 20 staff and students, and more than 100 ex-lab members. While weekend-disrupting problems are rare individually, there is at least one every weekend. With HR, each person may only have a work-altering personal problem once every two years, but the net effect is that I deal with such a matter on a monthly basis. 

My personal solution to the tension inherent in the employer-mentor balance is to allow my students and staff to pick their own place on that continuum, but their choice impacts both of our roles. If a student wants to work as a normal employee and not take their job home then they can, but equally they don't get the right to then intrude on my home. It is just not fair for a student to miss deadline after deadline on a piece of writing I assign them, but then to expect me to urgently proof-read their (late) progress report on Sunday afternoon. For a student who has worked above and beyond I will take their thesis draft with me on holiday if need be, but only because we both are invested. A student who doesn't go to the departmental seminars doesn't earn the right to get a paid trip to an international conference. The student who is creative and innovative in pushing technical boundaries will get support in new kit and training. A student who is passionate and talented in research will literally get a hundred hours in career development mentoring from me, but I am reluctant to invest more than 10 minutes doing the same for a student who refuses to be a team member.

In theory, I am comfortable with this choice. In practice it is difficult for me to maintain. Far too often it is the staff who give and give to those around them that are the least likely to ask in return. By contrast, toxic staff (fortunately I have none now!) expect mountains to be moved for them. I know my own nature, and unfortunately I am too much of a workaholic and care too much about my work to act as a completely impartial employer. Management style will always be a work in progress, constantly evolving with my own growth and in response to my staff.

Adrian Liston | Post a Comment | Share Article

tagged science careers