next »

[slownsteady]

I am in the process of hiring postdocs in my group. I may need some advice here on this topic.
One of the candidates seem to be more on the ambitious side than all the others. Normally, I would think this is a good thing.. they do better work, publish ..For whatever reason, my gut feeling says this person won't work out great for me. They have already asked me if I would allow them to write grants and what are the options for collaborating externally and mentoring students and so on. Normally I am willing to do all this and even encourage my postdocs for these, I guess just the overambitious attitude makes me wonder if they will work for me/my group or focus just on their growth - which is okay for me as long as they take instructions well. Perhaps there are subtle personality traits I observed that is bothering me more than just  the "overambitious" part. Being a new faculty I think I am more in need of people who will work for the group as a whole than focus just on their growth. Perhaps in the future, I can have all kinds. This is a STEM area so I do need good people to work with.

Anyone has any comments? In any case, I think I prefer overambitious than a deadbeat postdoc.

[hiddendragon]

I'm not in STEM but if you are young in the field and your primary objective for the post-doc is to get him/her to help further your own research, then this might be a red flag.  For those of us in the humanities post-docs are supposed to have their own objectives that are related to your own research, but not exactly like it.  They also don't necessarily further your own research other than perhaps be a companion who you could bounce your ideas with.  For the sciences, it's different so tread carefully.  Do you want autonomy or do you want someone who will follow direction?

[gilda]

You need to listen to your gut.  Whenever I've tried to talk away my first impression of someone and hired them anyway, it's been a bad idea...

[slownsteady]

Thank you dragon and glida..

I do think this postdoc candidate is very intelligent and can get things done fast. I am not exactly sure what is bothering me. Is it because I a new faculty myself and fear that my directions may not be well taken? If that is the case, I would like to overcome that fear as well. This person has not done anything explicitly to make me feel that. But s/he will make his presence known I guess. In a way, I see a bit of myself in this person...

I do not want to lose a potentially good candidate and some good work that may result due to my own fears. l

[shrek]

Have you called their references?

[terpsichore]

They have already asked me if I would allow them to write grants and what are the options for collaborating externally and mentoring students and so on.

This person may be ambitious - or they may be the type who spreads themselves so thin on so many external projects that they never get anything done.  What's the candidate's track record for publishing their doctoral work? Do they have a couple of solid first-authored publications either published or in press? Or many manuscripts listed as "in preparation"? What does their advisor say?

[itried]

Usually my negative instincts about people are confirmed sooner or later. If something doesn't feel right, it's not. Don't hire the person.

[litdawg]

Usually my negative instincts about people are confirmed sooner or later. If something doesn't feel right, it's not. Don't hire the person.

Gut feelings are sometimes the output of hundreds of small correlations and inferences based on solid data cross-referenced against your self-understanding. Suppose you're right that this is your insecurity speaking. Your insecurity isn't going away any time soon, so hiring someone who keeps rubbing your nose in it won't be productive for anyone.

I agree with all of the others. Go with the gut. We fool ourselves if we think an academic workspace isn't as much of a fragile human ecosystem as other forms of social affiliation. Yes, it's a workplace, but oh boy do personalities matter!

[monsterx]

Getting a good postdoc who can really make things happen is a wonderful thing - if the post-doc's personality, and your relationship with that person is such that you get your fair share out of it as well, if they go along with your agenda, or maybe help redefine it in ways which make sense to you, and if your ego permits having a subordinate who may quickly grow to be better than you.  If, on the other hand, he or she is the kind of person who doesn't pay his or her dues, and doesn't recognize those who help along the way, then there is likely to be a problem.  The only way to decide is to talk to references, interview in person, and to go with your instinct on what kind of person this is likely to be. 

[koda_kube]

I've experienced 'deadbeat' and will go with 'over ambitious' any day.  Bottom line is that the work you need to be done on the project is completed.  You will likely find it very useful to have a postdoc that is happy to advise grad students on minor issues.  Grant writing should be included in a post doctoral training plan anyway.  Seems to me that the subject area of your STEM project is one that the prospective post doc is very excited about and wants to make a good impression on you.  I would agree with the others though to check on number of publications they have in hand as a confirmation that they will produce.

Good Luck and I hope your decision is the right one!

[pathogen]

I'm not sure why you think this is "overambitious". I did all this during my postdoc. I wrote grants (with mentor and with others), managed his projects, did my own projects (I had an independent small grant for my own idea that I got myself), mentored the students (everything from day-to-day stuff to reading their theses), managed the lab when the manager was gone, wrote and published papers, and more. A postdoc is for the professional development of the person, not just getting your projects done. In my opinion, a postdoc experience that does not have specific opportunities built in to do all these things is not doing what it should for the trainee. If all you really need is your own work done on your schedule, get a tech.

[fedscholar]

I think terpshichore's post echoes my concern. As a supervisor, I often find that Prado's Rule applies: 20% of the people have 80% of the ideas, and publications for that matter. I find intellectual ambition appealing, because it is relatively rare. However, at the early career stage that can be debilitating. I have a lot of ideas myself, but my execution side struggles to keep up, and I used to often get overcommitted. Some of my staff come up with a lot of original ideas, but others are better at analysis or refinement of ideas. I enjoy interacting with the former more, but the latter help me execute more of my projects. The creator or refiner personalities seem pretty hardwired in my experience. Both have comparative strengths and weaknesses.

If I were you, I would first try to see if the person has a track record of follow through. Then, it seems, you need to think about the specific assignment. If the person is going to be cooking up side projects a lot, will they be able to do what you have funding to do? Do you desire that degree of intellectual agency, or would you prefer a more focused work horse type who keeps their eye on the ball? 

[scampster]

Is this the person's first postdoc? I have to say that these are all questions I asked my soon to be new boss because I didn't get all those things in my first postdoc. It never occurred to me to ask those questions the first time around because it didn't occur to me that my idea of what my postdoc would be wasn't universal. So when my faculty interviews didn't pan out and I had to look for another position, I knew the questions up front I wanted to ask. Does it mean that I am working for me, not for the group? Not at all. I just want to make sure that in the course of working for the group that I get these extra other things I need to be competitive on the academic job market.

That being said, if you get a weird vibe off this person, then don't hire them.

[totoro]

I would go for the ambitious person as long as they will also collaborate with you and won't just come in and do their own thing.

[fedscholar]

Scampster brings up a good point. I think the highest motivation and productivity comes when the individual's self-interest and the team needs/interests are well-aligned. For an experienced postdoc, perhaps a frank discussion of their ambitions could be a sign of maturity and honesty up front.

I was reading E. O. Wilson's biography recently, and it seems he had a number of very gifted colleagues who were his intellectual equals with whom he did world class work. Personally, I would love to work with a dynamic postdoc, so long as I felt we could chart out the rules and priorities of the collaboration, and also articulate milestone along the way to see if the "big ideas" were indeed proving doable.