#newPI: Building your team
Ernest Shackleton (1874 - 1922) was an Antarctic explorer most famous for leading the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition from 1914 to 1917 aboard the Endurance. The trip's goal was to be the first team to reach the South Pole. The expedition was popularized in 1959, with Alfred Lansing's Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage being published. Long story short, the trip does not go as planned. Their boat sinks in the middle of the Antarctic winter. Despite many setbacks, all 28 crew members survived.
Legend has it (although it may be a myth) that Shackleton posted the above advertisement to recruit sailors for the expedition. The ad reads, “Men Wanted for hazardous journey, small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful, honor and recognition in case of success”. Why would he post an ad likely to deter so many candidates? Shackleton’s goal was not simply to build a team, but to build the right team. His recruitment process was well documented. The 5,000 applications were first sorted into three piles: Mad, Hopeless, and Possible. Shackleton then interviewed finalists personally. Shackleton asked few questions about exploration or science that one might expect. Instead, Shackleton asked candidates if they could sing. He also asked open-ended questions like “What is your happiest memory?” or “What is your best quality?”. No interview with his candidates lasted more than five minutes.
As a lab leader, I don’t want to attract the same group of personalities that Shackleton was after for his expedition. Shackleton needed a crew that could handle extreme conditions, both in terms of cold and boredom. I have values and goals that are different from those of Shackleton. However, I think we can use Shackleton as an example of recruiting more generally.
I’ve broken the recruitment process into eight steps that I find essential in my own recruitment. With this process, I receive roughly 200 applications for 1-2 openings that I might have each year for graduate student or postdoctoral fellow positions.
Build website and lab expectations document
I’m surprised how many new lab leaders don’t have a website. When I started, one of the first steps I took in building the lab was to build a lab website. The website can be very simple, but you’ll need some kind of landing page when you post job ads. Your website is often a candidate’s first impression of you and your lab.
Establish your “why”
Establish your “why” to attract the group of students you want (I highly recommend “Find Your Why” by Simon Sinek). Shackleton established a clear “why” or reason for joining his expedition. In my job postings and on my website, I note that prospective lab members must (1) Be decent human beings (we don’t work with jerks), (2) Have an interest in ecological systems and using quantitative tools (e.g., mathematical models, statistics, R) and (3) Want to change the world. Not everyone jives with these three ideas. That’s okay. You don’t want to attract everyone to your group or you’ll be overwhelmed.
Set up intake form, job postings, and share widely.
If you want a good team, you need a good applicant pool. I built a rolling Google form to collect applications for various positions in the lab. I now spend a lot of time each year trying to find candidates. If you simply post a position to social media once and hope candidates will come to you, your application pool will be small and not diverse. Share broadly and with the groups that you most resonate with. For example, my lab works on animals for many of our questions. However, I don’t post my ad to groups focused on animal care, like those in a zoo or aquarium. I’m not looking for candidates that love animals. Instead, I am looking for candidates that love ecological questions and working with data. Thus, I post my job postings on ecological or mathematical society sites.
Create a holistic rubric
As you build your pool of candidates, you should be formulating a holistic rubric for how you’ll assess candidates. You can use this rubric in evaluating resumes and during the interview stage. Shackleton had his, to bit it mildly, unorthodox rubric. My rubric includes scoring candidates based on their ability to work independently, their prior research experience, their ability to ask interesting scientific questions, their interest or background in quantitative skills, and if they have a background that will provide a different or interesting perspective to the lab. Without a rubric, it would be easy to trick myself into candidates who aren’t a good fit for the lab.
Set up Zoom calls (you can’t chat with everyone)
It is tempting to have a Zoom chat with every candidate that applies. If you are successful in the above steps, however, your application pool should be large enough that you can’t interview everyone. After I’ve narrowed the pool, I have a Zoom call with 10-20 candidates per year. I ask a standard set of four questions and then open the conversation up. I eliminate a lot of candidates at this stage. I have a lot of great candidates on paper who can’t describe their work or fail to ask me good questions.
Narrow down the pool
Using your rubric developed in step five, you’ll have to narrow your pool of candidates. I only invite around 3-6 candidates to apply for each position that I might have open. I don’t want people to apply and waste their time if I don’t think they have a chance.
Set up several interviews with other faculty and current lab members (or someone else’s if you don’t have your own yet)
Once I’ve narrowed the pool of candidates, they officially apply and then I conduct additional interviews. For both the candidate, and for my lab, having them chat with current lab members is critical. If your lab is brand new, have candidates chat with current members of the department or past mentees of yours. Candidates may act differently when they aren’t interviewing with the “boss”. If you are unsure of your own judgment, have another faculty member also interview your candidates to provide another perspective.
Decide
After all of this work, you now have to make your final decision. I find this step brutal. You likely have a great set of finalists. You can return to your rubric, but at some point, you just have to choose. You might have to do some negotiating as well.
Then, after so much work, the candidate may then reject your offer. It stings to feel rejected. You can learn from the process and even ask candidates why they chose to turn down your offer. The people that you ultimately bring into your group are the most consequential decisions you’ll make in your career. A great set of labmates can bring a lot of joy to your life and work. However, even a single individual that doesn’t fit can cause a lot of pain for you and the lab.