This stressed out dude will not bring clarity or focus to writing his grant.  Don’t be like him, it does not lead to success.

To take the stress out of writing, develop a good writing habit

Through my work with academics in grant writing, one of the most common concerns I hear is how to find the time to actually sit down and write. The days of an academic scientist (and most people, nowadays) are chock-full of an endless series of fires and tasks that need attention: hundreds of emails, questions from employees, administrative requests and paperwork, reviewing of papers, helping students, committee meetings, recruiting, and on and on.

It’s enough to make some folks want to sit in the Bahamas sipping margaritas for the rest of their natural lives.  Ok, I must admit, sipping margaritas in the Bahamas sounds appealing even without the excuse of being ridiculously overworked.  But anyway…

All of this comes on top of the bigger tasks of writing papers, writing and applying for grants, and actually doing some science! How to find the time for it all?

In many cases, the answer is this: never. I know plenty of people who work 80 hours a week, every weekend, and never take a break, and are still buried in all there is to do. (Yep, I know what that’s like – it used to be me.  But now I’m a reformed workaholic. Yay!)

Despite the brutal hours, the important work, the big work, gets put off and oft seems to never get done. When it does get done, it’s only at the very last moment, in a flurry of mad, frenetic activity to meet a pressing deadline.

I’m here to tell you (again, from experience), that isn’t a habit that is going to increase your likelihood of success (in grants or much of anything else).

Grants are kinda important (and, no, I don’t write grants using terminology like “kinda,” in case you’re worried about it).  Without grants, there is no funding, no employees, no research, and eventually no job. It must get done.

Yet we procrastinate until the last possible moment, until the deadline looms so large that we can’t ignore it anymore, much like a dump truck bearing down on us in the middle of a crosswalk.  Hurry! Get out of the way!  Write. Don’t sleep. Write. Don’t sleep.  Don’t talk to anyone.  Write. Stuff food down throat quickly. Write more!

Yep, and sometimes I’ve seen an entire grant completed in the week before the deadline (usually not good or successful grants, mind you….)

Besides being an ineffective way to write a grant, this is also incredibly stressful for everyone involved, and often results in poor writing and an unsuccessful proposal.

By contrast, the most successful proposals are usually the ones where the investigators have clarity, focus, and make regular and consistent progress towards the end goal. This goes for papers too.

The pre-requisite to focus

One of the major challenges you may find yourself facing, when presented with a complex task like writing, is simply being present, i.e. being HERE and NOW. No mentally hellish trips to the study section/review meeting. No rehashing of the argument with the collaborator yesterday.  None of that.  Just you and your word processor. Yep, it’s hard!

Presence is a pre-requisite to being an effective writer. You cannot be focussed on a complex task if you are thinking about 100 other things like how am I going to work those budget cuts into my project, Julie’s paper has been on my desk waiting for review for a week, I need to call back my colleague to discuss a potential collaboration, and by the way do we have any food in the house for dinner?

Those thoughts rob the mind of clarity, energy and focus because they put the mind somewhere else in the future or the past. I’ll say it again because it’s so gosh darn important: the mind must be present to the task at hand to be effective at writing.

Being present and focused, however, is not something we generally have been taught much about. Instead, we are usually taught the opposite – how to multi-task, how to plan, and how to analyze past events.

That means if you’re trying to implement this idea of being “focused”, you’re going to have challenges.  Your “focus muscle” is probably going to be pretty weak, much like a flabby bicep that needs a workout at the gym.

You might be surprised at how hard it is to maintain focus on one thing for an extended period of time. Or maybe you’re not surprised. I used to only be able to maintain focus for 5 minutes at a time, unless I had one of those dump-truck sized deadlines looming, that forced me into focus.

But just like the muscles in your arms or legs, regular use and practice will make them stronger. If you make a regular time to focus on writing, your muscle will get stronger until you can be far more efficient with your time (hey, how could I run a $1M/year lab this year, along with blogging, book writing, managing a business, and teaching grant writing workshops – and still have time for sleep and occasional vacations?)

I recently listened to an interview with best-selling fiction author Stuart Woods. He has written over 30 books, and regularly publishes 2 books a year. As a full-time author, you might think he spends all day writing, but you’d be wrong. Instead, he spends 2 hours a day. Every day, at the same time of the day, he sits down to do his work. He spends one hour reviewing and editing his work from the day before, and one hour writing a new chapter. The rest of the day he spends time thinking about plot lines and characters while he is doing other things, but he only spends 2 hours of concentrated work a day. He has developed a practice of being present and focused on his work every day. Because he does this every day, his focus muscle has gotten very strong and now he is very efficient during this time. Efficient enough to complete 2 novels a year, most of which go on to be best sellers!

I offer this example to illustrate 2 things.

1. You don’t have to spend a lot of time each day in order to make good progress. And
2. You do have to spend SOME time each day in order to make good progress.

Set aside a clear and designated “writing time” each day and spend this time working on your grants or papers and you’ll make more progress than you would have thought possible. Best of all, when that grant deadline comes along, you won’t have to pull all-nighters to get it done and you’ll have a clear and well thought-out proposal.

In the next post, I’ll talk about how to find the time and develop your habit of a Writing Hour each day.

p.s. get your free “backdoor to funding” report, and sign up for my upcoming webinar that shows you the three-step model underlying all successful grants, right here.

Many of you have probably heard of speed dating, a relatively new (well, 10 years old now) phenomenon where a large group of singles go to meet potential mates. You get 3-5 minutes with each potential person to decide if you like them and want to give them your phone number for a future date. Put yourself at one of these events for a minute. Since you have such a short amount of time, what would you look for to decide if you want to give your phone number to this person?

First, you’d probably go with the “vibe”. Does the person seem interesting, funny, energetic or happy? Or are they sketchy and weird? This first impression is likely to last, and if you don’t get over this hurdle you’re probably sunk, right? In fact, a 2006 poll at a speed dating event in Edinburgh, Scotland showed that 45% of women and 22% of men at a speed-dating event decided in the first 30 seconds if they would give the person a thumbs up or down. Wow! Talk about pressure…

However, this is actually not that different from your proposal. When someone is reading your proposal, the first thing they’re looking for is the answer to “why should I sit up and take notice of this proposal rather than the other 20 in my stack”. It’s the same as the speed dating event – you’ve got 20 women or men to choose from. Is this person in front of you going to make the first cut?

In the case of your proposal, the reviewer is looking for something interesting, innovative, exciting, and most importantly, relevant. If they don’t find something in the first 30 seconds that piques their interest, they’re probably not going to give you their proverbial phone number to pursue potential future funding.

Probably the most interesting thing someone can hear about is a solution to a problem they care about. Let’s break this statement down. First of all, there needs to be problem they care about. This is not just any problem. It’s a problem your audience is actively searching a solution for. You might be a few pounds overweight and know it’s a problem, but if it’s not that big of a problem compared to the rest of your problems, you’re probably not going to get all that excited about a solution. However, if your doctor tells you that you’re going to get diabetes in the next year if you don’t get your weight under control, well then it becomes a big problem you care about and will be actively looking for a solution for.

When writing a proposal you need to know

1. who is your audience that will review your grant, and

2. what problems are they actively looking for solutions for

If you don’t know these things, it’s going to be hard to engage their interest.

Once you have that figured out, you need to propose a solution to the problem they care about. Now, be careful here. Many people propose a solution by delving into the details of HOW they are going to do something, or describing in detail their underlying model and why it is better than the existing model, or building themselves up to establish why they’re the best person to provide the solution. These things are important, but remember, you only have a short time to create that spark. First, you must answer the question of “why should I read more”.

Take your proposal and distill it down to the most basic “what is this about” sentence you can. In 2 sentences or less, describe what the problem is you are proposing to solve and provide one new, interesting or innovative angle on that problem. Sounds simple, but this is something we, as scientists, often struggle with. We’re very used to providing detail, qualifying answers, questioning approaches and results. We’re generally not good at distilling and making bold predictions. Remember, the point of this speed date is not to get the bird in the bag. The point is to sufficiently engage the interest of the reader to put them in a positive frame of mind and keep reading your proposal. You can provide all those details later, but you must set the Vibe right at the beginning.

If you’re a scientist who wants to get your work recognized, then the titles you put on your talks, papers, and grants matter.

Today I had a conversation related to my bike shop that illustrates this point (and how to do it) clearly.

My business partner is doing a tele seminar series on bike touring.  She named the first interview:

“Bike touring with Ross & Laura”

I took one look at the title, and the record playing in my mind came to a screeching halt.

Here’s the problem with that title.  Few people know who Ross & Laura are.

And that leads to a deeper problem: if you don’t recognize a word or a name, it invokes no emotion for you one way or another.  That equates to “boring.”

If I say the name “Obama” I’m sure you have an immediate emotional response (whether positive or negative).

Hence, if the title was a”Bike Touring With Barak Obama” you’d probably be at least a bit curious.

The same point goes for scientific talk titles.  They don’t often use names, but they do convey concepts.

Those concepts can be dry and boring and unfamiliar to most people – in which case your title is doing nothing to draw people to your talk.

Or those concepts can be interesting, intriguing, and clearly understandable.

With our bike touring example, we might change the above to:

“Learning to live with only what you can carry on your bike, and loving it”

If you’ve had any practice at all with the English language, there is nothing unfamiliar in this sentence, and in fact it uses several words that convey emotion.

So the next time you set out to write a talk title, make sure to use words that the majority of your potential audience will understand.  Better yet if those words convey that there’s something interesting to be had here.

I’d like to hear about your best and worst talk titles!  Please leave a comment with your ideas.

Morgan

ps – Also, if you haven’t grabbed it yet, my report on the 5 critical steps to launch your career to the next level is over here at http://scifoundry.com

When we get our grant rejected, it is easy to point the blame at the reviewers. “Those
stupid reviewers, they didn’t get it.” While that approach may be emotionally satisfying and ego-stroking, it doesn’t
solve the problem. Your reviewer didn’t understand your proposal, and there is only one person to blame for that.

In her video, “The Risk of Starting a Career in Science,” Zella Zanolli talks about the frustrations of sacrificing everything for her science career, then struggling to find a good science position. This is sadly a common story. Does it mean you should give up on having a science career? As usual, Morgan provides a unique perspective on the question… watch the video to find out, and post your comments on the blog.

Much ballyhoo has been made about the “law of attraction,” especially through movies like “The Secret.” The proponents of the “law” claim that it will help you manifest your desires magically. It seems like a bit on the vodoo side for the thinking scientist. But is there a gem in the rough here, that can help you achieve greater success? Morgan examines this, and relates it to the previous episode on fear.

Morgan explores her own experience with fear and the impact it had on her life, then talks about the importance of banishing it to do truly great work.

Today I had a conversation with someone who is now working for free at a major academic center.

Yes, that’s right. This person is no longer being paid a salary – but is still working.

The center that this person is working at brings in a few hundred million per year in grant money – on top of hundreds of millions in patient care revenues, etc.

But, because the person hasn’t received a grant for a while, the university has shut off the salary.

“Sorry, no grants, no paycheck.”

“Oh, you need to eat? Food? Maybe you can eat agar left over from the latest experiment while you wait for three months to see if you’re graced by the roll of the NIH grant dice.”

“By the way, we still expect you to teach that course next fall for all the med students, but we don’t have any money for your salary to do that – you’ll have to milk the NIH for that.”

This is taking things too far.

I’m calling a spade a spade – and this is the worst kind.

Universities seem to have gotten this notion that this is a “business” and that all their scientists are “businesspeople”. This is especially true in academic medicine.

But I’ve got news for the administrators who think they are being so smart by running things “like a business:”

Yes, in a business, salary can go to zero if you’re not “productive” enough. No difference here.

But, in a business, salary can go to millions or billions if you’re extremely productive.
BIG difference here. In a business, there’s huge upside potential. In an academic job?
Not so much, these days.

Basically, what the university is doing to this person (and many are doing to many people) is saying: you’re taking all the risk on the downside, but you get none of the upside potential.

You get no grants, you get no salary.
You get millions of dollars in grants, and you get no extra salary*.

It’s not the way to motivate people, folks. At least not the really smart and really capable people. They will see right through the ruse (why do you think I own two businesses? I don’t want to miss out on the upside potential of my own particular skills and talents).

I’m happy to take on the risk of my salary going to zero – as long as the university is happy to pay me at least 30% of the total grant revenue I bring in each year. (ummmm errrr maybe I shouldn’t be giving them any ideas about “businessifying” academia even more)

It is saddening to me that the academy has gotten to this point. I understand that everyone has big budget pressures to deal with. I try to be sympathetic about that. But the question that admins should be asking themselves are, “what are the long-term ramifications of my budget cutting decisions?”

The long term ramifications of putting people in a situation where there is only downside but no upside is low morale, and a flight of talent.

When the talent flees, the revenue will drop.
When the revenue drops, more budgets get cut.

And things go into a death spiral.

That’s not the way to run a business, folks. Most businesses who go into that kind of death spiral die (or get bailed out by the government).

Universities: treat your scientists (and all your people) well! You should be treating them like kings and queens, not like peons. These are the people that make your university great – and bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in grants.

Universities administrators that “get this” will be leading successful institutions into the future.

Having good mentoring is vital to move forward in a science career. Today’s careers are fraught with complexities that didn’t previously exist, and navigating through those can be daunting without good advice. However, if you seek out mentors who are too close to the “outcome of the experiment” (that would be you and your career), you are risking problems.

Some departments in some universities assign a mentor to their young faculty. But it is important to be careful what you reveal and don’t reveal to that mentor.

Because, often, that same mentor is going to be sitting on the committee that reviews your tenure/promotions.
Say you’re really struggling with your writing. Say you go to your departmental mentor about that, and they ask for some examples of your writing. Say your examples are not exactly stellar – in fact, your writing could use some real work.
And let’s say you improve your writing substantially in the subsequent years.

The question is, will your mentor be able to “forget” their first impressions of your rather poor writing capabilities?
Perhaps – if that’s the only struggle they see, and you clearly overcame it.

But what if you found a different solution – say, hiring a great science writer in your lab. This solves the problem of being able to produce great written papers and proposals – but it won’t overcome your mentor’s impression of you as a writer. They won’t see the improvement. How will that color their review of your tenure package (or other promotion) if they know that you are getting help on all your writing?

That’s just one example. Say you’re struggling with drinking a bit too much alcohol. Or struggling with family/work balance. Or etc.

You want to be able to ask questions about how to deal with those things. Because in an academic science career, there are many challenging issues to address. But if your mentor learns too much about you, it could harm your chances when it comes to decision time.

It depends on the mentor, of course. Some will see all that stuff and be un phased by it, only looking at who you’ve become, not who you were.

But others won’t forget. They’ll form an impression of you that could carry into the future decisions that affect your career.

When I was starting out, I read in a book on faculty careers that one should seek out a mentor outside of one’s department. I didn’t follow that advice, until about five years into my career. Finally, when I did, it was a breath of fresh air. I had someone that I could talk to openly about some of the challenges I was facing – without worrying about “will this impact my promotion?”

The bottom line is: 1) seek out mentoring, always – at whatever stage of your career you’re at. The more and better mentoring you get, the better and more effective person you’ll be, and 2) find mentoring that is outside of your immediate department or unit (better yet if outside of your university).

If you don’t buy my argument from Episode V about the idea that to be truly successful, you need to think “proactive” rather than “reactive”, let’s consider one more idea from Covey’s book.

At the beginning he talks about “production” (P) versus “production capacity” (PC).

Let’s use the analogy of an automobile. The product (P) of an automobile is high speed movement – traveling miles quickly.

The production capacity (PC) of the automobile is how much mileage it will generate over its lifespan.

Now, if you take the car out, floor the gas pedal and slam on the brakes all the time, you get a lot of short term production. If you push it hard without maintaining it, you are producing lots of P – for a while.

But during that time, the PC is dwindling steadily. Soon, the car won’t start and the engine needs a rebuild.

You’ve traded short term excessive production ℗ for a longer term drop in production capacity (PC).

As Covey points out, humans work exactly the same way. If you hit that gas pedal too hard (i.e. feeling “forced” by circumstances to work 70+ hours per week), the PC will diminish. Students burn out. Lab techs get frustrated. Professors get stressed out and give themselves health problems that are attendant with undue stress.

There must be a P/PC balance in everything. Being proactive is one component of maintaining that balance. It requires thinking about the balance ahead of time, and rather than just reacting to whatever comes along (or the emotional responses to whatever comes along), making a rational decision ahead of time.