Self-Awareness

Many disciplines outside science and medicine have had considerable success embracing the use of validated tools to identify candidates who are a good match for a particular position in a specific work environment [Reference Verquer, Beehr and Wagner4]. More recently, determination of surgical training applicants’ personal talents and behavioral styles has been undertaken with considerable success using the TriMetrix Personal Talent Report (Target Training International Ltd, Scottsdale, AZ, USA), with the goal of selecting more appropriate candidates for a specific surgical training program [Reference Bell5]. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has also been shown to delineate individual characteristics associated with choice of medical subspecialty and has been used in specific faculty development and leadership programs in an effort to enhance self-awareness/evaluation, thereby enabling individuals to identify preferences and optimally apply their respective talents more successfully [Reference Stilwell6, Reference Katz, Lamperti and Gaughan7]. These same types of programs have also begun to incorporate resilience training. Similarly, 360° feedback has provided useful and impactful outcomes in the workplace and in medical training programs for a considerable period of time [Reference Chandler8]. However, these tools have not been universally adapted for emerging clinical translational investigators to provide objective and constructive feedback needed for their development.

Selecting the Right Topic and Securing Funding

We anticipate that junior investigators have broadly identified their area of research interest but are often challenged with moving these interests into a research program. Many junior investigators are never trained to critically review the relevant literature. Without this grounding in their field, it is difficult to arrive at novel and creative questions that are both answerable and fundable. An additional challenge is “finding the data” (eg, literature, publically available databases, local and national clinical data repositories, digital and internet resources). While some clinical and translational science degree programs have incorporated “finding the data” in their didactic courses, investigators who are not formally trained rarely get exposed to this in career development programs.

Intensive grant writing courses or workshops can also assist junior investigators in this particular domain for career success. Such courses work best when instructors are faculty members particularly skilled in facilitating idea development and reviewing grants. Meeting weekly, these courses can progress through each part of a typical grant, including specific aims, background, innovation, approach, limitations, and qualifications of investigative team. At the University of Pittsburgh, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and University of Pennsylvania, trainees work in small groups (no larger than 6–8 trainees and 1 instructor), organized broadly by type of research. For example, groups could be organized by T1 translational research, health services research, clinical trials, and so forth. Following some didactic training on each part of the grant, trainees work intensively between group sessions to write the relevant part of their own grant before submitting it to the group for peer feedback. Following feedback, trainees rewrite the section and resubmit. This iterative process gives them a chance to think critically about their proposed project and justify their approach. Trainees refine their questions until they are appropriately articulated and focused, and they hone their grantsmanship as well as their written communication skills.

For many junior investigators, instruction on medical writing can be beneficial. Trainees need to learn: how to find their own effective writing process; how to write in appropriate styles and adapt to one’s audience; the components of typical research reports; appropriate responses to reviewers; and expectations for peer reviewing. Practicing writing and receiving intensive, specific, and formative feedback about their own writing allows junior investigators to establish early effective writing habits, which ought to translate into productivity later in their careers.

Getting Adequate Support

Junior investigators need a broad range of support to develop their research interests into funded research projects and ultimately published manuscripts. Once a junior investigator has begun to outline a research project, mentors with relevant expertise can be instrumental in helping the investigator answer his or her research questions. However, an effective mentoring team requires more than a collection of relevant content experts. Career development program leaders can facilitate the creation of mentoring teams by providing knowledge of both local and national colleagues who have a history of effective mentoring. Program leaders can make introductions where necessary, provide oversight to ensure that the full mentoring team meets regularly, and intervene to assist with challenges or conflicts that occur.

Mentee training can also be helpful for junior investigators who may not realize the extent to which they ought to steer and manage their team of mentors. Mentees need to learn to: develop agendas, follow up with individuals after meetings, keep track of questions and progress between meetings, keep their career and research goals at the center of the team’s efforts, and manage their mentors’ different mentoring styles. They may also need assistance in accepting contradictory feedback from multiple mentors and deciding on their own approach toward mentors who cannot agree on the best course of action.

Mentors, particularly faculty with many years of experience, may have established their mentoring techniques and styles and be reticent to develop mentoring skills further or experiment with new techniques. However, given the multiple challenges to effective mentoring, senior mentors can benefit from mentor training. A mentor training program, such as the one found to be effective by investigators at the University of Wisconsin-Madison [Reference Pfund9], can introduce mentors to alternative ways to approach common mentoring problems, provide new perspectives and concepts for consideration, offer alternative opinions and courses of actions suggested by peers, and serve as a safe and confidential space to discuss current mentoring challenges. Being mindful of mentoring skills allows mentors to be intentional about specific aspects of mentoring that have been shown to help but that may have been given less attention by mentors previously, such as opening a mentor’s network to the mentee, adapting mentoring style to each mentee, respecting each mentee’s individual career goals, and providing resources, where possible, to support mentees.

Junior investigators need support from their department in concert with their mentors. Too often, junior faculty members are asked to serve on time-demanding committees or to pick up additional clinical time, such as urgent care. Department chairs need to protect junior investigators from these commitments; it can be difficult for someone who is junior to deny the request of a more senior person. If the department chair does not ensure that the junior investigator’s research time is protected, and that undue demands are not imposed, then it will be impossible for that junior faculty member to be an investigator. One cannot build a research career on nights and weekends.

Working with Others

Junior investigators need to be able to function as part of multidisciplinary teams, as well as to be able to lead teams in pursuit of their own research agenda. Overcoming multiple disciplinary differences is critical, which may include the customs and expectations of working together, the language of research, epistemologies, and methodologies. Career development programs can train investigators to work patiently through problems until they arrive at a mutual understanding, and to present issues in a clear manner that is free of disciplinary jargon.

Many of the skills that are instrumental for highly functioning multidisciplinary teams are also helpful when leading and managing one’s own research team. Business schools have long taught leadership and management skills, but this expertise does not consistently parlay into other parts of universities where clinical and translational investigators may be working. A formal, didactic program can be followed to ensure a thorough tutelage in the key aspects of leadership and management. If time and/or tuition costs present a barrier to this approach, however, workshops can also provide some useful training to investigators. Topics that are particularly relevant include strategic planning of one’s research agenda, motivating others, effective listening, communication skills, managing conflict, personnel management, and budgeting. In workshops or courses, investigators may find it helpful to discuss cases in small groups, complete an assignment that applies something to their own research group, and then report back to the group or class; this process results in an iterative approach to trying out and refining skills.

The acquisition of networking skills is critical to the process of working with others in an optimal way, and also serves to expand further opportunities for mentorship in complementary areas of relevance to one’s ongoing research. KL2 alumni highlighted networking as a critically important skill associated with, or impeding, successful transition to independence [Reference Robinson3]. Formal curricular components and/or workshops focusing on the development of this informative ability are sorely needed as a key component of career development programs.

Managing Yourself, Your Career, and Your Demands

Junior investigators commonly experience overwhelming demands on their time, both personally and professionally. It is critical that they learn early in a career to manage their time and discover how they work most efficiently and effectively. Career development programs can offer workshops with productivity tips, suggestions to aid efficiency, and ideas to prompt junior investigators to develop habits that will allow them to manage their time better. However, it may be more helpful if mentors make suggestions and intentionally role model their time management techniques. Mentors can shield mentees from burdensome service duties at this point in their careers and help mentees prioritize work appropriately.

Particularly helpful is the 2×2 table that distinguishes urgent from important work (Fig. 1). Junior investigators often find that they spend significant amounts of time on tasks that contribute little toward their main career goal. As part of a department or campus community, there are tasks that must be completed to make an individual faculty member a “good citizen” on their campus. However, those who complete such tasks well and without complaint, frequently find themselves unduly burdened by more such work, preventing them from focusing on their research. These tasks fall into the high-urgency/low-importance (to one’s career) category because they frequently have deadlines but contribute little to career progress. Other tasks, such as requests from a department chair or a funding agency need to be completed immediately. These are highly urgent and highly important to one’s career and must be prioritized. Unfortunately, there are frequently few deadlines in research, making one’s own work low on the urgency scale but undeniably high on the importance scale. Junior investigators need permission and encouragement from mentors, program directors, and administrators to put their own needs first and manage their time successfully.

Fig. 1 Prioritization of important work over urgent work.

The second part training investigators to manage themselves is to help them learn their own working style. Training programs could use standardized tests that offer some insight into personal styles such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. These tests can also provide trainees with networks of similar scholars so they can develop relatedness with colleagues. By understanding their own strengths and weaknesses, tendencies, areas of difficulty, and effective habits that are practiced without thought, trainees can more effectively manage themselves. For example, if a trainee understands that he or she is more productive around 5 am, then it is important to organize the day to allow for an early awakening and some work before the hectic matters of the day evolve. Also, once investigators understand how they communicate, they can better facilitate effective communication and go some way to maintaining collegial relations.

Finally, developing effective time management skills can significantly benefit an investigator throughout his or her career. There are several effective books that teach time management skills, such as Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity [Reference Allen10]. For example, although a common practice, time management experts agree you should not start your day with e-mail [Reference Kosner11]. Instead, do the hardest work of the day, such as writing a section of your grant. Doing the hardest work before the brain becomes cluttered with urgent and unimportant issues facilitates superior work and leads to better productivity. Junior investigators need to learn to block time to write and to keep that time sacred, create internal deadlines and share these with mentors so that they cannot easily be dropped, and delegate tasks when appropriate.