You never know what kind of feedback you will get when you go through an internal review. The process is especially nerve-racking when it happens just a few weeks before an important presentation to the client, on a complex project, and when one reviewer is a high-ranking researcher who has not been involved in the project.
We went through our slides slowly but largely without interruption, as the Senior Economist silently nodded and took notes. As we wrapped up, we fielded mostly predictable questions and comments from others in the room. Some we knew were totally off-base. Smile, nod, and take notes that you’ll ignore later. Eventually we asked the Senior Economist for his thoughts.
He spoke for 7 or 8 minutes straight, softly and slowly, raising issues and opportunities, pointing out potential gaps in his and our understanding, defining detailed short- and long-term options for us to edit our work, and not asking for an immediate reply on any of it.
It would be an understatement to say that I was impressed. I made a mental note to be this kind of reviewer, to be this kind of researcher. I also made a note to stop by the office of the Senior Economist for a chat. This is what I wanted to be when I grew up at this job.
The Follow Up Meeting
The main thing I remember from the subsequent one-on-one meeting was the Senior Economist’s quote, and I remember it only vaguely. It was something like:
“there are people who move rocks and people who don’t.”
I was asking what I should work on. He was telling me it didn’t matter.
First of all, this is a horrifying thing to hear if you have impostor syndrome. All young researchers have impostor syndrome. OK, that’s not true. There are also quite confident young researchers. These are the ones you probably avoid like the plague given half a chance. But also…
There are few things in life I have found as wrong as the sentiment expressed by the Senior Economist.
Let’s take school as an example. I had a miserable first year of graduate school. I couldn’t keep up in Stochastic Processes I or II. The IEOR professors at Berkeley wanted nothing to do with me.
It all turned around after that first year. I had a perfect 4.0 GPA including in several IEOR courses about stochastic processes. I was named Student of the Year one year. Yadda yadda yadda. Thank you for indulging me.
What changed? I got scared and started to work a little harder. The French students’ extensive prior training in Probability theory became less of a factor in my GPA. I found an advisor I meshed with. I came out of the closet. A lot of things changed.
I later taught students that did great in my class but terrible in other classes. And vice-versa.
I had a side hustle gig with the LA Dodgers for a few months in 2018. That was fun! I was pretty bad at that job. I wish I knew then what I know now. I would have been better.
I have written wonderful and mediocre reviews, to people I knew or later realized weren’t all that wonderful or mediocre. (Side note: be kind. You don’t regret being too kind.)
If you’ve been a researcher for any length of time, you’ll have gotten wonderful and terrible reviews back on the same piece of work.
I saw one tech blog where the author claimed that new hires are thought of as geniuses for the 6 months after they are hired and idiots for the next 6 months. Yes! And, also, sometimes the reverse.
I used to think I could get along with anyone and make almost any situation work. I was able to make close friends out of all different sorts of people. I was able to survive, as a student or visitor, in all sorts of different environments.
Now I know that I will not be outstanding as an employee in all sorts of work environments, working with all sorts of people. I still always try my hardest. And, in the right environment and working with the right people, yea, I will be outstanding. I wish I had something more profound to say. Maybe in the future I will.
Leave a Reply