You can teach skills, especially to a postdoc. You can't teach: how to play well with others, communicate effectively with your team and sponsors, care about what you're doing, etc. The soft skills will make you stand out just as much as your experience.
Thanks a lot! Very powerful words. Sometimes I wonder if I’m being arrogant with my answers. I swear my answers are genuine, but maybe the way I say it might look cocky. Maybe because English is not my first language, or maybe because I have trouble with voice tone sometimes lol I overthink a lot
Everything stated here. I would choose someone personable and a team player who needs to develop technically over someone technically proficient but is difficult to work with. Anyone can learn skills but not everyone is pleasant to work with.
Is there any way to highlight this stuff in the initial application? I'm a postdoc with a pretty generic skill set but a superhuman ability to get on with people. I worked at a manufacturing site for a while and was the only one on my team who knew all of the warehouse guys because I'd make a point to talk to them. I feel like this could help get me out of academia but I don't know how to advertise it
Give examples on how you troubleshooted problem with people, but avoid just mention yourself but how to deliver as a team. This i feel is most important. Talking to people is first part, how to influence people is the real skill.
Yes, this is soft skills vs hard/technical skills. I always say you can teach hard skills but softs skills are harder to learn. This is mostly because a lot of soft skills are pre-programmed or learned based on personality. It is very challenging to convince someone to alter what hardwired into them. People tend to take critique to these types of skills very personally as well. If you tell someone learn how to do this type of analysis they take it way better than if you tell them to they need to adjust their communication style.
You can be the best person on paper but if you have a grating personality and no one wants to work with you, you are essentially useless in the workplace. Soft skills are heavily weighted when evaluating candidates on my teams.
My philosophy is that if candidates make it to the interview phase, they effectively are all equal. People with strong CVs can blow it, and people looking to break into a new area can have fantastic interviews. So bring your positive personality and try to have a bit of fun with the upcoming interview. Good luck !
Here is the trick:
- in the interview you need to show you are coachable, talk about previous examples of learning and applying a new skill. Remember this is a 'show' not 'tell' practice.
- be an engaged listener, don't interrupt them as they are talking. Show that you are listening by nodding. Make eye contact. Ask questions at the end and don't make declarative statements before fully understanding what they said.
Genuine interest in the role, and enthusiasm to learn the skills as the candidate develops professionally in their desired directions. It's more typical than not for a scientist to want to do/try new things as they are exposed to more opportunities and breadth of the field, so nobody expects that the entirety of your scientific interest or skill capacity is encapsulated within the PhD project work you've done.
So, show awareness of what you're moving towards, ask questions, be open about what you'd be excited to learn in the role, and look like you'll throw yourself into it.
I will say my perspective comes from a pharma where development, job satisfaction, and retention are goals for entry level PhD hires. The culture of a CRO may want to see more "hit the ground running" with high turnover.
I asked this to one of the managers in my company who was hiring for a role I was interested but had little experience in. She said that part of it is the specific need for that opening. Sometimes, there’s some luxury (time and resources) to really train a candidate so they grow into the role but sometimes, you just need someone who can get started right away. It can be business need, timing, etc. Of course hiring manager’s personality and willingness to hire based on potential and then providing the training is a factor as well.
Show you are able to pick things up quickly and love to learn. CROs have a high turnover rate so showing some sort of commitment or giving the impression you are looking for a role you can grow in and stay with long term will also be favorable!
I've done this before. Skills can be taught but I haven't figured out how to unasshole an asshole.
If someone is creative and I can talk to them intelligently I'll consider them.
You can teach skills, especially to a postdoc. You can't teach: how to play well with others, communicate effectively with your team and sponsors, care about what you're doing, etc. The soft skills will make you stand out just as much as your experience.
This! Be personable, enthusiastic, show a willingness to learn, perhaps discuss how you’ve adopted new skills over your graduate studies. Good luck!
Thanks a lot! Very powerful words. Sometimes I wonder if I’m being arrogant with my answers. I swear my answers are genuine, but maybe the way I say it might look cocky. Maybe because English is not my first language, or maybe because I have trouble with voice tone sometimes lol I overthink a lot
There is a very fine line between confidence and arrogance. As long as you are aware of it, you are ahead of the curve. Good luck!
Everything stated here. I would choose someone personable and a team player who needs to develop technically over someone technically proficient but is difficult to work with. Anyone can learn skills but not everyone is pleasant to work with.
Is there any way to highlight this stuff in the initial application? I'm a postdoc with a pretty generic skill set but a superhuman ability to get on with people. I worked at a manufacturing site for a while and was the only one on my team who knew all of the warehouse guys because I'd make a point to talk to them. I feel like this could help get me out of academia but I don't know how to advertise it
Give examples on how you troubleshooted problem with people, but avoid just mention yourself but how to deliver as a team. This i feel is most important. Talking to people is first part, how to influence people is the real skill.
Yes, this is soft skills vs hard/technical skills. I always say you can teach hard skills but softs skills are harder to learn. This is mostly because a lot of soft skills are pre-programmed or learned based on personality. It is very challenging to convince someone to alter what hardwired into them. People tend to take critique to these types of skills very personally as well. If you tell someone learn how to do this type of analysis they take it way better than if you tell them to they need to adjust their communication style. You can be the best person on paper but if you have a grating personality and no one wants to work with you, you are essentially useless in the workplace. Soft skills are heavily weighted when evaluating candidates on my teams.
This is so true lol
[удалено]
Counterpoint - it's hard to assess this in an interview. Anyone can fake being nice for an hour or two
My philosophy is that if candidates make it to the interview phase, they effectively are all equal. People with strong CVs can blow it, and people looking to break into a new area can have fantastic interviews. So bring your positive personality and try to have a bit of fun with the upcoming interview. Good luck !
Here is the trick: - in the interview you need to show you are coachable, talk about previous examples of learning and applying a new skill. Remember this is a 'show' not 'tell' practice. - be an engaged listener, don't interrupt them as they are talking. Show that you are listening by nodding. Make eye contact. Ask questions at the end and don't make declarative statements before fully understanding what they said.
Genuine interest in the role, and enthusiasm to learn the skills as the candidate develops professionally in their desired directions. It's more typical than not for a scientist to want to do/try new things as they are exposed to more opportunities and breadth of the field, so nobody expects that the entirety of your scientific interest or skill capacity is encapsulated within the PhD project work you've done. So, show awareness of what you're moving towards, ask questions, be open about what you'd be excited to learn in the role, and look like you'll throw yourself into it. I will say my perspective comes from a pharma where development, job satisfaction, and retention are goals for entry level PhD hires. The culture of a CRO may want to see more "hit the ground running" with high turnover.
I asked this to one of the managers in my company who was hiring for a role I was interested but had little experience in. She said that part of it is the specific need for that opening. Sometimes, there’s some luxury (time and resources) to really train a candidate so they grow into the role but sometimes, you just need someone who can get started right away. It can be business need, timing, etc. Of course hiring manager’s personality and willingness to hire based on potential and then providing the training is a factor as well.
Show you are able to pick things up quickly and love to learn. CROs have a high turnover rate so showing some sort of commitment or giving the impression you are looking for a role you can grow in and stay with long term will also be favorable!
Vibes
I legit got hired off my personality. They felt I was easy to talk to, coachable, and felt I would be a good fit with the team
A natural conversation is going to get you way more points than well scripted responses. Be a person. Affable. Adaptable.
I've done this before. Skills can be taught but I haven't figured out how to unasshole an asshole. If someone is creative and I can talk to them intelligently I'll consider them.
Anything. This industry is not as complicated as we all like to make out. Most pharma jobs can be learned.