I played ‘follow the leader’ a long time ago as I suspect we all did. Since then I’ve given the followers not a single thought, so I very much enjoyed a recent session in my Leadership module (Edinburgh Napier online MBA) where they were discussed.
What we are talking about here are followers in the context of leadership, and how they both interact in what is termed ‘leader-member exchange’ theory (LMX). This idea was developed in the 1970’s and a more detailed overview of its history and application can be found here in a paper by Green and Uhl-Bien (1995).
So we spend a lot of time thinking about leadership, and we may spend less time thinking about the perspective of those in our teams and their relationship with us. The LMX theory helps us understand these dynamics, and also why we might act in certain ways with our own leaders. We’ve all experienced rebels in the team, formation of a clique (‘in-group’) who have a close relationship with the leader, and I’m sure we’ve all experienced being more marginalised (‘out-group’). These are all explained by the theory.
I think what is interesting is the groups perceptions of each other, and I’m sure these resonate with us; in one study the in-group perceived the outs as “incompetent, silent and introvert” whereas the outs viewed the ins as “responsible, competent and hardworking” (Singh and Rukta 2018). So in any of our roles as team members or leaders, it could be useful to reflect on the dynamics and relationships that are playing out, and how we can go about working more effectively.
From my brief delve into this, many of the solutions boil down to increasing openness and trust within a group, sharing challenges and responsibilities, and setting a more level playing field generally. I think you naturally see more of this in work places today where structures are less hierarchical and teams might be organised around projects rather than departments, and with the dispersal of the strong power dynamics that are built-into hierarchies naturally gives rise to more open and sharing cultures.
It reminds me a little of open education practices, and that learning was richer when the power relationship (teacher-learner) was taken away and both groups co-produced the teaching learning experience. I think that’s where the magic really happened. The same is desirable in leading others where you’d hope that opportunities are equally delegated, people’s voices are equally heard (please pay attention to your introverts), and team members feel empowered to lead.
One limitation of the theory and its derivatives is it focuses on the face-to-face, and rather like online learning, it is assumed that everything merrily transfers to remote or digital working. Extra sets of guidelines, contracts between teams (whether they are working on business projects or are learning together), and taking time to build relationships are all an important start.
Good leaders need to guide and shine the light on the path ahead, but they should also understand the dynamics between themselves and their teams, to fully allow each and every one to do their awesome stuff. We should be less obsessed with leadership and focus on what makes for happy, fruitful relationships.
Keywords to look up: LMX theory (leader-member exchange) TMX theory (team-member exchange) Followers
References: Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247.
Singh, J., & Rukta, N. (2018). Attitude of In and Out-Group Employees and Leader Member Exchange. International Journal of Engineering Technology Science and Research, 5(3), 441–445.
Having a fantastic time on my MBA with Edinburgh Napier, and this week we’ve been discussing authentic and sustainable leadership. I got to thinking how within organisations, sustainability is more often applied to supply chains, but I could find little about how we can develop our research departments, or R&D more generally in a sustainable manner.
I found this paper by Gayle Avery and Harald Bergsteiner a useful start. It talks about different modes of sustainable leadership – the Honeybee or the Locust. The Honeybee representing practices that are more collegiate and open, and the Locust perhaps more traditional and hierarchical. I think this can be applied to R&D as a starting point to consider elements and practices that are sustainable – or not – within organisations.
Why is this important to me?
R&D is cost – labour- and resource intensive and therefore likely to have a significant impact. R&D investment can be anywhere up to 10% of turnover, and for big industry therefore several £ million per year.
My research partnerships at Pukka Herbs span 20+ universities, and I’d like to know the impact of them on the ‘triple bottom line ‘ Planet, People and Profit.
I’ve had a go at applying some of my research approaches to Gayle and Harald’s framework by looking at ‘foundation elements’ which I prefer to call goals.
Proactive in recruiting women scientists and from diverse student bodies (Inclusive language in adverts, sharing to diverse groups)
I feel this is being achieved with students from around the globe, and from diverse background. I could always do more
Proactive in seeking diverse organisations (e.g. not from top university Mission groups); proactive in working globally where possible
Achievable for many projects, but not where specialist knowledge or techniques are required. For commissioning labs, it isn’t always easy to gain the information to make this judgment. Ease of shipping of herbs/products for testing also a determining factor
All students are supported to speak at conferences and publish (will cover registration fees, publishing fees if required); introducing science communications training in 2021
This has been a great success and enables students to participate where they would not have university support. As we grow, I’ll probably need to set some parameters
Valuing students and partnerships
Valuing the partnership and the people; supporting them where possible with wellbeing goodies and giving access to our online learning
We are transparent about our mission and longer-term goals, and that our relationships aren’t just about commissioning research
This is paying dividends with relationships now deepening with some partners
Sharing our company vision
All students/partners are introduced to Pukka’s philosophy and foundations; students company inductions
Scope for deeper discussions how some of these elements can be embedded more within university research teams; quite a superficial stance for now
But this isn’t quite what I’m looking for
There are also higher-level goals that are useful, particularly when reflecting on my approach to knowledge exchange and openness:
From Day 1 our Pukka Research adopted Open Science approaches to be transparent and encourage knowledge sharing and accessibility
Probably one of our strengths given my background in Open Education; interesting that society and science bodies now all call for this; we publish under open licenses where possible and share all our data and workings openly for our own research; we need to bring partners on board!
But what I’m looking for now, is more of a technical framework to help me think about:
Use of plastic materials in laboratories #PlasticFree
Resources and consumables
More sustainable methods such as in silico modelling (computer modelling, big data)
I’m so thankful to the #FemEdTech community making this call to Journal Editors and Editorial Boards to support women in publishing at this time. This was in response to the observation that there is a drop in submissions from women contributing to academic journals at the time of the COVID-19 crisis, and that women…
“Take on more of the emotional labour of caring and pastoral support, labour that is rarely acknowledged or rewarded in the same way as research outputs and publications“.
My observation from recent experience is that the academic publishing could do an awful lot to help everyone by making the process more accessible and efficient. My main message is – submitting to journals is a horrendous experience. (Oh. I’m not in academia by the way, but I need to publish as part of my job). I can’t imagine the pressure that female academics and those with caring responsibilities must be feeling right now trying to home work pandemic work.
Assumed level of experience and technical support
I’m not part of a university of big research centre. I have no support to understand open access, how to navigate publishing systems and how to overcome the many technical hurdles. I’m slightly staggered at the stressfulness of the process, and assumed luxury of time and that technical support must be available to everyone.
Why no standard procedure?
Why isn’t there standard guidance for authors? I can understand Publishers wanting to maintain their own identities but why on earth when you’ve gone to the trouble of producing and openly sharing 4 sets of data, does one Publisher wish the open datasets to be listed at the end and the other wishes to include them as references? I couldn’t get that to work through my reference manager and spent time having to reformat 110 references. (Estimated 4 hours).
Why no standard citations and referencing?
It is just ludicrous that each Publisher has its own preferences and conventions. Why do I have to understand instructions on how to go into Mendeley and code a change of a round bracket into a square one? I couldn’t believe the time it took to go in and do extra coding, looking for the YouTube tutorials, and then finally succeeding. Then reference manager citations and reference lists always have to be double or triple checked. Numbered reference systems are prone to mistakes as you aren’t able to easily visualise what reference should go where. Recoding, reformatting and rechecking reference lists endless times? I always appreciated why students found referencing so stressful. (Estimated 3 hours).
Rapid article turn around or “I cannot be arsed reading your abstract’?
I submitted a meta-review (which is the type of research you do where several systematic reviews exist on a subject) to two journals. This research has taken me and colleagues nearly two years. It is extensive. Detailed. Precise. Four datasets. Two Editors just responded with the identical comment “why didn’t you do a systematic review?” My answer should have been “why didn’t you read my cover letter and abstract explaining why that is inappropriate and why we did the research in the first place?” I’m quite perturbed as to why separate journals made the same feedback, both failing to have read the rationale for the article or covering letter. Is there a central database of contaminated and unwanted articles?
And cover letters. Why?
This was a new thing for me entirely. Even the guidance for writing the covering letter is quite an extensive list of points to consider. Is there some cryptic clue that you need to include? I remember a bunch of us writing our PhDs would include a rude word in the middle of the dissertation just to show examiners didn’t read that thoroughly. And they didn’t. Placing basic information in the letter is clearly not getting through. I concluded these were a complete waste of time. (Estimated time 1 hour per submission).
And the submission process.
Admittedly on submitting to one journal I must have been exhausted at the end of a long Friday and the kindly Editor wrote back with 7 things I had missed – including uploading Figures, re-arranging the order of authors, placing the declarations before the acknowledgements, including my shoe size, and including an additionally signed checklist buried within the lists of instructions. And then the joy of creating an account. I can fully understand the need to create an account to submit to the online system. But for Elsevier this took ages and after trying two use two of my email addresses, I ended up setting up a completely new email address in order to create an account so that my Elsevier account could connect with EVISE. Why? (Estimated time 2 hours).
And recommending reviewers?
I can’t quite get my head around this one. I simply listed people I knew. This can’t make for a robust process surely? Clearly people who are part of large research teams can ask for reviewers from other large research teams. Probably an area where male researchers are quite advantaged from having access to stronger networks. The fact that you are required to submit reviewers shows how overburdened the system is I guess. (Scurrying round the internet for emails and addresses, 30 minutes).
This is such an important point at this time, but I might, add at all times. Might this be the time for some permanent changes? Women always have to over-prove themselves to compete for opportunities and promotions?
Of professors, 26% were female in 2017/18. This has increased by one percentage point year on year since 2013/14.
Academic staff employed on other senior academic contracts comprised 36% females in 2017/18. This has gradually increased from 33% in 2013/14. (Hesa.ac.uk).
Females also tend to be part-time and presumably juggling many different personal and professional activities.
Female staff accounted for 48% of full-time staff and 67% of part-time staff in 2017/18. (Hesa.ac.uk).
Females are less likely to be reinforced by the presence of each other in publishing communities.
Females Are First Authors, Sole Authors, and Reviewers of Entomology Publications Significantly Less Often Than Males. (Academic.oup.com).
We end up being told that our lack of success equates to a lack of confidence, forgetting this is reinforced at an early age by teachers who support boy’s and penalise girl’s behaviour. At secondary school my headteacher used to call me ‘granite faced’ because I kept a stern face and tried not to cry – if I was a boy I”d probably have been called strong and resilient:
“Unsurprisingly girls in general get ‘progressively more silent in class and experience an associated drop in self-esteem’ ”
From Caroline Criado-Perez “Do It Like A Woman” quoting The Equality Illusion by Kat Banyar in 2003, p261
There is a management phrase – “don’t be a busy fool”. The publishing industry and the entire academic structure assumes people have all the time in the world. We surely should all be able to contribute and be part of a system that freely exchanges knowledge for the betterment of human kind. And our careers shouldn’t depend on it.
It seems that if you are a researcher based in industry these days, you are in a tricky space. You may have spent a career contributing to research that you may have believed to be valuable, but that may not be how others see you?
Having transversed from academia to industry (7 years), to academia (15 years) and back to industry (going on 2 years), I can see the benefits and limits of being a researcher in academia and industry from both sides. What I think is disappointing, is the closing down of conversations that I’ve experienced recently. That isn’t just disappointing; I think it is worrying from the perspectives of having a good old fashioned healthy debate.
But industry is biased!
I completely understand that published articles that are sponsored by industry are problematic – and have concluded such in a poster recently the need for more non-commercial research in some areas for a more balanced evaluation of available evidence. The pharmaceutical industry has withheld important results in the past with actions that are morally questionable. Publication bias from commercially-sponsored research is higher than that funded by other means.
I’d would add that publishing is problematic full stop. Journal editorial boards have favoured the publishing of positive results for far too long, and I once myself tried to publish negative findings on the use of fish oils on inflammatory bowel disease, and had a paper regarded ‘not novel’ enough. Two years of postdoctoral research was unpublishable.
Authors declare conflicts of interest which helps readers weigh-up the limitations and potential biases of any paper, although I also know of academic researchers on systematic reviews who have not fully declared their funding origins on published articles. The system is a mess.
To dismiss all industrial research as biased and unworthy is a worry; we would encourage our students to be healthily critical and weigh up the evidence before them, not dismiss all research outputs at point blank range.
So why are industrial partnerships encouraged?
Most governments encourage university – industry partnerships. The UKRI benefits from co-investment from industry, and along with other philanthropic and charity partners; this totalled around £500 million in 2019 for universities. I don’t see universities turning the money away because it was unscrupulously derived from company profits. A university nearby to me didn’t think twice at trying to hose an event for military arms dealers on their campus.
The value of these partnerships of course is in the sharing of expertise, resources and providing university students with career-enhancing and enriching opportunities. The Office for Students in 2018 endorsed the need to “encourage even greater collaboration between universities and business” … for the benefit of student employability.
How about academic bias?
While I’m here, and having worked in public and private sector, I would suggest academia is not perfect either. Academics are pressured by the system to aim for high impact journals and anser the question “are you REF-able” at interviews, and the professional reward structures perpetuate this. Many have argued the system is not fit for purpose. I’ve also seen it written that the net societal impact of university research funding and the advancements to humanity are much slower than one would expect.
Let’s not go into retractions, plagiarism and the fact that a great chunk of research in some academic subjects is not reproducible anyway.
So I’m not having a go – I’m just saying that academic research structures aren’t perfect either and does not command the moral high ground.
What to do about research?
Joober in 2012 writes about a system that needs to change with more journals encouraging negative results and:
“Divorcing the publication process from all financial constraints (and hence the tyranny of the impact factor) would go a long way to help negative findings emerge from the dark recesses of researchers’ data books into the light of publication”.
2. Let’s cut the crap! Let’s cut the quantity of scientific publications. I spend a vast proportion of my life writing systematic reviews, and a recent one has identified duplicate reviews in many areas that were practically identical to each other. Journal editors and review panels need to be far more scrutinizing. Detatching research outputs from league tables is greatly over-due.
3. Open science. There are some great initiatives these days encouraging the sharing of protocols for systematic reviews #Prospero; #ALLTRIALS encouraging the publishing of all clinical trial data; #OPENSCIENCE and #OPENDATA initiatives encouraging the sharing of data and research workings.
I would stick my neck out and say again this needs to be policy-driven and mandatory for all research. Open access publishing should not just viewed as another hurdle that academics have to jump through to be REF-able (in the UK).
As an researcher from within industry, I don’t have to comply with any of this, but me and my company choose to do so. We share data openly on #Figshare, I contribute to open reviewing, I can’t afford Gold open access publishing routes, but fully encourage university partners to share pre-prints via their repositories.
We are all in it together, aren’t we?
I might have been your last academic collegue. I might be your next one (you are in for a treat). I know so many people who move between academia and industry, and from an educational perspective this is a huge asset to learning and teaching. It seems disingenuous to quarantine researchers whilst they are in industry and invite them to give their souls just because they join academia.
Most researchers I know – wherever they are situated – are driven by the passion for what they do, by wanting to achieve their best, and for the most part, wanting to share their knowledge with others, which includes supporting enthusiastic learners.
Aren’t we facing some quite big global problems?
The world is approaching crises – whether we are discussing the peril of our natural environment, antibiotic resistance, or the unsustainable nature of our food sources. I was at a recent conference where a panel were discussing “planetary health” and the need to bring multidisciplinary teams of biologists, nutritionists, ecologists and agriculturalists together. In the next breath it was argued that they didn’t want to involve industry. We did not have the right business models. The speaker clearly did not have any understanding of the nature of many businesses today, for example, the growing number of B Corps that balance business and profit (over 3000 companies across 64 countries, and growing). The Guardian joined them last week.
It seemed ironic that in most of the university courses that I’ve taught on – nursing, healthcare science – we used to drum home and have entire modules on interdisciplinary working, and the need to work together across boundaries. Build onto that, the need for diversity in decision making. I was surprised at this event to have the doors shut to me regarding conversations about nutrition and people’s health by people who will be teaching classrooms of students next week.
“Open your hearts and open your minds” said the wonderful poet Lemn Sissay. Let’s understand each other’s differences. I’ve seen before the dangers of closing down conversations before they have begun. You might just find people from different sectors with similar values and hopes.
After all it is said:
“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together”.
I’m Viv and I worked in higher education as an open educator for many years. I now head up herbal research for a tea company called Pukka Herbs and am more engaged in open science. I’m going to aim to explore the question of how open is evolving, and who is evolving it.
I’m not going to go into the debate of ‘what is open’ – in Irwin de Vries recent paper he provides references to definitions of access, resources and practice. Rather, I’ll think about the ‘open movement’ in its entirety through looking at our research and publication habits.
If we go back in time for a moment and think about the open sharing of knowledge – that isn’t at all new. We could go back thousands of years to when for example plant medical knowledge used to be passed down the generations. The advent of the silk roads and trading routes from the Far East to Europe brought with it new knowledge and new plants. Consider the humble stinging nettle, brought to the UK by the Romans, – people used to whip their legs to relieve arthritis; ingesting the leaves and roots are a diuretic – used for cleansing and flushing the kidneys – when cooked hugely nutritious rich in vitamin A and C. The knowledge however became valuable and powerful – books were published and professions built up around the knowledge that were expensive to access…so ultimately our traditional use of herbs and plants dwindled.
Going back to the question – how open is evolving. One way looking at it is to review the published literature. Any subject area or community of practice is defined by shared history of that practice surely? And our publications are our legacy to future generations – as projects / initiatives come and go subject to funding, sometimes the only thing left are our papers.
In OpenEd2016 I reviewed the open education published literature to look at how critical we were as a field of study. In doing so I came across historic works from the 1960s and 1970s that were exploring open pedagogies and practices in schools (Rolfe 2016, SLIDE 11). There were references to an open education movement, the teacher as a facilitator of learning with the children having access to the resources to direct their own learning. I was surprised as I hadn’t come across this before – maybe others had, but they hadn’t referred to it.
I did a citation analysis of ‘open’ education papers – I looked at who was citing who, in what subject areas, geographical areas and what journals etc. I found subjects tended to stick together, not referencing works from other areas…and even worse, citing papers from within the specific journal in question (which we know is often encouraged at the point of reviewing!)
In Katy Jordan’s work from 2018, she uses more advanced techniques than manually plotting citations like I did in 2016; she identified 8 different sub-areas of ‘open’ that had emerged over time, and as I’d found, earlier bodies of work were separated from recent research. (See figures 4 and 5). Also these sub-areas of open work emerged as ‘islands’ without the tendency to refer between them. Katy says an “absence of shared knowledge”.
So to summarise, so far I’ve highlighted two potential problems relating to how the open movement has evolved:
It has evolved by limited reflections on its past history – we might have learned from why the 1970s open movement died?
The perspective I’ve taken suggests it has evolved through remaining entrenched within geographical and subject boundaries.
But there are further consequences to remaining an island – whether this is the open community or any subject community.
As an open education community – or any research community – the poor searching and citing of the literature is one of several factors behind the creation of inequalities in knowledge production, which we see between richer and poorer countries, as discussed by Laura Czernowitz in 2016 (SLIDE 5 and onwards globe resized according to country of origin of papers on Web of Science). We tend to cite others we know and from their locality. We all know how citation has become a currency for promotion – failure to cite the work of others hinders people in other areas from getting their research off the ground.
(The problematic use of citations in this way is being addressed by the SF DORA declaration – “the need to eliminate the use of journal-based metrics, such as Journal Impact Factors, in funding, appointment, and promotion considerations” (SFDORA 2019)).
In another piece of research I’m doing right now I’ve analysed citations and publishing habits within the field of Ayurveda – a traditional Indian medicine system that partly involves the use of which is popular in around the globe. (This is as yet unpublished). Three key points again relating to remaining an island when it comes to research:
Scientists – whether east or west – don’t tent to cite or read beyond their communities. Many botanical and medical details are therefore omitted altogether.
Open access publishing is making this more problematic. Many non-western scientists did not publish openly – and we know that openly available papers tend to be more cited. I would suggest this isn’t helped by ‘gold route’ publication fees now upward of 2 thousand dollars / pounds.
Many relevant eastern journals not indexed on western bibliographic databases. In herbal research, many relevant papers are from China and India and I have to come up with totally different search strategies to find them.
In Andy Nobes excellent 2017 blog post in which he reflected on OpenCon 2017 in Berlin and the work of Thomas Hervé Mboa Nkoudou and Florence Piron, he describes how open access perpetuates a “one-way knowledge exchange” rather than “genuine reciprocal exchanges of research knowledge”. Andy Nobes quoted Florence Piron saying “open access can instead become a neo-colonial tool” – (Nobes 2017).
So two more points to summarise here that are not just relevant to the open community:
Island thinking creates knowledge gaps and global inequalities. It also reduces the quality of our research.
Open access drives a further wedge restricting knowledge exchange in areas where it would be of most benefit.
So what can we do? As an open community, how to we assist the free flow of knowledge? I know this paper has limits in that it has only looked at behaviours within our publishing, and we do have fantastic conferences and initiatives that bring communities together (OpenEd, OER, OpenCon, Virtually Connecting). But our research is an important reflection of our community and it is often how others see us.
As Momodou Sallah said in our 2018 OER conference held in Bristol – we are open resources. We can all start by reflecting on our own practice and then model our behaviour for our students and others. We must have open debates from the centre to the periphery (which are possibly the more innovative fringes) of our communities (I have just returned from a nutrition conference where industry was blocked out of conversations on the future of nutrition and planetary health). We need to understand each other’s differences and not retreat onto our islands. Surely the evolution of an open movement that is fair and inclusive is the most valuable legacy to leave to future generations.