AAS | Events | 14-15 February 2008

Moira Clay Moira Clay obtained a PhD on high density lipoprotein regulation at the Baker Institute and was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cincinnati. She returned to Australia to continue her research in Adelaide at the Hanson Centre. Moira was an active member of the South Australian branch of the Australian Society for Medical Research (ASMR) and was elected to the Board of Directors in 1998. She became President in 2003 and led the public, political and scientific advocacy work of the Society.

Moira moved from lab research to research management in 2000. She was the Research Program Manager for the Heart Foundation from 2000–05, a national role involving management of a $7.5 million national research funding program, development of the Pharmaceutical Roundtable, implementation of an evaluation framework and leadership of an innovative research communications strategy. Moira has several years’ experience in developing and implementing public relations strategies. She has done extensive media work through her involvement in the ASMR and managed the media work for several international scientific conferences.

First of all I would like to thank the Academy for inviting me to talk about what is potentially the most difficult subject here today. When I read the invitation to talk about negotiation skills I thought, 'Oh my God, what am I going to talk about?' The first thing I did was to look up the meaning of the word 'negotiation.' I found that negotiation occurs 'where interested parties agree on a course of action.' I think you would all agree that there have been many courses of action in your career. And that is what negotiation is: the process by which you agree on a course of action. So it does apply across the board, and I will go into that in a little more detail.

What is my background to talk about negotiation? I am certainly no expert in this, but it is something that I feel I have done quite extensively in my career, though perhaps not in the early part of my career. I did a PhD in medical research at the Baker Institute, and went on from there to do a postdoctoral fellowship in the US. That wasn't something I really negotiated; it was something that just kind of happened – I was advised to go to this particular person, went there, and that was all fine.

I came back to Australia to do my post-postdoc at the University of Adelaide, and it was at that point, about the time when I was getting involved in ASMR [the Australian Society for Medical Research], that I made a change in career direction. I decided that I was interested in the bigger picture, I wanted to fight for the common good, I wanted to support all research in Australia. (I was a very grand planner.) I thought yes, I could do research, I could do the lab stuff, but it really wasn't what turned me on. And I made the change into research management.

That was when I started to negotiate. I had a plan. I decided that I wanted to be CEO of NHMRC – I haven't yet told Warwick Anderson that, but I will – and I thought, 'Well, my negotiation is actually mapping out how I'm going to get there.'

A job came up as the research manager for the Heart Foundation. Thankfully, I got the job. And during that time as research manager I was managing an $8 million funding program and did a lot of negotiation along the way – with companies, with researchers, with government, with all kinds of stakeholders – to work out how we were going to take the research program and make it into something which was going to do excellent research to improve cardiovascular health of Australians.

From there I wanted to broaden my horizons beyond cardiovascular research, so I thought what better way to do that than to get into children's health research, and I negotiated a role at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. Then I was approached about two roles, which I will go into later, and ended up negotiating a position at the Children's Cancer Institute Australia, which involved a move from Melbourne to Sydney. So there was quite a lot of negotiating involved there.

I believe that negotiation is an art. I don't regard myself as a particularly creative person but I think negotiation does require creativity. Negotiation is an art that is indispensible to achieving success in your career in 'medical research' – that is because I am a medical researcher. I think equally it applies to any field of research. It requires thinking a bit laterally, it requires tailoring something to your individual careers. But most of all, negotiation will allow you to establish yourself on a path to success and it will help you achieve your long-term goals.

So what are the key elements of negotiation? First of all, you have got to be prepared. You have to know what you want to negotiate about. You have got to know what your career goals are – and I am not saying your 20-year career goals, I am not saying your 10-year career goals, because that is not always practical, but to know where you are heading, certainly in the next five years, and what you need to achieve that.

When I say 'what you need' to achieve these goals, I remember my mother asking me, when I wanted a new outfit or something to that effect, 'Do you need it or do you want it?' There's a difference between 'need' and 'want'. I want a million dollars, but I don't actually need a million dollars. So know what you need to achieve your goals, and know what you are willing to sacrifice. There is obviously going to have to be flexibility; there needs to be give and take in the negotiation process.

It is very important, as you are negotiating, to seek advice. Do your due diligence – do some homework, ask around. Ask about new roles, what the new setting is, find out about potential partners, do your due diligence. This is really important.

I can't emphasise enough the importance of professionalism and respect. It really speaks to what Graham Farquhar has just been saying about wanting to be loved! If you exhibit professionalism and respect in the negotiation process, you will be loved. I think that is important: people understand that there is give and take, and if you are clear, if you are professional, if you treat with respect the person you are negotiating with, you will be loved.

There are lots of different types of negotiation. I am going to talk about one today, but I think the basic principles apply across the board.

First of all there is negotiation about your own role and about your future career path – where you are headed in your own career. There is negotiation with potential recruits you might be getting to work in your team. Negotiation about collaborations is part and parcel of doing good research. Authorship on papers and sharing grants are a couple of examples. There are many negotiations involved in commercialisation. This shows the depth and breadth of how you can use negotiating skills.

I am going to talk about your own role, giving an example of how this might work.

A 30-year-old researcher – roughly where most of the people in this room are, give or take a bit – is being recruited to establish an independent group at an institute. The researcher has been a postdoc in a larger group elsewhere, not independent, working under the umbrella of a more senior researcher. So what are the negotiation points? How can this individual actually negotiate a position that is going to establish them on the road to independence?

The first point is to get a research assistant salary and consumables for one year. Negotiating getting support, actually getting assistance to support you in your research, I think is crucial. Next is negotiating space to be able to conduct your research.

Then we have a condition from the employer back to the researcher: the researcher must seek their own salary and independent funding. I have seen plenty of examples where people have been recruited to an institute, including my own institute, and don't have their own salary, don't have a fellowship, but the proviso of the recruitment is that they must apply for and seek their own salary and independent project support along the way.

The next point is really crucial: negotiating the opportunity to progress to group head, or whatever title it might be, within three years of employment, as long as the key performance indicators are met. It is crucial to actually have a career path in front of you as you are negotiating a new role. You join an institute, you have got support to establish your own program of research, but you will need to know that there is an opportunity for you to take that next step in your career and become the head of your own research group.

But, equally, to become the head of a research group you will be expected to perform, and it is very important to understand what are going to be the measures of performance. Is it publications, independent funding, professional involvement or teaching involvement? Again I will go on to talk about those.

Last but not least, there are some smaller issues for negotiation. Things like car parking, having support for travel, having employment conditions such as salary sacrifice, professional development opportunities and a supportive environment, all these are the kinds of things that it is important to know up front, to get it written down as part of establishing yourself in developing independence.

At the risk of rehashing Bradley Beasley's points a little bit: the recruitment process is quite simple. You have the application process (the dating, as he said), the first and second interviews, and then your proposal, the job offer. They want you; that's very clear. But I always say to people, 'Do you want them?' I think it is really important to know that up front.

So what do you do? It is important to understand the details of the offer: what is the title of the role, what is the scope of the role, what level of seniority is it, what is the position description?

Does the job fit your priorities? If you want to become an independent researcher, you need to know that this is going to be a role that actually does establish you towards that.

Do the salary and benefits measure up? It is important to be realistic here. You have to know your market value. What have you come from? It is unlikely that people are going to offer you double what you have come from – it does happen, but it is more than likely they will offer you an increment over what you have come from. People will always ask the question, 'What is your current salary?' But do your due diligence on this, do your comparisons with other institutions: what is the market value for this role? It is very important to understand that.

You need to understand what resources are included in the offer and what you will need. Is there equipment involved? Is funding being provided for staff assistance?

I have said already that it is important to do your due diligence. Talk to people behind the scenes. Find out what the group is really like, find out whether this is a good environment to work in, a supportive environment, the place to be. You have to look at the performance of the group. Do a PubMed search, find out whether they are actually producing, and whether they are as successful as they have pitched themselves to you as being.

You need to know along the way what the job title is. If you are being offered a job title of postdoctoral fellow, what does that mean? At what stage in the career path for that particular organisation is that? It could be right down low on the totem pole, with no opportunities for advancement. You need to be aware of these things up front. What is the length of the contract? What are the terms of renewal?

You need to find out about the salary. What is the base pay? Is the salary guaranteed, is the funding guaranteed, working forward to the future? When are salary increments – is getting an increment an annual thing, is it linked to enterprise bargaining, and so on? Look at all this as well as the other benefits that I have mentioned.

You need to know what the support will be, and what the expectations are. I think people sometimes get a nasty fright when they go into a role and they are expected to have a certain level of research productivity – 'Well, I wasn't told that.' If you read your job description, if you read your position description and your letter of offer, you should find all of those things stated up front and you should take note of them.

What are the teaching or clinical responsibilities? It is important to understand that also. If you want to have a 100 per cent research career and teaching is not really what you want to do, you don't want to be landed with a 75 per cent teaching load up front. This links back to knowing what you want, what your career goals are and what you need in order to achieve that.

It is important to know what the protected research time will be. Again you may have to compromise in terms of teaching or clinical load or whatever, but it is important to know what your protected research time will be.

Finally, as I have mentioned already, you need to know what the opportunities are to progress. I think all of you are looking towards establishing independence. You will want to know that there is a pathway there which can actually help you get towards that point.

In terms of the negotiation process, what you need to do first off is to present your requests very clearly, and know what is essential. Again you need to understand what you need, and really don't pad it out because people will see through that. Be very clear on that.

Explain why you need these things. The kinds of things that you are looking at would be start-up funding, having a career path and staff. You need to be up front in saying, 'I'm looking to become an independent researcher, and this is essential to help me achieve that.'

There are some people who, in negotiating a role, will be able to bring equipment with them, but also it is very important to understand what you will have access to and what you will be willing to share.

It is really important to know that you will be able to do the research you want to do, and just to have the avenues open to develop your career.

Don't pad your request. Be professional. This is really key.

The offer letter is a key part for any negotiation. It doesn't matter whether it is negotiating for a role, for authorship, for commercialisation – the results of negotiation should be written down. Don't rely on it being a handshake or a conversation between people; it should be written down and both parties in the negotiation should have a copy of this.

In terms of a role, this is in the form of an offer letter. It is important to understand that all of the aspects of the negotiation are reflected in the offer letter. Don't be willing to just leave a few of those things out; you should have them written down.

It should be as comprehensive as possible, including your title, salary/benefits, support, the length of the contract, the conditions and expectations. All of those things should be written into the offer letter.

It is very important to realise that you can't count on getting anything that you haven't been promised as part of the negotiation. If you want the salary to double along the way, don't count on that, because unless that has been factored into the initial negotiation it is not going to happen.

It is necessary to be flexible in this whole process, because you are not always going to get your own way and there are going to have to be some things that you compromise on. As Graham said, I have just come back from a holiday overseas, and got quite good at bartering with people along the way. I was practising my negotiation skills in the lead-up to this workshop, and sometimes you have to be willing to move towards a central compromise point.

Multiple offers are going to be something that you do encounter, and I have been through this process. When I was being recruited to go to Sydney, I had an offer from another organisation. It was actually a very challenging process, to be able to balance up multiple offers. How do you deal with that? Well, the best way to deal with that is quite simple: be up front about it, keep all parties informed – I did exactly that; I kept both parties informed. I said to them, 'I have got other offers which I am considering' – and you need to give yourself time to consider those offers.

I would encourage you to make your choice based on the role – not so much the salary but more the role – that is going to suit your aspirations best. When I was considering the two offers that I had, I did a lot of due diligence. I talked a lot behind the scenes to people, to understand what was going to suit me, what was going to suit my career goals, and what I would enjoy the most.

You can use leverage to ask an institution to match an offer, but you have got to be careful with this. It is key to focus on the actual role itself and make sure that that really fits with your career goals.

Be prompt in refusing an offer; don't leave people hanging. But make sure that you don't actually burn your bridges with the other offer – make sure that you have accepted the offer that you want, before you refuse another offer, and that you don't leave yourself high and dry.

Don't miss deadlines in this process. If a deadline has been agreed in the negotiation process, make sure you meet it. Or, if you cannot meet it, make sure that you ask for an extension. But don't leave people hanging, because I think again this gets back to being professional.

In summary, it is very important to do your homework in any aspect of negotiation that I have discussed. So, in anything about your own role, about recruiting people, collaborations, commercialisations, make sure you have done your homework. Make sure that whatever you are negotiating fits with your career goals. Know what is essential – know what you absolutely need in order for you to achieve your goals.

It is also important to ask yourself not only what would be nice, but also whether it is really necessary. It is important to have that in the back of your mind as you are going through a negotiation process.

The key thing to emphasise about negotiation is that it is often underestimated. People are just willing to sit back and accept the outcome. Graham was talking about this before: in Australian culture, we are all good mates and want to be able to shake hands over a beer, and it is all very convivial. It is important to be focused, to really be aware of where you want to go. You don't have to be cut-throat in this. It is really about being professional, being respectful, and guiding yourself along a path in order to get to your ultimate goal.

It is very hard, sometimes, to know how to do this, and that is why I say to seek advice. It gets back to mentoring, which has been a strong theme here. Talk to your mentors about it, talk to senior colleagues, talk to anyone you can confide in about these kinds of things, to get advice on how to proceed. There are very few resources about negotiation available, so getting that advice is really key.

There are a few resources which I think are quite interesting. A lot of resources are actually tailored for the American setting, but I would just highlight the AMSR Professional Development Program, which supports researchers in developing these kinds of skills.

With that, I am very happy to answer questions.

Discussion

Bob Williamson: Thank you for that, Moira. I have a couple of points, one just as a point and the other for comment.

First, I always advise people who are entering a postdoc or a mid-career situation where they are looking at a new job to request, indeed to insist on, the opportunity to spend an hour or two or three in the lab with the people, and when you do that, to actually spend time with people at the level that you are going to be going in at.

Moira Clay: Absolutely.

Bob Williamson: Nothing teaches you more quickly what the pluses and minuses of a lab are than joining the group – and particularly if you can get a chance to go and have a glass of wine or a glass of beer with them off the premises, and see what it is really like.

The point for comment is more of a question. I have the impression that people really under use the annual review. Most universities and most institutes now have an annual performance review, and this review is approached with disdain and indifference by management, and terror by the person who is being reviewed. But actually, if a performance review is done well, that is the time when there is an opportunity to advance your career. Someone was asking me yesterday, 'How do you ask for a promotion?' Actually, the annual review is the time when you say, 'You know, by next year or a couple of years from now, if I meet the KPIs I am going to be looking to be made up to senior lecturer, not just lecturer.' I think people under use that opportunity, and I think one of the things that those of you who have mentors should be discussing is, 'How do I make best use of an annual review?'

Moira Clay: I would 100 per cent agree with you on both points. It is important to have the glass of wine with the people at your level and even people at lower or higher levels within the group, to actually find out what the grass roots is all about within that group or organisation. That is certainly a good point.

Yes, people do under utilise the performance review. Personally, I find performance reviews incredibly helpful. I enter into performance reviews with great gusto and do a lot of preparation for them, because I think that is the time when you can negotiate with your manager, in terms of what the next step is in developing your career. Some managers don't, effectively, know how to use a performance review, and I think that is a key point, that individuals, when they are being reviewed, need to have this all clearly set out – know how you are performing against what has been set out in your position description, where you have gone above and beyond, and really be quite explicit about where your goals are and what you need in order to achieve them. So I agree with you completely.

Question: You mentioned salary, and negotiating salary in a role, and how you can't expect that you will increase your salary once you are in a role. What about superannuation? Is that something that could be negotiated on?

Moira Clay: Yes. In terms of salary, when I finished my degree I made a commitment to myself that I would keep my salary going up throughout my career, which I have done. Yes, you can expect your salary to increase, there is no question about it. But if you are going from role A to role B, and you are at $50,000 in one role, it is highly unlikely you are going to go to $100,000 in the next role. What you can expect – what I think it is quite reasonable to negotiate – is a jump from your $50,000 salary in the previous role, absolutely. So I think that is key. But you have got to be realistic about that.

Can you negotiate superannuation? Absolutely. A lot of institutes now are certainly linking into UniSuper or different superannuation schemes where there are extra contributions to super, and you can definitely use that as a point of negotiation. There is no question about that.

Bradley Beasley: One of the points that you raised related to the contract of employment and ensuring everything was spelled out. One of the views that I have about it is that you should have everything spelled out, and if it has not reflected what you have negotiated you should go back and make sure they put in what you want…

Moira Clay: Yes.

Bradley Beasley: But, also, what is your view of its being a living and thriving document in regard to planning your career as well, so that certain things will occur?

Moira Clay: I definitely have the view that it is a living document. My current role and the role I had previously were both new positions, and when each of the positions started I don't think it was fully clear what the scope of the role would turn out to be. I have not yet been in the current role for a year, but certainly after the first year for the previous role, the position description was updated to reflect what it had actually become. I think it should be a living document, because roles grow. Especially where your performance goes above and beyond, and you are growing within the role, suddenly it takes on a new scope. So yes, I agree, it should be. And I think that is where the performance review comes in. That is the opportunity to update these kinds of documents, ensure both parties have a copy of the updated form, and take it through to the next stage.

Alan Lawson: On the point that you have just made, I think there are two different kinds of review and both are extremely important.

Moira Clay: Yes.

Alan Lawson: I think the annual review process is often under utilised and poorly managed on both sides. I was in a position for a while where, for various reasons in the University of Queensland system, I did not need to have an annual review, but I used to ask for one. And I used to ask for one not because I am a really well organised person like you, but because I'm not. I found it incredibly useful to get some goal-setting assistance and also to clarify in my own mind what was feasible, but also simply to remind myself about the last year of 365 x 24 activity – I often couldn't actually remember what I had achieved. So it was really good for that reason. And I think everybody here, but also the people who do performance reviews, ought to get a hell of a lot more out of it, because I think they can be really positive. And I think that if people approached them in that way, rather than as hurdles and punitive things, we would all be a lot better off.

But I think the second one you mentioned is even more important. That is, if you go into a new role, I think it is critical to ask for a review, not of your performance, perhaps, but of the role itself, in whatever is the appropriate time – three to six months, or something like that. I am going through this myself with a new general staff member, quite soon. Often a new role will evolve around the skills of the individual; often the person working in a new role will have a better idea, ultimately, of the capability of the position than the person who created it – who probably created it with a wish list. I think people shouldn't be afraid to ask for that kind of review. I think it is very valuable.

Moira Clay: I agree with you, Alan, and in fact have just been through that process myself with regard to my current role. It was an enormously helpful process. It focused me and it made me realise – as well as my employer – how far the role could go, how far I could go within that role. It was tremendously beneficial. So I would agree with that.

[ Home | Contacts | Search | Index ]