Report of Climate Study: Vengalattore Lab

Provided by Pamela G. LoRusso Strausser, Sr. Consultant, Academic Organizational Development

391 Pinc Tree Road, ph 254-1525, .. ,. ::

The report includes the following sections:

Objectives
Expectations
Data Gathering process
Data analysis/discussion
Recommendations

- --- - . --- - -
This climate study was initiated by the department at the end of September, 2014 with two objectives:
I. To determine the current state of the human dynamks {climate) in the Vengalattore Lab among
graduate and undergraduate students and the PI, Professor Mukund Vcngalauore. This
particular study ls based on data gathered over a short period of time and focused upon the
current climate in the lab only.
2. To make recommendations to the Department Chair and Professor Vengalattore about actions
that might be taken to positively impact lab climate. Note: Depending upon which
recommendations are acceptable to Professor Vengalattore and the Department, the consultant
would be willing to assist Professor Vengalattore and the students in his lab in implementation of
such actions over the course of the coming months as fall within my areas of expertise/university
role and available time.

Study Limitations: The.Consultant works in the function of Organizational Development and climate
studies conducted from this perspective arc designed to gel the lay of the land about the human dynamics
in a particular context (in this case. the Vcngalattore Jab) for the purposes of making recommendations
about changes thar might be made by constituents in that context to co-optimize perfonnancc outcomes,
personal growth, and inrerpersonal effectiveness.
It is important to note that, while the Consultant has considerable experience working iii academic
settings and with the particular methodology of climate study, she was not able to observe the
Vengalattorc lab over a long period of time, nor to be i11 situ for the purposes of observing for more than
several hours. Fonnal interviews provide perspectives of individuals, but the interview itself provides a
narrow window into that individual"s behavior, relying on their description of behavior or feelings about
behavior rather than on the Consultant seeing people behave with each other.
This panicular srudy, therefore, is a snapshot of current human dynamics in the Jab and perspectives
about rhe variables that caused rhese dynamics to be a$ they arc.
Strengths of s'1dl a study: The Consultant is to some extent dependent upon her own experience and
skill in understanding behavior, but is to a larger extent dependent upon the promise of an ongoing
relationship with the constituents to engage together in improvements that arc suggested in the data
analysis and can be implemented in the context of CUrTCnt business realities in the department and
college. It is only this commitment to be a partner in improving the practices in the studied context that
allows adequate trust to deveJQp between the constiruents and the Consultant such that the constituents
make themselves wlnerable by sharing infonnation. For this level of engagement in accurate assessment
and improvement ofthe context to take place, the Consultant must stay engaged with the constituents
through some portion of implementation of accepted recommendations.

The Consultant gathered three kinds of data helpful in assessment of the climate: l) public information:
2) perspectives of individuals associated with the Vengalattorc Lab; and 3) observations about behavior
and interaction of these individuals made by the Consultant.
Public Infonnation: The Consultant reviewed ofpublically available infonnation (website, atticles,
department communications through Cornell/Physics web pages as well as the webpages of the
Vcngalattorc Jab} to establish context and acquire contextual language.
Perspectives ofinclividuals associated with the lab: Twenty five people were interviewed by the
Consultant, some ofthem multiple times, during the period beginning Wednciday, October I" and
concluding Thursday, November 2011'. People interviewed a:rc listed along with their role(s) as it might be
significant for this study. When sel.ecting people to interview, the Consultant chose present and past
members of the Vengalattore lab and Faculty who serve in fonnal depanment roles or by of
proximity and area were perhaps more likely to have observations about climate in the laboratory than
others might be likely to do. The Consultant is mindful 1ha1 more individuals would have been able to
provide information that would be useful in this study if time were available. In some cases individuals
absent from the list below were contacted, some repeatedly, but did no1 respond. For others the rather
short period during which interviews were conducted made it impossible for them to participate. For
01hers, the Co!lSUltant made no contact due 10 lack of time.
First name Last name Role(s) gennane to study
Jim Alexander DUS
Ex-grad student
Graduate Student
Undergraduate, senior
undergraduate, senior
Itai Cohen Lab neighbor
Ex-grad student
I
2
 Visiting graduate student
Seamus Davis Lab-neighbor
Graduated undergrad
u,ndergraduate
Lawrence Gibbons DGS
graduated-undergrad
Undergraduate,
Paul McEuen Director, LASSP
Erich Mueller Former DUS, former OGS, Current supervisor of Kristina Colladay
Graduated undergrad
Jeevak Parpia Chair, Fonner DGS
Graduate Student
Ex-grad student
Undergradunte, senior
Rob Thome Lab neighbor
Mukund Vengalattore Pl of 8f.oup, focus of study
Michelle Wang Lab neighbor
Undergraduate

None of the Faculty were contacted by the Consultant until the Chair had made the climate study process
known. Current students in the Vengalattorc lab were not contacted until two things had occumd: I)
Mukund Vengalattorc had an opportunity to discuss the objectives of the climate study with the students
and indicate that they would be interviewed as part of the process; 2) the Consultant had an opportunity
to attend a lab meeting and discuss the climate study objectives and process and respond to questions.
Past students were either alerted about the climate study objectives and asked to respond to the
Consultant's e-mail request for an interview by the Chair {in the case of graduate students no longer
affiliated with the lab) or by Mukund Vengalattore {in the case of students who worked in the lab as
undergraduates and have since graduated).
Faculty interviews were conducted either in their private offices, the Consultant's office in ClSER, or by
phone. Student interviews were conducted in a neutral office (524 Clark Hall), in the Consultant's office
in CISER, by Skype or phone. Although the interviews were semi-structured (certain questions were
asked of everyone), the nature of the questions changed depending upon whether the person had a
current or past affiliation with the lab, proximity to the labs in question or formal role. The semi
strucrured nature of the interview allowed people to volunteer information they thought addressed the
objectives of the study whether or not they answered questions posed by the Consultant. This was true
both of Faculty, and students-current and past.

3
 Data validation
A 11.ott about student concenu: Before the interviews began, several currcn1 studen.ts alerted the Consu!tanl
to the heightened concern among many of the students about the upcoming interviews. There were four
reasons for this concern level:
l. They felt "over surveyed"-1ha1 they had been asked questions about how it was to work in the
lab a number of times before.
2. They believed that information they had supplied in previous hltcrviews had sometimes been
used out of context, transmuting positive comments to critiques.
3. Students had not seen any formal report that included the information they previously supplied
during interviews, making them misuus1 the pmpose of this latest request for information.
4. Students feared that the lab would develop a reputation among prospective students as a problem
entity expressly because of the over
To address the fust concern, the Consultant emphasized that the Physics department Jakes seriously the
relationship of human dynamics and scholarly productivity and that their perspectives matter a good deal
in identifying and supporting practices that will help the dynamic improve. To allay worries about
misuse/misunderstanding of the information they would share, the Consultant provided a transcript to
each of the current students shortly after the interview. The students were encouraged to modify the
transcripts to accurately reflect their perspectives and return them to them to the Consultant wimin a
week. While the Consultant did not discuss access to the climate study, she did note that the PI would be
able to tell the students what steps might be taken, based on the infonnation they provided, to improve
the in the Vengalattore Jab further.
As to the fourth concern, potential rcputational damage, the Consultant impressed upon the students that
it was up to them, undergraduate and graduate students alike toshouldcr the burden of communicating
the nature and quality of the science going on in the lab, along with the individual growth and the
culrure/conte}Ct within which they worked.
Data validation In tire CtJSe ofinformaflon provided by students with past ajfillations to the /a/J and provided by
Fatuity: The transcript review validation was not used when working with previously affiliated students
nor with Faculty. The Consultant reviewed infonnation throughout the interview to ensure accuracy and
often followed up via phone or e-mail when additional clarification was needed.

Confidentiality and use of data

The Consultant made the decision to convey a sense of what was shared by the people interviewed, while
being careful to avoid unique turns of phrase in the discussion that would identify the author.
Panicularly for the srudent interviews, the Consultant cmphasizecj that she would keep the detail of their
transcript (their exact words, recounting of situa1ions that would make ic obvious who shared the
infonnation) confidential unless they shared information that indicated violations of policy or law. The
raw data is not included in this report, has not been and will not be available to anyone except the
Consultant, a11d will not be retained. By holding this level of detail confidential, it is the Consultant's
hope that the constituents will feel protected enough to reveal more fully than they might otherwise do.
Consultant perspectives about behavior she observed during the course of the study: The Consultant
kept field notes about non-verbal behaviors, vocal timbre, and emphasis from both fonnal interviews,
meeting observations and other interactions with constiruents.

4
p_ata -- ---- ---- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - --
The Consultant reviewed the data accessible via depanment and lab websites, provided during interviews
and the Consultant's own field notes to understand the human dynamics in the lab and the trend in these
dynamics. She was also interested in suggested opportunities to act in ways that might improve climate.

Themes:
Four strong themes emerged from the data {the first theme-an assessment of climate and the other three-
variables that impact climate). Themes were: 1) Positive assessment of current climate; 2) The readiness
of the equipment to produce data; 3) Differences in experience, personality and behavior; and 4)
Socialization, norms and values.
1. Positive assessment of current climate
Excitement about the science: The excitement of students on all levels is palpable, evidenced in
their comments, tone and interactions. The lab is described y.rith a high degn;e ofpruie by
students who talk about their roles, large and small, in getting the Jab to the point where they can
produce science. Students can now see the fruilS of the long labors ofbuilding the lab with the
number of publications this year and rheir ability to speak about the science at conferences and
with prospective students.
Lab cohort is a cohesive team: Undergraduates can tum to graduate students or to the PI for
help, both on an individual level and in the larger group setting. The graduate students look to
each other and to the Pl fur assistance. Beeause the Pl is often present in the lab during the week
and always in the lab during weekends students feel they have great access and feel that they are
truly working together. Group leisure activities contribute to this cohesiveness during the
summer.
High expectations: Current st\,ldents view the high expectations of the PI, and the high
expectations they have adopted for themselves as somewhat of a badge of honor with the sense
that they arc all outliers in terms ofb.oth their commitment to the work they all value;
and in terms of the skills and competencies they continue to develop to do the work and describe
it to others.
Pl style: There is a sense that the PI is working hard to continue to improve communications
within the group and between himself and group members. The willingness to change is noted
and appreciated by the students. There is a sense that he is clear in what he says and that this
clarity is essential to the srudents.

2. The readiness of the to produce data

Until the lab was built to the point where science and publications were forthcoming (beginning
late 2013 and through the present) there was a level of anxiety and frustration associated with
being behind the curve in tenns of scholarly production. This frustration and anxiety was
experienced differently by different members of the Jab.
Current state of the laboratory equipment (i.e. yielding data) is evidenced as reason for
excitement, even euphoria.
Graduate students and Post Docs in particular are not always willing to join a lab that is readying
equipment and not yet producing much data, because of the general pressure to have
publications.

3. Differences in experience, personality and behavior

5
 Earlier in the lab's history personality differences among graduate students and between graduate
students and the PI contributed to misunderstandings.
Earlier in the lab's history behaviors perceived as motivating to one person were perceived as
harsh 10 another.
Earlier in the lab's history long hours were perceived as essential by some and excessive by
orhers.
Earlier in the lab's history debate was seen as instructive and developmental by some and seen as
nonsupponive and uncomfortable by others.

4. Socialization, norms and values

The data strongly suggest that the culture of the Physics depanment is happy,
supponive, interactive and non-competitive. Some of these terms have been excerpted from the
Physics website describing the graduate student experience.
The data suggest that each PI adopts behavioral standards in his/her own lab based on the
standards exercised in the institution where s/he did doctoraUraining, and that Physics specific
socialization to the earlier stated norms happens through discussion among faculty as might
occur in faculty meetings. The data further suggests that norms of behavior are relatively
consistent across doctoral granting institutions in the American system.
Mentoring of junior faculty is set up as a resource accessed by thcjunior faculty member in the
event that the junior faculty member believes s/he need help. More active attention by the
mentor might occur in cases where the junior faculty member is trained outside the American
system.
Junior faculty often access mentoring from their PhD granting institution where there is a good
understanding of the work they are doing and the particular problems/opportunities it poses.

Recommendations - - --- ,. .. - - - -
The consultant is mindful that many recommendations follow and that they will be considered by the
Department and PI, Vengalattore, in the context of business realities.

For the PI
To continue to evaluate the impact of your behaviors upon your students, making changes to
improve the impact which may vary by individual personality, competence and level.
To continue efforts to recruit graduate srudents and post docs, with the assistance of the graduate
students in particular in these cffons.
Work with the Consultant and with the department to explore and implement a way to evaluate
climate and its impact on lab constituents' to thrive as individuals and in their scholarship.
Attend dcpamnent faculty meetings, teas and other opponunitics to build relationships with
colleagues share best practices with regard to lab groups.
Access University resources addressing interpersonal dynamics for yourself:
o Workshops offered through the Vice Provost for Diversity and Faculty Development
o Fonnal programming 1hrough Academic Organizational Development:
The Cornell Faculty Leadership Program
Effective Interaction in Organizations for faculty at large

6
 Support and empower your students and graduate students to understand human dynamics and
bring their sense of this topic and its importance back to the lab.
o Support attendance of various workshops provided by the Graduate School and
Professional Societies
o Support participation in leadership immersions such as the Colman Leadership Program
(College of Engineering).
o Support anendancc of leadership classes (e.g. ALSS l 00 Leadership for Life Sciences)
To develop and make public to your lab group and the department leadership a plan to continue
exploring the importance of behaviors related to positive human dynamics.

For the Departme11t

Explore and implement a way to evaluate climate and its impact on lab constituents' ability to
thrive as individuals and in their sctiolarsbip.
Consider more active socialiZation of new faculty to Physics norms.
Consider short workshops, discussion opportunities focused on issues of climate for Physics
faculty and students.