The day is nearing

Monday is my SDR review. In preparation I received the paper version to review for the meeting. I admit it, I LOVE that it is a glowing review. Am I weird that I want something on there to improve upon or that explains WHY I was not promoted?

Ok, here is my response, names of the offending removed or changed:

Response to 2004 SDR

<> When I was hired in permanently from my LTE post-doctoral position I was told that I was a very strong Scientist II and a weak Scientist III, therefore I was hired as a Scientist II. I was told that I was expected to promote quickly and that the expectations of a Scientist II were along the lines of “sitting at one’s desk and breathing”. It is stated on my evaluation that I have had a “very good growth year”. I agree with this statement, and for this reason, I am concerned with being passed over for a promotion to Scientist III.

During my mock SDR in October of 2003, my manager told me that one of the essential elements to promotion was networking across the lab. Not only did I do this in association with the Cox project my manager offered me the opportunity to join, which I greatly appreciate and truly enjoy, but I also have met and built associations with a variety of people in other contexts.

• I took the lead on proposals with John and Matt in the Molecular Interactions group.
• I worked with Luke in RTL on the X project.
• Worked with and authored proposal with Mark and Jacob on the topic of Y.
• Worked with Peter from 2400 Stevens on Z work.

<>Along these lines I have also been the source of connecting our group members with others to accomplish research goals. For example, I connected Patrick with Peter regarding the feasibility of metal deposition.

One of the statements for goals and planning for FY05 includes to “craft two or more successful proposals on which you are the lead or are recognized as the lead for a major task”. I am concerned about this, however, not in the capacity of the feasibility. I currently have two that are likely to be funded, but I need clarification in the scope of this being a requirement for promotion to Scientist III as compared to other current Scientist III’s. Mary stated that her requirement to get to Scientist IV was to craft one successful proposal from start to finish. I do understand that this is word of mouth, but it is difficult for me to understand and reconcile the fact that there are current Scientist III’s who have never had a successfully funded proposal while I had one that was ranked as the top proposal in its category.

To further comment on this proposal, this was a white paper submitted to the HSI LDRD call back in the summer of 2004 for FY05 funding. It was selected as the top proposal out of 30 or so within its category. I submitted an invention report for this idea. I was thrilled until Bob stated that he wanted to see Jeff lead this. I had been asked early on in the white paper to include his name on it. He did not contribute to the white paper, but stated he would contribute to the work if funded. I felt incredibly sidelined to be removed from the lead and replaced with someone who had provided no input on the actual white paper. The project was in the end funded and while I really appreciate the opportunity to have been included in the entire proposal process, I feel that I was unfairly removed from the lead.

While discussing with coworkers my lack of promotion a number of them have asked if my going on maternity leave might have played a role. I have to admit that it has crossed my mind and I truly hope that this is not the case.

In closing my response, I do want to state that I have had a good year and am happy to see the statement that I have a “very impressive record for a Scientist II” listed on my SDR. I enjoy my work and its challenges and I strive to advance my career through the goals that Tom suggested for me for FY05. I do request that I be considered for a mid-year promotion to Scientist III.