Engineering Career Awards in Science and Engineering

[Useful nucleus]

Is self-nomination common for career awards in science and engineering? I was under the impression that nomination for awards is only by others but apparently self-nomination is an option too. Any PF member has an experience in this to share?

 

[jedishrfu]

I’ve seen this with the National Honor Society. When I was in high school, teachers would nominate and select inductees.

However, when my kids were in high school, they had to show some interest by nominating themselves and then the teachers would select from the pool. I think this came about because in the past some students declined the invitation for various reasons and so the teachers had to scramble to find students to join.

I’ve also heard of professors asking you to write your own graduate recommendation letter for them to review edit, sign and submit on your behalf. I always felt that was a little awkward for students as one would tend to minimize ones accomplishments. But I guess the professor would fix that bias.

 

[CrysPhys]

OP: I don't know the answer to your original question. But throughout my career, I have had first-hand experience with what I will call "gang affiliation". That is, a small group will get together and nominate each other for various honors, give each other positive feedback on "360 degree" reviews, ... As another example, Supervisor A will support Supervisor B's people in rankings; in return, Supervisor B will support Supervisor A's people in rankings; and together, Supervisor A and Supervisor B will downgrade Supervisor C's people.

 

[phinds]

OP: I don't know the answer to your original question. But throughout my career, I have had first-hand experience with what I will call "gang affiliation". That is, a small group will get together and nominate each other for various honors, give each other positive feedback on "360 degree" reviews, ... As another example, Supervisor A will support Supervisor B's people in rankings; in return, Supervisor B will support Supervisor A's people in rankings; and together, Supervisor And Supervisor B will downgrade Supervisor C's people.

You SERIOUSLY work(ed) for the wrong company

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

You SERIOUSLY work(ed) for the wrong company

Well it sounds like a gang-type company...

 

[jedishrfu]

Yeah I hated it when my company went the 360 route. It favored the whiners over the decent workers and made everyone miserable as the managers would cherry pick the comments.

In a way, it fostered a tattletale environment that some folks took advantage of.

After a few iterations and employee losses they did away with the system. Replacing it with something more traditional and more opaque.

I think its real goal was to shed people and save wage increase money.

 

[CrysPhys]

You SERIOUSLY work(ed) for the wrong company

* Such machinations are hardly unique to the company I worked for. Colleagues in other companies have reported similar experiences. I've also encountered them in professional societies and even as a volunteer for a non-profit. The great advantage of serving as a volunteer is that I can simply walk away if I don't care for the environment. To a great extent, such behavior is systemic (though by no means universal) in certain organizations, depending on their size and structure.

* In a sociological context, if I want to give the system a negative connotation, I would call it "gang affiliation", as I have above. But if I want to give it a positive connotation, I would call it a "mutual support network". And experienced advisors here always exhort newbies to "Network! Network! Network!", correct? In a political context, if I want to maintain a neutral tone, I would call it a "voting bloc" or "political alliance".

* Let me use the term "slot" for a target end result. This can be a career award or prize, as in the original post. It can also be a raise, a promotion, a grant, an approval for a program, ... In general, the number of candidates vying for slots will exceed the number of available slots. For a fixed number of slots, as the number of competing candidates increases, the process for selecting the candidates who are awarded slots grows more political.

* In some instances, the criteria for determining which candidates are awarded slots are objective. But in many instances, the criteria are at least in part subjective. The more subjective the criteria, the more political the process.

Since the Winter Olympics are coming up, let’s consider sports analogies. In downhill skiing, medals are awarded strictly on the basis of objective, precisely measured finishing times. But in figure skating, medals are awarded based on combined technical and component scores. Technical scores are quasi-objective [based on codified base values plus a somewhat subjective grade of execution], but component scores are highly subjective (and inherently so, since they are concerned with artistry). [And, remember, there was a previous scoring system in figure skating that was scrapped in the wake of political manipulations.]

For a patent attorney or patent agent in a law firm, successful performance and career advancement are based primarily on a single, objective, quantifiable metric: how much billed $$$ he generates for the firm [there are, of course, secondary criteria that might come into play ... such as, “He's a totally obnoxious jerk to work with”]. For a scientist or engineer in industry, however, successful performance and career advancement are generally based on a mix of objective and subjective criteria, with weighting set by the whims of HR and management.

* In some instances, particularly in small organizations, a single individual selects the candidates who are awarded slots. But in many instances, particularly in large organizations, a group of individuals controls the selection process. The larger the number of individuals in the group, the more political the process: Just look at what is happening in the US Congress.