The Buzz with ACT-IAC
The Buzz with ACT-IAC
From Molecular Oncologist to Team Strategist: Trust the Collaborative Journey
In this episode of The Buzz, LM Bennett discusses her transition from bench science to team science at the NIH and NCI, co-authoring a field guide, and her new book, 'How to Succeed at Collaborative Research: A Practical Guide for Teams.' The conversation delves into the significance of trust, emotional intelligence, and effective communication in scientific collaborations, as well as the challenges of virtual teamwork. She also shares insights on designing successful retreats and fostering interdisciplinary teams, emphasizing the importance of intentionality and preemptive planning in collaborative efforts.
Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform to never miss an episode! For more from ACT-IAC, follow us on LinkedIn or visit http://www.actiac.org.
Learn more about membership at https://www.actiac.org/join.
Donate to ACT-IAC at https://actiac.org/donate.
Intro/Outro Music: See a Brighter Day/Gloria Tells
Courtesy of Epidemic Sound
(Episodes 1-159: Intro/Outro Music: Focal Point/Young Community
Courtesy of Epidemic Sound)
Yohanna: [00:00:00] Welcome to this episode of The Buzz. We're thrilled to welcome LM Bennett, a renowned molecular oncologist, author and researcher. Today. She shares how her work at the NIH and NCI led to the co-authorship. Of collaboration and team science, a field guide. Discover how these principles can be effectively applied within the government sector.
Yohanna: Enjoy the episode.
Yohanna: Hello everyone. I am here with LM Bennetts and I am excited about this conversation. Please, Michelle, introduce yourself. Let our listeners know who you are.
LM Bennett: Oh yeah. Hi, my name is Michelle Bennett. I am currently the, the present president and, um, founder of LM Bennett Consulting. I work with teams and individuals and organizations, and my primary focus when I work with them [00:01:00] is to try to help them, um, embrace a more collaborative approach to their, their research and, um, the work that they do organizationally.
Yohanna: Doesn't that sound cool? That sounds fun, right?
LM Bennett: It is pretty cool, I have to admit.
Yohanna: That's amazing. Thank you so much for sharing. So you, you actually began as a molecular oncologist studying, uh, BRCA one, two, right?
LM Bennett: I did. I start, yeah. Well, yeah. And technically we call it, I call it BRCA one because the person who discovered it, Mary Claire King.
LM Bennett: Always called it BRCA one, but I think, uh, society is likes to, uh, pronounce the acronym. So it kind of turned into BRCA one and BRCA two, but
Yohanna: yes. And then you transitioned into leadership roles at the NCI and NIH. That's a big transition, I think. What was the, what was the pivotal moment that shifted your focus from bench science to team science and, you know, strategic [00:02:00] planning?
LM Bennett: Yeah. Um, great question. Um, I, I think there were a couple of things. So when I was a postdoc. Uh, one of the things that I did is I organized a seminar series for postdocs who were on, in the process of looking for their first jobs. And I did that because I felt like, you know, when postdocs gave lectures or, um.
LM Bennett: Talks and preparation. Typically the approach was they give a talk and people ask some scientific questions, and that was the end of it. And so in the seminar series we shifted that where after all of the questions, scientific questions got asked, we would then tell people that now we're gonna move to how can this person make their presentation even more compelling and better, and what are some of the tips?
LM Bennett: So we started this whole. Seminar series and we called them Frontline Seminars. It was when I was the National Institutes of [00:03:00] Environmental Health Sciences. And I found that a really rewarding experience. You know, not just giving talks, which is important, but really learning how to do it better. Um, and I think that sort of just.
LM Bennett: Stuck with me. Like the, the thing you do at the laboratory bench is important, but there's so much more. Um, and how can what we do at the laboratory bench have an impact beyond the experiments with we do? So I think that's. That's probably what started pulling me in the direction of, uh, moving away from the bench.
Yohanna: That's great. And that's really within kind of like act iac, like we do professional development. We have the associates program. I don't know if you're familiar with like Voyagers. We really try to help and develop, um, folks within the, the government contracting space so that. That sounds aligned with what we, we do.
Yohanna: That's really cool. Um, all right, so, so how did your planning as an executive coach [00:04:00] influence your, like, perspective on scientific collaboration? Like where did, where did really, where did that come from?
LM Bennett: Yeah, so that's another really good question. Um, so. When I was in the, I was working in the intramural research program at, at the National Cancer Institute, and we had a huge interest in bringing scientists together from different disciplines and different areas of research to try to catalyze the creation of things that were new.
LM Bennett: You know, we really wanted to, you know, kind of encourage and promote, um, innovation, new thinking. The, the coaching training really helped me understand better how to help these teams that had been brought together from different disciplines. So when they would get stuck as teams and they couldn't really clarify, well, what's, what are we trying to do together?
LM Bennett: How are we trying to do it? What happens if they get mired in [00:05:00] disagreement or, um. What if, you know, what if things just aren't clear? So I think in part of, in part of what happened with me is that I kind of became this go-to person on, you know, well how do you, how do, how do we do this better? And so I think that's what really I.
LM Bennett: I was able to take what I learned from being an executive coach and integrate it into how to help the teams be better teams, more effective, more productive, and actually more innovative, which is kind of exciting.
Yohanna: So I, I see the inklings of, of how you became the co-author of the NIH field Guide. Um, so that came out 2010 and then it was updated again 2018.
Yohanna: Um, what was the most surprising insight your research? Uncovered about like what makes scientific teams suc succeed and fail. So since you were the go-to, you saw a lot of examples. You saw a lot of, oh gosh, these folks are fighting [00:06:00] and like, this is like a theme that happens a lot. So how, how did you apply that to, um.
Yohanna: Like that feel guide.
LM Bennett: Yeah. So we really tried to understand what was contributing to successful team functioning. And I think we knew going into this project that trust was gonna be important, but I don't think we understood how important trust is as the foundation for successful team functioning. It really sits at the at the core, so.
LM Bennett: Uh, you know, I think, um, that was probably the thing that surprised me the most is that we came back to it and we, we really needed to strengthen how we talked about it.
Yohanna: That's amazing. That's a theme that I've also seen within the Act I Act community. We have, uh, our community of in interests, our COIs, and when I interviewed them, they also talk about.
Yohanna: Going at the speed of trust and how to cultivate trust and, you know, mm-hmm. How people can be open and vulnerable and how to talk to [00:07:00] folks, et cetera. So that's, that's really good. I like, I like seeing Yeah. These patterns, you know? Yeah. Um, so now you have a new book coming out. It's coming out in November.
Yohanna: Congratulations. And this one is, uh, titled How to Succeed at Collaborative Research, A Practical Guide for Teams. Um, yeah. So how did you apply? I guess the, the field guide to, to the new book coming out. Are there like, are there parallels? Is there like a Venn diagram happening here?
LM Bennett: I love, I that's a, I love that.
LM Bennett: So yes, there are parallels and then there are extensions. Um, so the, this new book is very much built upon the foundation of the field guide, the. Um, both versions that we had prior. Um, and I would say that it is enhanced by, and we move more strongly to how, how to be a successful team. And so when I think about what [00:08:00] we did with the field guide, um, it was very focused on what, what you need to do, what teams need to do in order to be successful.
LM Bennett: I. And I felt like I started feeling like we really missed an opportunity to help teams really understand how, how do you move from the theory to the practice. So it occurred to me that a lot of the workshops that I had been doing for people, a lot of the lectures I had been doing retreats that I had been doing, um, conferences.
LM Bennett: I had been planning, were very focused on taking people from the theory to the practice. And so I. Thought to myself, well, since I'm doing this in the workshops, why don't we take all of those exercises and put them into the book along with updated content so that we could say, well, here's the theory and now here's how you actually practice with your team to achieve the the [00:09:00] goals you're setting out to achieve.
LM Bennett: Oh, wow.
Yohanna: I'm, I'm sure there are folks that are like on a spectrum. So there are folks that are really into it. There are folks that are, aren't so much into it and there are folks that are just brand new and have no idea what you're talking about, like maybe thrown into it. So I think the guide also, it feels as if the guide helps to like coalesce that the loose collaborations and stuff like bring it all together.
Yohanna: Yeah. Um. If, I mean, if I'm interpreting it right, that's what it feels like. You're, you're kind of trying to bring it all together. How do you advise teams on, like how they can find their ideal position on that spectrum, on that, like where they are in their journey?
LM Bennett: Yep. So usually it's by talking to them and trying to understand what it is they really wanna accomplish and what they wanna achieve.
LM Bennett: Um, I think once they get clear, and it's funny 'cause I say, well, talking to them and. Asking them of all of these clarifying questions. I think in the [00:10:00] process of asking the questions, it, it's they who actually become clearer about what they wanna do and how they wanna do it. And through those, I think through those conversations, I.
LM Bennett: I can become more aware, they can become more aware of, of how they really wanna work together. And then I think that provides a foundation for, well, what are the things that we need to put in place in order to make it work? And what do we really need to tend to? And what maybe do we need to tend to a little bit less?
Yohanna: Is there like, are the people like hesitant to stuff like this? I feel like that's like. It's a little bit therapeutic in a way. Like, you know, like I'm not, I'm not, it's just me trying to find a segue, but I'm also just like thinking about what you said and it's like,
LM Bennett: like, what the heck? Um, yeah. Yeah. I, I really, I really like this question a lot and I like it a lot because I'm actually very, very mindful when I plan retreats [00:11:00] with groups about.
LM Bennett: Um, doing a couple of things. First of all is introducing them to the concept of team science and collaboration. So basically what we're doing is we're taking the science and we're combining it with working with other people. And so that means there's two things going on simultaneously. There's the task.
LM Bennett: Research. And then there's the people, which means there's relationships, there's team dynamics, there's working well with others, and those things don't always mix really well. Um, I've oftentimes had scientists say to me, Michelle, it's not the science you need to worry, worry about. It's the people. And it can be challenging.
LM Bennett: And so the reason I like your question is because when I plan an all day retreat. I usually have them start with the science because the science is comfortable. It gives 'em a chance to work together. The way I have them work together [00:12:00] builds trust and psychological safety because. That's essential. Uh, the way that I work with them gives everybody voice opportunities to be heard because that's a really important component part.
LM Bennett: It's not just the trust and psychological safety. Um, you have to add the willingness to speak up. People want need to feel comfortable sharing their voice. So we do the science bit first and then we shift later in the day to the relationship stuff. We follow a very similar process, but instead of talking about the science, we shift to, okay, how are you gonna work together?
LM Bennett: What kind of experiences have you had in teams in the past that you would never, ever want to relive? And I get them talking about that. And that question can be especially helpful. 'cause so many times I'll talk to teams and I'll be like, well, you know, yeah. [00:13:00] How are you going to work together? You know what happens if there's a disagreement?
LM Bennett: And guess what their first reaction to that is? We don't disagree. Oh, this is a great team. We all get along really well, right? And so then I ask 'em that question. I'm like, well, you know, why don't you just talk for a couple minutes about a team you were on in the past and something that didn't work well and you wouldn't want to have repeated in this team.
LM Bennett: I circle back about 10 minutes later, and guess what? Huge list, right? And deep conversation about how they want the team to work and work well together. So I think your, that's where your question led me is it's, it's very, it's hard to lead with the, what many people have told me is touchy feely, Michelle.
LM Bennett: Yeah. Um, and therapeutic, yeah, in a way sometimes it can feel very therapeutic. [00:14:00] Um, and I think the last thing I'll say is I think some of, sometimes I in work with teams when they realize that they've sort of been at loggerheads or two sides of a position, and you get through that, you know, that impasse to the other side.
LM Bennett: It's just so rewarding to see everybody smiling and joking around and having fun, like, wow, we really worked through something that was tying us up in a knot. So how's that?
Yohanna: Yeah. That feels really good. That feels fun. That feels like so smooth. I, I feel like also the, like I've been writing down in my notes, like the science behind being brave.
Yohanna: That's what it sounds like. No one wants to really speak up. They don't wanna look dumb, they don't wanna sound dumb. Um, so that's pretty good. All right. Yeah.
LM Bennett: Well, I like what you just said about like the science of being [00:15:00] brave. Um. Because there, you know, there is a science to it. Um, and part of that science goes to your mindset, which is if people are coming at the collaboration with kind of a un, a disingenuous mindset or you know, they think they're right all the time, or they judge others and they blame others.
LM Bennett: That doesn't work really well. So, I mean, to be able to come into a space and be, you know, open to others and willing to learn with and from others, um, it can make such a difference. I think that's part of that, that science you were talking about. Huh? That's deep. It is deep. I agree with you. It's really deep.
LM Bennett: Okay. I have no idea. [00:16:00]
Yohanna: So it sounds like we're talking about trust, clear vision and emotional intelligence, like those things are listed among the top takeaways so far in our conversation. Which of these do you consider most, most critical and like, I guess they all kind of feed into each other, but, but you let me know.
LM Bennett: No, I would agree. They all feed into each other. Um, at the base, I would say you really have emotional tell intelligence. And the reason I would go with that one is 'cause it's more focused on the self. Um, people need to be willing, people on teams and just individually, they need to be able to and be willing to self-reflect.
LM Bennett: So teams need to reflect on how they're doing, what they're doing, how they're doing it, and people need to be able to reflect. So part of that is being able to see the part you're playing in the dysfunction of the group. If you are always saying, it's not [00:17:00] me, it's them. That's probably not very realistic.
LM Bennett: So I think, I think that emotional intelligence grounds that and then enables the ability to build trust and psychological safety and create the vision.
ELC AD (2): It is that time of year again, imagine Nation ELC 2025 be a part of the most exciting event in the government tech arena taking place from October 26th to the 28th at the Hershey Lodge in stunning Hershey, Pennsylvania. This event is the pinnacle of innovation in the government technology sector.
ELC AD (2): Providing a can't miss. Opportunity for over a thousand leaders and innovators from both government and industry to gather, engage in thought provoking discussions and dynamic sessions designed to tackle the most pressing [00:18:00] challenges facing government today. Registrations are open. Please visit act i act.org/upcoming events.
ELC AD (2): Join us at Imagination EC 2025. We can't wait to welcome you.
Yohanna: So you're, you're creating an agreement with yourself and then you can extend that agreement with others in, in your collaboration. So, so when you emphasize having that kind of emotional intelligence as, as like the base agreement, what should every team kind of include in like a verbal contract or a written contract when they, when they begin working together?
Yohanna: Like what should they have kind of to start with?
LM Bennett: Uh, I'm a huge, um, advocate of something called a collaboration agreement. Oh, wow. Okay. Um, and collaborate. Yeah. And collaboration agreements can look like different things. Um, you know, it can look like a formal document. It can be a, like a, welcome to my team letter.
LM Bennett: It can be a series of [00:19:00] emails that people share where they gain some clarity about how they're going to work together. You know, I think if I were to identify like, what are the top three things that they really need to agree on as they're getting going. Um, it's roles, responsibilities, um, it's how they're gonna run the meetings and when they're gonna meet.
LM Bennett: Who's gonna take charge of those logistical things? 'cause that can become an issue quickly. And then the last one is, um, what are they gonna do if they come up, find that they're disagreeing about something? And when I say what are they going to do, I mean, I wanna see a standard operating procedure. Step one, step two, step three, because just telling me they're gonna have quote unquote open and honest conversations is not enough.
LM Bennett: Well, [00:20:00] because
Yohanna: it's like you look, you look queasy. Like folks wanna just keep it vague and we'll see how that goes. And we'll like, and it's like, no, you like having this process really brings it to like a place where you can. Figure it out and get an outcome instead of like,
LM Bennett: ah, we'll see. You know? So I have, um, I have some experience working with teams where we've challenged them to put together collaboration agreements during the planning time for a grant that they want to submit.
LM Bennett: So that basically get some funds for planning and then they turn those plans into another grant application and. Compete for dollars. And in this project that I was working on, we had over the course of about five years, maybe somewhere between 20 to 40 teams a year. So a lot of teams and every team that made it to that [00:21:00] second stage had not only developed the collaboration agreement, but they had taken it pretty seriously.
LM Bennett: And I think that says a lot about how the collaboration agreement. Can underpin the success of a team. I will be the first one to admit that it takes time, but time invested early. To get all of those things sorted out, I think, and have a huge return on investment later, and actually help the teams focus more on the task work and less on disagreement and unhappiness or whatever else might be going on.
Yohanna: Yeah, getting it early, catching it on then, because the earlier you start with that mindset, the more I, I feel, I, I think that the. You go, you get into a habit early. So like the habit forms before, and then like when the money gets in, like, okay, we just kind of plug and play like, okay, this is our, this is how we've always been working without [00:22:00] the, without the grant, you know, reward or whatever.
LM Bennett: Mm-hmm. And so you say habits and I would probably say norms. You're establishing the norms of the group.
Yohanna: Yeah, for sure.
LM Bennett: For sure. And then that provides a really solid foundation. Yeah. This is how we work together. Yeah.
Yohanna: Shifting gears a bit. So, uh, reflecting on your NIH uh, tenure reforms and and reward system, do you believe the, the broader research ecosystem now genuinely values team science?
Yohanna: Or is there, are there gaps that remain?
LM Bennett: Yes. Um, yes, absolutely. How do you like that answer? Um, I, I think it still varies tremendously. So I have been to top tier research institutions. That have very, what I would say, very impressive reviews for promotion that incorporate all dimensions of what a scientist is doing from individual work to how they're [00:23:00] contributing in, in a collaboration.
LM Bennett: And when I say how they're contributing, I don't mean just that they're on a team, but they're. There's a lot of clarity about what their role is on the team and whether they're really driving the team and contributing substantively or if they're just kinda, you know, hanging onto the, the, um, what do you call 'em, the coat, the coats, you know, kind of just, you know, being associated.
LM Bennett: Um, and I've been at top tier universities that have. To paraphrase told me, well, Michelle, we know it when we see it. And, you know, that's, that's a little less convincing that they are necessarily being very mindful of how collaboration is being recognized and rewarded in the context of, um, our research institutions.
LM Bennett: I think. One of the biggest [00:24:00] challenges I see, especially for people being recruited is that many times these new recruits will hear the institutional leadership or the people who are recruiting them to the organization say things like, we really value collaboration. We really want people to work together more.
LM Bennett: We can do more together than we can alone. Then once they're in, they start hearing these whispers about, well, you better not collaborate too much or too early before you get, uh, promoted, because the review committee won't look kindly on that. So it's like, well, what's a person to do? It's like, then they feel like, oh, okay, well I can't collaborate very much.
LM Bennett: I certainly can't collaborate with my previous mentor because if I do that, I'll look like I'm really not independent. So I'll just wait. And so by the time they end up getting promoted, you know, they've had [00:25:00] so much of that kind of pushed out of them because of the institutional culture that, you know, it's like, oh, well now you're promoted, now you can collaborate.
LM Bennett: So I think it can put people in a really, um, bad bind. Um, I have encouraged in the past, um, people who are really interested in collaborating to work with their institutional leadership to create something like a pre-tenure agreement where there's a lot of clarity about how they're gonna be recognized and how they're gonna be rewarded.
LM Bennett: If they have concerns, because that way once the review starts to happen, you can say, these are the things we agreed that you would look at and consider in the context of my, um, my promotion to the next level. Does that
Yohanna: make sense? Yeah, that makes sense. And I'm not even in the academic world, like, you know, like I understand, like this idea that, ugh.
Yohanna: It's just so frustrating [00:26:00] 'cause things just stay the same when there are people capable and like willing to like change it and make it better.
LM Bennett: Yeah. You know, and I, I think this is like one of those taboo topics. I think this is one of those topics that people really don't like to talk about. And I would say from the junior investigator perspective, I don't think I've met people who are necessarily not brave.
LM Bennett: They're very brave. Actually, um, maybe some of the brave bravery is actually evidenced by the fact that they play the game in order to get the tenure. Um, but at the same time, um, it, it is really disheartening because what, what's the, what's the point, right? I mean. Anyway. Yes.
Yohanna: Frustrating. So, so it seems like you've had a lot of experience with, um, different [00:27:00] teams and, and, uh, like conflict resolution when, when you provide the field guide, you know, do you, do you see that the, that like that field guide makes a difference and helps them figure out how to resolve a conflict?
LM Bennett: So I think that that's, um. I think that, that's a good question. It's an interesting question 'cause I don't know that I've gotten as much feedback about whether or not the guide in and of itself helps people provide, you know, helps people solve conflict. Um, it's definitely not like a really, really strong emphasis of the field guide.
LM Bennett: I think the field guide's emphasis is much more on preempting. Trying to think about how do we prevent the, the conflict in the first place. I mean, certainly in the field guide and in this new book coming out, we spend time talking about how do you have difficult conversations? And you know, if you do get to the point where you [00:28:00] have a conflict, what are some of the things that you need to think about and how can you resolve it?
LM Bennett: I would say, I think part of what we really, really wanted to try to do with the field guide in this book is to. I don't know. So you say be preventative, if I dare say like how do you help people learn enough in the beginning, early on, how to have productive conflict, how to disagree in a way that doesn't leave people feeling poorly and upset, but to have disagreements in a way that enables everybody to learn more.
LM Bennett: Appreciate other people's perspectives and actually maybe even enables the team to do more than it could have done before they had that discussion. Because now everybody knows something more than they did before and, and what I just described, I mean, that really, really requires people to be vulnerable, right?[00:29:00]
LM Bennett: So then we're right back at that whole trust thing. If the group hasn't established the trust and the psychological safety and the, um, willingness to share voice, it's really hard to get there. So I would, I think that's what I would say is it's much more about trying to help people reframe conflict in a way that it's not, you know, conflict doesn't need to be seen as something negative.
LM Bennett: It can be seen as something positive. If you think about science, science, I mean it thrives on conflict. What I mean by that is if, if, if we're collaborating or we're colleagues and we're working in similar areas, and I say, you know, I say to you, well, let's turn it around. And you say to me, you know, Michelle, I'm not sure you've interpreted your results correctly.
LM Bennett: I mean, I should get really curious, [00:30:00] right? Like, tell me more. And that's what happens typically in science is we talk about results and interpretations because it's ma, it matters. We're trying to get to the scientific truth, so just let's apply that to personal situations. You know, Michelle, I really don't appreciate that you said that to me in that way.
LM Bennett: Can we talk about it? Oh my gosh, my bad. I should be just as curious, right? Yes. Let's talk about that because I don't want you to think that I've said anything or meant anything that was negative, so I need to understand what I said and how I said it that led you to. Have a negative reaction. Yeah. It's
Yohanna: not a personal attack, it's, it's the fact that I care enough to actually bring it up to you.
Yohanna: I care about our future together, and in order for us to work together, I, we need to communicate better. Right? Like that's, that to me is like a compliment. It's like, oh, wow. They care enough about me. They care about enough about this project. They care enough about our future, [00:31:00] and all I have to do is adjust this little thing that I didn't know I was doing, and they brought it to my attention.
Yohanna: Great. Now I get to interrogate other things about me that I didn't know I was doing. Like that's, I think that's love.
LM Bennett: Absolutely. Yep. Team love. Yes.
Yohanna: So there's like a fun positive effect and, and happiness can enhance, I think, creativity in teams. How do you, how do you practically embed these human elements into scientific collaborations?
Yohanna: How, how is it that you like, I think we just kind of had an example just now like, oh, I didn't like this, et cetera. That's a human. Mm-hmm.
LM Bennett: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Element where we
Yohanna: just,
LM Bennett: yeah. Um, so we, I think it's very common, like for me, for other people in the, in the field to encourage teams to take time to do some things together that's not related to the science.
LM Bennett: Um, so, you know, have, I [00:32:00] know scientific teams that met or they meet in the afternoon and they have tea together. I. Um, I know groups that will go out to dinner and then, um, you know, maybe go out dancing afterwards. I know other groups that will take a hike together in the, in the woods and spend, you know, have a picnic and enjoy time together.
LM Bennett: So those, that time away and that time together is really important. And it's important for a couple of reasons. And I'm gonna go right. Back to trust as an example, because how can you not? Right? So when we think about trust, there's a couple different kinds of trust. There's a trust that's called cognitive trust, and that's task-based trust.
LM Bennett: So that's the trust that I have. In your competence, for example, as a collaborator or I trust that you're gonna do what you say. [00:33:00] When you say you're gonna do it, I trust that you're going to, you know, follow the standard operating procedures. So that's cognitive trust. In the United States, we tend to be very cognitive in how we build trust with other people.
LM Bennett: I. But not everybody in the world builds trust the same way. So in the United States, we tend to build that cognitive trust and then we start integrating the relationship trust, the more identity-based trust, the trust that's more about, um, becoming friends at a deeper level that sort of. Friend trust, if that makes sense.
LM Bennett: More based on our relationship and our feelings. So that's the United States. But if we look at Asia and we look at South America and we look at Africa just as a couple of examples and we. Also recognize that [00:34:00] our collaborations are becoming more multicultural In those countries that I just mentioned, it is oftentimes the case that they will want to build relationship trust.
LM Bennett: So one of my favorite. Examples is, um, so I haven't traveled to Asia yet. I got it on my list of things to do, but I have traveled to Ethiopia and one of the things that I learned is that if I go to Ethiopia and I focus exclusively on the task and I am not mindful of the relationships, that that will not work out really well for me because building relationship.
LM Bennett: Is as important, if not more important in order for the community of people that I'm working with to trust me in the task dimension as well.
Yohanna: So as you mentioned earlier, a big part of your work is designing [00:35:00] retreats and strategic planning sessions. What are, what are three consistent pitfalls to avoid when orchestrating such events?
LM Bennett: So I think one we touched on a little bit earlier. Which is when I design retreats, for example, I don't start with all the relationship stuff, quote unquote. Um, it's easier to start with the science. Um, when I'm working on like conferences, like several day events. I think one of the things that I really try hard to work with, um, the people who are sponsoring the workshop or the, the series is.
LM Bennett: Let's minimize how much people get talked at and focus more on enabling people to talk with. Um, and I say that because I think attention spans have, um, you know, kind of gone down a little bit. But if you really want to have a [00:36:00] con that has some really solid outputs at the end. It's probably good to have people give people a chance to talk so that over the course of whatever, how many days they're working together, they can help to generate those outputs that you want.
LM Bennett: Um. I think I just hit on the last one too, is I've worked with people who are not very clear on what their outcomes are or what their outputs are. Like what's the purpose of this event? And I think if people can be really clear with the purpose of whatever they're working on, then we can design really well to.
LM Bennett: Achieve that purpose by the end of the event.
Yohanna: So with the research leaders that you've been working with that are trying to grow inter interdisciplinary teams, what's the single most important habit to instill from, from day one?
LM Bennett: Single most important habit is to, um, have them integrate. The how, how we're going to be working together [00:37:00] into what they do with the team.
LM Bennett: So instead of having every meeting only focused on the science or the task at hand, make sure you take some time to talk about how you're working together or a little snippet of it to work on that collaboration agreement or a little bit of time to do, uh, um, an after action review. What worked well, what didn't work, what can we do better in the future?
LM Bennett: I think that's probably number one.
Yohanna: This would, uh, you would include this in a, in a crash course for you, for PhD students that aren't very good with, or that lack, you know, formal training and collaboration and, and team dynamics. These are like, like what else would, it would be included in this crash course, like maybe three essential modules.
LM Bennett: I would definitely do a, a module on listening. I actually developed the, an exercise that I call the listening ladder that takes people from not [00:38:00] listening to be able to engage in empathetic listening. So I would definitely do something on listening because I don't think everybody, um, listens as well as they could clip.
LM Bennett: So that would definitely be one of the modules. I think the other module would be on, um. What would I describe it as? Um, like accepting gifts from other people, like the art of improv almost. You know, in improv it's the yes. And, and so when people share ideas around the table, scientific ideas or just even ideas about where to go for dinner if they've decided they're gonna do that, um, accepting the gifts with graciousness and appreciation.
LM Bennett: Not stomping on it and saying like, that's a really dumb idea, or how are you going to do that? But really being, um, gracious accepters of what, what comes to [00:39:00] them. Um, kind of remembering that just because you accept something or say thank you doesn't mean you have to do it. But you can toss it into the bin for consideration with everybody else.
Yohanna: That's a solid crash course. I take that crash course. So after, after, so after someone takes this your crash course and goes through your three uh, modules, when, uh, principal investigators considering joining or forming a team, what are the top three red flags to watch for before they fully commit?
LM Bennett: Yep.
LM Bennett: So, um, doing, doing. Team building intentionally is really a good idea. So I think the first thing I would say is you can actually be very purposeful and intentional about who you invite to the team. Um, some people are going to work out together better than others. It's kind of like dating, right? I mean, there are gonna be, there's gonna be team members that [00:40:00] are going to work well with your.
LM Bennett: Um, your style, your approach, the things that you want to, um, do together, have similar values and some are not. So I would be mindful about, um, invitations to collaborate, not just, uh, engaging anybody who wants to engage, but doing some interviews to be very intentional about how to, um, how to put the team together to make sure that the right people.
LM Bennett: The other thing I would caution them about is crossing their fingers and hoping everything works out. So that's where we go back to the collaboration plan. Um, it is essential that people spend time thinking about how they want to collaborate. Um, and then the third red flag is not being intentional about how they're gonna communicate.
LM Bennett: I mean, that sounds like really obvious, but I'll tell you, I have seen more teams run into tension about how they're gonna collaborate, [00:41:00] um, and how they're gonna communicate because there are so many ways to do it. Now. There's slack, there's. Chats, there's WhatsApp, there's, and there's, I'm sure there's 500 more that I've never even heard of.
LM Bennett: And it keeps changing and everybody has their favorite platform. And even people who collaborate in the same institution, different departments have different platforms that work differently. So where are they gonna house their shared documents? Can you get into our system? I mean, it's just, yeah. So that's number three.
Yohanna: That's great that, that brings me into my next question about how COVID-19 has accelerated virtual and hybrid science teams and, and, uh, how can you actually, you know, do team building and be purposeful and intentional virtually, you know, what are, what have you learned about sustaining trust and cohesion when colleagues rarely or if, or, or never, you know, meet in person?
LM Bennett: [00:42:00] Yeah, so, um, I. I ended up doing a lot of work, um, during the pandemic that you would, that would be described as collaborative work. Leading teams, engaging with teams, designing conferences, all virtually. And I think the, what I would tell you is that if you had told me I would be able to do those things and I'd be able to do them successfully in a completely virtual environment before I, before we hit the pandemic, I would've said, no way.
LM Bennett: It's just not possible. There's no way to build that level of trust and unity and engagement and cohesion in a virtual setting. Um, but guess what? I did it, it was hugely successful. I was amazed at how, um, so much of what I'm talking about now translates to the virtual space. [00:43:00] Um, and I would say the only thing that you really need to think about differently, especially when you're in more of the facilitator leader role, is being intentional.
LM Bennett: Again, this word intentionality must be the word of the day. Um, about how, how people are gonna work together virtually. So having ground rules like video on. I mean, you, you cannot work effectively if everybody's got video off. Plus if video people have video off, I can't see them nodding or whether they're not even there or working on something else.
LM Bennett: Right. So that's, that's really, really important. One thing that is different though is that, um, or I could say enhances the virtual work is if you can meet virtually. At the beginning and spend some really quality time at the beginning of an engagement and maybe [00:44:00] do that again on, you know, one more time.
LM Bennett: Over the course of a year, you will have better, deeper relationship. I. Because that's where you can have the meetings before the meetings, the meeting, after the meeting, the meetings in the bathroom while you're eating lunch. So it is a very different dynamic when you're in person. So I would say that in per in person component really can enhance the virtual component, but I am not.
LM Bennett: Nervous anymore at all about just doing things fully, virtually.
Yohanna: I don't know if I should share about going to a rave on Zoom, but that's another story. Looking five to 10 years ahead, what's your, your vision of the future of team science? So you're okay with the virtual space. What would indicate to you that the field has progressed meaningfully?
LM Bennett: I think the biggest indicator for me is that, um, this type of training and. [00:45:00] Understanding about how to work well collaboratively would no longer be referred to as team science, but we would just talk about research collaboration because it's important no matter what discipline you're working in. And so I would say let's broaden it out and let's have it apply to everyone.
LM Bennett: Um, I think the other thing I would say is that. Um, and I think you hit on this earlier when you said something like, well, you know, people aren't typically trained in this. Well, I would have it be, uh, a fundamental component of how we train graduate students. Regardless of, you know, what discipline they're working in again, but to have a, you know, a semester, two semester course where they are not only introduced to the theory, but they get opportunities to practice, they get homework to take back to their teams that they're working with and, and, [00:46:00] and all of that.
LM Bennett: Because I think if we want people to do this well, it's not enough. Um. For me, for example, to parachute in and do a workshop, um, and then leave. People will gain a little bit, but it, that's not sustainable. Right. The change for them won't be sustainable over time.
Yohanna: So it sounds to me you want, you want this practice to be so embedded that the title Team science is just gone.
Yohanna: It's like we don't even, it's not even called Team Science anymore, it's just called what We do.
LM Bennett: Oh, I like that. Yes. What we do. Fabulous. That's great. Yes.
Yohanna: All right. So we are, uh, this is my last question. We are towards the end of our conversation. This has been really, really fun. I really enjoyed our time, uh, together.
Yohanna: I, I wanna know what brings you the greatest satisfaction today from coaching emerging teams to influencing institutional strategy?
LM Bennett: What brings me the greatest satisfaction? I think, um, [00:47:00] WI find tremendous satisfaction when at the end of an event. Or at the end of an engagement, somebody says something along the lines of, you know, that was perfect.
LM Bennett: That's exactly what we needed. And I want to be very, um, mindful of also saying that, you know, it's never really just me, it's me working in collaboration with others to bring about, um, that conclusion. Or to have whatever we've been doing culminate in a final product. So I think that's, that's what I find satisfying is really feeling, I guess, really feeling like I'm helping to make some sort of a difference.
LM Bennett: Um, I think a lot, don't laugh, but I think a lot about the ripple effect. If I can just do one little thing that can cause just a little ripple in a pond, um, you know, maybe that ripple [00:48:00] can keep going.
Yohanna: I believe that, I believe like one ripple affects somebody else to do another ripple. Thank you so much for your time, Michelle.
Yohanna: Where can folks, uh, contact you and connect and be, uh, be changed by your ripple?
LM Bennett: Oh. What a lovely question. So I have a website, lm bennett consulting.com. People can, um, find out more about me and what I do there, and there's a little contact page. People can just drop me a note and I'll be in touch. Great.
LM Bennett: Thank you so much. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much. This has been wonderful.
Yohanna: Thank you for joining us on this episode of The Buzz. Stay tuned for more conversations and insights in future episodes. Until next time, stay curious. And connected.