A recent radio programme fascinatingly described the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in Cambridge and their London 'colleagues' Maurice Wilkins and Rosalind Franklin. It is now a notorious story that the first recorded image of the double helix by Rosalind Franklin led to Watson and Crick's famous discovery. Watson and Crick won the Nobel prize for their discovery after Franklin had died - she was never made aware of her role in this groundbreaking achievement.
The programme described the troublesome working relationship between Franklin and Wilkins (apparently they didn't like each other, didn't communicate well, and were mutually unclear about the other's role and responsibilities). This impeded their research, Franklin's career, and, more widely, affected the already poor communication and competitive atmosphere between the Cambridge and London labs. (Competition in scientific research is well-known but, given the expectation of collaboration required with the source of the research funding, this seems to have been completely unchecked at the time.)
The story struck me very firmly how, despite the awe-inspiring nature of the work and the intelligence of the scientists, as always the same basic problems in self-awareness, communication and team working emerged to such powerful effect. Very often we learn about under-developed or even dysfunctional behaviour in senior/esteemed/super-smart people but who are not expected, supported or held accountable to change because of this status. How much more could be achieved - not least in their own personal fulfilment - by expecting even the elite to be accountable for their further development? This requires that those in less elevated positions (including in HR) are less in awe of them.
In the current climate of abuses in the charity sector and the ongoing stories of bullying and harassment at work, the frequent acceptance of poor behaviour in the workplace takes on a different hue. There are big differences in scale in these examples but the principle is the same - it is time that the same standards of behaviour are expected of all people and that one's status does not mitigate the need to develop.
The programme described the troublesome working relationship between Franklin and Wilkins (apparently they didn't like each other, didn't communicate well, and were mutually unclear about the other's role and responsibilities). This impeded their research, Franklin's career, and, more widely, affected the already poor communication and competitive atmosphere between the Cambridge and London labs. (Competition in scientific research is well-known but, given the expectation of collaboration required with the source of the research funding, this seems to have been completely unchecked at the time.)
The story struck me very firmly how, despite the awe-inspiring nature of the work and the intelligence of the scientists, as always the same basic problems in self-awareness, communication and team working emerged to such powerful effect. Very often we learn about under-developed or even dysfunctional behaviour in senior/esteemed/super-smart people but who are not expected, supported or held accountable to change because of this status. How much more could be achieved - not least in their own personal fulfilment - by expecting even the elite to be accountable for their further development? This requires that those in less elevated positions (including in HR) are less in awe of them.
In the current climate of abuses in the charity sector and the ongoing stories of bullying and harassment at work, the frequent acceptance of poor behaviour in the workplace takes on a different hue. There are big differences in scale in these examples but the principle is the same - it is time that the same standards of behaviour are expected of all people and that one's status does not mitigate the need to develop.
RSS Feed
