Five good reasons to change job

With decreasing priority:

• The area/domain/nature of your organization doesn't express anymore you professional inspirations. You realize that (even if you were good on it) the career path you have chosen - even if it looked the right choice when made the call - doesn't express you anymore. Most likely changing the setting in such a context will be not that trivial and will require tremendous investment, but still it is worth making the effort. Professionally you have a long path to go until you give up work, you have to be sure that direction you have chose satisfies you at the minimum and you can project yourself for the decades to come. 
• You have doubts on the strategic development plan of your organization as instructed from your upper management colleagues. You believe that either the project (even if well aligned with your objectives) lacks of sufficient support towards its execution or the ambition is limited compared to your own standards and therefore you cannot project yourself in the long run and you are convinced that even if they manage to succeed on their plans still your organization will not be a top division player according to your expectations. Walk out, look for a more ambitious project where you can make the difference. It is better contributing less to a great effort! than contributing a lot, to a project which you think that either will fail or will not be remembered as an outstanding one. 
• You have reached the top of what your organization can offer you and you believe that there isn't much left to contribute to your organization success (according to the career path you have chosen) or to improve yourself. You can comfortably sit on your success but in the long run this will not work out, most likely you will get bored, and will feel frustrated for not moving forward. Looking for a new challenge, either through a new more competitive environment pushing you to excellence or through a career plan change. 
• You believe that your organization fails to attract top level leaders/management or internal promotion policies in the way/criteria are done (one would expect that these should be added value/contribution/experience/credentials) fail to provide the expected outcome. Consequently, most of the upper management does not assume risky, visionary calls which most likely are the ones that will make the difference in the future according to your opinion and assume conventional zero-risk management policies. It will be just a matter of time before you crash with the upper management, which most likely will make your life really hard. Also, in such a setting decisions at some point might become irrational (according to your standards) since due to the absence of making hard calls - that usually dissatisfy  many people - decisions will be taken according to the average dissatisfaction rule on the basis of solidarity.
• You have integration issues (that might be due to yourself), and constantly you have to fight to make things happen that seem trivial to you and whenever this happen you are almost alone. Obviously you are not at the right place, and even if you keep succeeding on making things happen, this progressively will go away, and still at some point you will realize that tremendous amount of your productive time will be invested on navigating within the system and fighting against your colleagues.

Ps. The above are thoughts reflect my state of mind after two decades of experience in excellent places which did greatly appreciate my work both in academia and industry as well as in Europe and United States.
https://twitter.com/AgoniGrammi

excellence = systemic support, intellectual capacity, visionary management (and some resources)

Well, excellence is a word that I love. I consider it (along with loyalty and honesty) to be a pillar of professional and personal development and I suggest to "myself" and my colleagues to their best to attain it. Our school is going through its revolution, we are in the process through a fusion process to merge with another school and as a consequence we will double the students and the faculty. The word excellence is placed in all contexts as motivation, however it seems that the interpretation is quite different depending on whom you talk.

When I was fresh researcher/junior faculty, I had the impression that excellence was just a matter of financial resources, intellectual capacity and hard work. However, this is a very simplistic hypothesis that I do realize doesn't correspond that much to the reality. Sure, resources are one of the pillars (even though in some of the fields this is not necessary), and in particular in experimental domains the lack of institutional/public support could be a major drawback. Such conditions heavily depend on the investigator/manager/team and therefore in general could be attained relatively reasonably well independently on the employer context.

However that is not enough. Structural support from the institution/employer is critical. Resources cannot build in the short run the foundations of a pyramid, which are necessary to reach excellence. Success is a team building/work effort and the lack of basic and reasonable support diminishes the impact and the quality of the work done. Successful leaders could definitely deal with minor issues and find solutions to them. However, when it happens all the time, then this is a considerable waste of time, highly demotivating and in the long run a incredible factor of dissatisfaction which might lead on giving up.

Then, the most important is long term ambition of your employer/upper management, and visionary people making/taking decisions. Of course, you can operate on your own, of course you can do your best to attain your objectives, of course you can try to build your pyramid but what happens when your vision is not the one of your employer? What happens when there is discrepancy between the ambition declared from your institution and the support/calls made? Resources are important, but I think visionary leaders are twice more important compared to resources. It is most likely that you will achieve your objectives with less resources but a well rounded structural support and leading management having a long term vision compared to the situation where resources are available but the management is not there. This is going to happen simply because visionary people will make the calls when necessary and even in the lack of sufficient resources they will prioritize their distribution appropriately.

Of course, the ideal will be to be part of a structure with exceptional structural support, and unlimited resources and top level management :-).

If it doesn't happen, then the most important thing is not to give up. Do all your possible efforts to remain at the top, make abstraction of the things that you don't like, do not waste time fighting with the the established way of doing things, avoid conflicts with your upper management and your institution unless really necessary, but not give up neither to your ambition, neither to your principles. You should be respected for what you are, your top quality work and not for how well you please your colleagues/management. Either excellence is part of the vision and culture of your institution (and not just a verbal expression who can be used from anyone) or not. In the latter case you will have to face the "inertia" of all actors/parts of the chain and the support you will get from your colleagues (unfortunately) will be very limited.  The statistics are not on your side.

In general (and unfortunately) maturity comes with age, as well better understanding of our environment and its limits. Hoping that you will be able to change things on your own, because your are doing your job (or at least you believe so) and you are able to support your ambition/initiatives is not enough. Hoping that you will be able to overcome the limitations of your ecosystem on your own is feasible to some extent but there is a price to pay; assume your job and deliver, making reasonable compromises, being creative, and have a great sense abstraction. The most important thing is that at the end of the day you have always a choice since no one is irreplaceable. If things do not work out, you can still always go to an equivalent or a better place!

Ps1. The above are thoughts reflect my state of mind after two decades of experience in excellent places both in academia and industry as well as in Europe and United States.
Ps2. If you encounter the same situation again and again then it might be possible that indeed the problem is yourself and you have a fully distorted image of the reality and yourself (which most likely is my case)

Wisdom never gets you in troubles, intelligence gets you out of them, leadership force you to affront them for your colleagues

It happens often to be in an awkward professional situation where things seem to be quite complicated and from the very early stage you see/envision/feel problems in the long run. This can be either due your incompetence or the ones of your colleagues in the loop, either due vision inconsistency either due upper management misjudgement. In such a setting, you have three options:

• evacuate the problem, run from the very beginning. Since it is obvious that most likely things will never work out, simply run. The objective is to figure out a way disassociating yourself from the effort as early as possible. The arguments can be a little bit fictitious but it doesn't matter, situation will blow anyway. This will allow you a "honorable mention", no one will be hurt (yourself, colleagues, upper management) and your image will be preserved. Wisdom will never get you in trouble. The risk is to end up working on second class projects, simply because in many cases highly ambitious projects seem problematic. 
• involve yourself but moderately from the very beginning. This will allow you to negotiate and re-adjust your position depending on the outcome. Maintain a neutral position as much as you can and be ready to abandon the effort when the situation seems to become complicated or whenever the whole effort converges to oblivion. Be as diplomatic as you can, make as much alliances as you can and position yourself as a catalyst. Most likely no one will pay attention to you when things move in the wrong direction and no one will blame you. On the negative side most likely you are heading towards become a manager, with limited perspectives and complete lack of leadership and  ideas that will make the difference. 
• it is a quality of a person to make the call and simply stand behind it. Most likely, in order to be able to make such a call you are appreciated from your colleagues and your upper management. Running away is not consistent with your principles and ethics, and if you don't stand up no one will do it. Think of your colleagues, who have respect for you not because you have been placed in this position from the upper management but because you deserve it. These colleagues do not have the ability to stand up, do not have the means neither to avoid or run from these problems. If you don't do it, things will not change, incompetence will prevail, situation will be repeated again and again and like as usual the weakest parts of the chain will suffer the most.  Well, the risk is that you will have quite limited support because most of your colleagues will run away from the problem and that you have to face upper management and explain that things are wrong, something that is usually not appreciated, but as I said before, it is a quality of a leader to make the best possible decisions not only for himself but for his colleagues as well, stand behind and fight for them. It is the only option if you want to be loyal to your principles/ethics, loyal to your colleagues and loyal to yourself.  

To conclude, depending on your track record, the support you can get from your colleagues and your long term career plan you have to make a choice. All of them are equally good, wisdom and intelligence immediately pay out, leadership does the same in the long run but certainly will create you problems in the present.

Handling Incompetence in Collaborative Projects

Well success is something relative, it can be the individual accomplishment of hard work, innovative ideas and creative thinking but very often is the outcome of well coordinated, interdisciplinary team efforts. In the later case, the success  heavily depends on the quality of individuals but also their ability to come a mutual consensus of the efforts to be carried out and their role in the process. 

Well, often either the individuals cannot work together, or are incompetent, or even worst the individuals while being incompetent they also consider themselves as a central/leading piece of the effort. The outcome is highly predictable, failure independently on whatever efforts you will put on the project. You can start at the very beginning being cooperative and try to explain with arguments the reasons why the effort should be carried out differently and subsequently you can argue on the choices and direction of the project, but still it will make no difference, other than putting tremendous energy both for succeeding on your task as well as maintaining alive the project the outcome is highly predictable. 

Now the question is what to do next? well there are two options, either walk out from the project, or trying to bypass the incompetence by involving upper management. Well depending on your situation and how much you are appreciated from your employer you can make an effort to involve upper management even if the outcome is highly uncertain. So, are we contemned to fail? well not necessary. There is another strategy depending on whether or not you can build a consensus in the team. 

The idea is fairly simple, if you really believe on the project do your job as best as you can and deliver what is expected from you, high quality, top level, innovative ideas! Make your involvement on the project an indispensable piece of its survival and success using real arguments and focusing on the added value  you and your collaborators do bring in. Ignore the frustration and the incompetence of your colleagues, what does count is that the job is done and more importantly it is appreciated from your colleagues not because subordination  reasons but because if its quality. Simply deliver!

Once this has happened, then go back and discuss your participation conditions. If it doesn't work, then it is time to move on and do something else, give up and abandon the project. Understanding the limits of your arguments in the decision process/chain is extremely important. Even if the project might collapse which is definitely pity for your organization and yourself given the tremendous effort you have put it, the bottom line is that you did your best! and if you don't walk out you will be miserable and unhappy. Failing in such a setting certainly hurts but it is better to move on rather than wasting time, effort and resources on something that anyway it will collapse and you have no means to overcome. "Success is the result of perfection, hard work, learning from failure, loyalty, and persistence"

note: keep in mind that it might happen that the incompetence can come from yourself as well :-( 

CentraleSupelec : Seize the opportunity to build a great school

I am neither a Centrale nor a Supelec graduate, actually I "am not even" a famous Grande Ecole alumnus. Having said that, I have traveled a lot (had many international appointments), luckily enough I have been a prolific researcher which “gives” me an international standing and – at least I think - allows me to see things differently and express my opinion without much bias (at is concerns my "Centrale" origins).

Fusion is always a very difficult process. The process of putting together two institutions even if they are quite similar it is always painful. Different people, cultures, philosophies and habits should meet in harmony. It is a process that takes time, requires patience but also a long term vision. It should be clear where the new school should lead, what will be the main axes of excellence and how the new school will be operating. The most common decision is to average things, this is something quite common in mathematics, find the equidistance between the two poles, it will most likely not correspond to something but it will make equally happy/unhappy both parties. This would definitely have been the best possible solution 10-20 years back when the finances of the higher education and in general of the state were that different but it cannot happen anymore. State support is declining, academic growth is limited, digital revolution will definitely change higher education while in the context of consolidation towards creating major University poles in France (ParisSaclay) the Grandes Ecoles will definitely mutate to a new era where most likely their “exceptional” standing within the French education system will be somehow diluted in the years to come.

Centrale & Supelec according to the most reasonable international standards are small (and in general not that visible schools). There is first the question of mass (student and academic mass), and then the question of dispersion. It is not sustainable for any school (unless it is an indisputable international leader) to offer academic programs to a number of students that is disproportionally aligned to the expected faculty investment required for their delivery. This is also the case as it concerns research where one has to combine excellence first with significant man power. We cannot claim that we are excellent in all areas, this is certainly not true! We cannot claim that we should be active in terms of research investment in all engineering areas as well (this neither feasible nor sustainable). Science - as well as research in general - undergo cycles which in engineering and computer science can be quite “short” and therefore agility is critical. We cannot continue to invest in areas because there was a critical mass due to the important past historical activities.  Of course these disciplines should continue to excel but it is a strategic decision to make the call on the direction we are heading even if we make some of many people unhappy. There will be an important number of “Grandes  Ecoles” at Saclay in the years to come, what will differential our school from them? We could say that our students are excellent but their students will be as well and most likely 10-20 years from now all of them will get the same degree! Do people pay attention for Oxford graduates on the college which delivered their degree? Well the answer in no and therefore we have to provide highly innovative programs that differentiate us with them!

Centrale & Supelec according to the most reasonable international standards heavily depend on state funding which most likely will further decline in the future. Therefore additional resources are to be found which though should allow to the school to move to the right direction. Collaborations & International visibility will be a major card to play. It has to happen though on an equitable basis! Stating that we work with the best when actually the only thing that it happens is that we send our students to them and we have no incoming flow is not a credible argument. In order to do though we still have to be well identified and well visible on what we offer! Which cannot happen if we stay disperse and we try to be happy with everyone. Last but not least, research! We are not that good both as it concerns publications, as well as visibility and funding. Most of the leading EU and US universities often recover approximately 30% of their budget from highly competitive research grants, which they do not refer neither to subcontracting of industrial activities nor to gifts from our former graduates! Any reasonable bibliographic/bibliometric study will certainly show that there was a tremendous progress done over the past decade, but it is not enough!  Actually it is really far from being enough! We are still somewhere on the trail, and we will certainly need drastic efforts and investment from our side to catch up.

Last but not least, we should take advantage of the ecosystem but as equal partners. Cnrs/Inria/Inra/Inserm and other research organizations do not have access to our exceptional students, do not have the ability to introduce new academic curriculum and cannot initiate or put in place international exchange programs as we do. We should assume our differences, target their research excellence (whenever this is not the case) but also explain them that we are not simply student repository for them but equal partners. Negotiate research axes, negotiate positions, negotiate long term strategy and involve them whenever is possible on the curriculum (France is an international exception: current national evaluation system assumes that one professor should be equivalent with half of the researcher as it concerns productivity). The “Grandes Ecoles” cannot diminish themselves to a “second-class” research environment and cannot simply serve as “hosting” institutions to the national research organizations! The target should be to meet their excellence and even go beyond in the years to come. 

To conclude, the next five years to come will be critical, lets seize the opportunity to build a well identified/structured/agile higher education institution, where excellence is the driving force both in terms of academic offer as well as research with the most meaningful international collaborations which will allow us to become one the major players in the French and international academic ecosystem. 

ps:

1. The above statements reflect strictly my personal opinions and therefore by no means they have the approval/endorsement of CentraleSupelec.
2. I do not believe that the aforementioned issues are the due to the Centrale & Supelec fusion. I am convinced  that problems existed in both schools before and could become more important thanks to the cumulative effect of the fusion.
3. There is absolutely nothing wrong on looking either for people that are not part of the schools if needed or to assume strategies/models that were neither part of the former structures if appropriate! 
4. I have been fortunate to be exceptionally well supported from my institution all these years.

Higher Education: Three Main Challenges for the Decade to Come

Higher education has been undergoing tremendous changes over the past decade towards a new era. Such a transformation is paved from a number of challenges that are either the natural outcome of society evolution, technological progress or the internalization of the offer.

• Financial stress: In most of the developed countries where the model of public providence was prevailing (EU, JP, KR), we observe a declining financial support from the state. On the opposite side, self-funded educational models (USA, UK,…) inherit a constant increase of enrollments.tuition fees. The consequences of such opposite policies move both systems closer to a break point where on one hand the quality of the educational system is depraved while on the other hand elitism is installed and access to higher education becomes possible only for the wealthiest and problematic for the middle and low class part of the society. Rethinking the economical model while preserving quality and access to higher education to the all citizens with the necessary intellectual capacity is one of the major issues of our society. 
•  Internationalization & digital revolution: recent development of technology has made possible the deployment of large scale efficient online educational platforms. It is now possible and accessible virtual accreditation and degree while massive open online course create a new playground as it concerns higher education with an unpredictable outcome as it concerns their impact to conventional educational processed. Such accessibility will make possible in the very near future the ability of the remote education which eventually will  result on a direct international completion of higher academic providers both at it concerns academic programs as well as degrees. It is really challenging to predict the outcome of such an evolution. Having said that, it is almost sure that higher education should adapt to this novel ecosystem and find means to optimize its impact to the society. 
•  Societal impact & creation of wealth through Research: Traditional economical growth of the previous century has now being replaced with creation of wealth through new services/products and concepts serving the society. Research is becoming one of the major elements of such wealth creation through novel concepts, and higher education should evolve/embrace this effort and become a major pillar of societal wealth creation. Such an effort requires excellent coordination and precise actions with policy makers towards appropriate and efficient use of private and public funding through the higher education systems where the right compromise is to be found between short term objectives, wealth creation and funding of non-scientific disciplines.  

Greece: One Hundred Years of Solitude

I grew up in a small/tiny island (Karpathos), subsequently moved to a bigger one (Rhodes) while still spending my summers at Karpathos. When I was a child, the only way to get there was through a boat, and my island was part of what is called "αγονη γραμμη" (non profit) boat line since the trip was subsidized from the Greek government. The port was not that great and therefore when the winds were strong the boat couldn't coast and from time to time we had no other choice to continue our trip to Heraklion (Crete). 

I recall from my very young years my grandfather telling me: you should get a job at the public sector! the job is not that hard, you have a salary and your life is set. I also recall the evolution of my island, from a remote and completely isolated poor island where people were struggling to survive (stories that my grand-father was telling me), to a reasonably developed touristic destination generating a new class of people with land next to the sea consider themselves superior. This was also the case in particular at Rhodes as well where tourist related business have generated a new class of people.  I also recall local and national elections and the flipping of votes from one party to another depending on the promises given from the candidates towards assuring public servant positions either at the municipality or at the public administration. I also recall the corruption at all levels of society as well as as hindering all public services. Public administrations were deficient and people in key positions had unbelievable power to overwrite laws - assuming some minimal compensation -. I also recall  an colossal tax invasion at all levels of society with no exception. I also recall the state of health services and the need to "compensate" illegally physicians in order to get a better access to the national health service system. I recall also my university years when the average graduation used to happen in a couple of extra years studying (in order to get degree) and again all my mentors saying! work hard to get in, once this has happened then you will graduate at some point or another. I recall the swap of power between left and right hand side parties for almost two decades and the constant increase of the public service sector. I recall the importance of pushing more and more people in higher education through the funding of universities throughout the country and an unbelievable imagination on funding most of the departments in areas with almost no relevance with respect to the needs of the Greek society - still it makes no difference, we educate more people, hire more professors and satisfy local city councils which once put together more votes for the coming election even if these departments will be around forever -. I recall the massive (without declaring them) use of legal or illegal immigrants towards reducing the cost and maximize the profit! I recall people without qualifications being positioned at "key" positions simply because they happen to know people who happen to know people. Last but not least, I recall conspiracy theories on the reasons why Greece had bankrupted from intellectually highly qualified people. 

The Greek crisis is now economical and societal but before that there was an ethical one. We have learned to live into a highly corrupted environment - government was corrupted, public administration as well and society profoundly -. We have adjusted our operational mode to better take benefit of this system and keep reinforcing the system over the past four decades! We have lost our ethical values and principles. 

However, crisis has arrived and hurt people, the deficient public services were further penalized to the extend that some of them are unable to offer even the basic services, the society had collapsed. It was a desperate situation but at the same time an opportunity! Build a new Greece, improve services, organize administration but not, in order to do that you have to hurt people and take visionary decisions that most likely will have a long term impact and non an immediate one! This didn't happen, the progress that was made was disproportional to the efforts of the nation, the right hand government screwed up big time! and when someone suffers for a while he becomes desperate and have the tendency to believe in miracles!  or go to a denial mode.

That is what will happen tomorrow. Greece will go back to the nighties when flipping of the left and the right hand party destroyed the country with such a great human intellectual potential. The same arguments, the same people in power with the same old arguments! We will reopen the "old" public television, re-hire people who have been laid of from the public sector, surprisingly no one have considered to re-instate olympic airways, reposition "our" people to the key positions and then blame others for our problems. Also, the public sector will be able to hire the 15% (out of the 25%) of the population being unemployed and therefore unemployment will come down to the average European standards. Also Greece will vote a extreme right/nazism  party which will explain us how Greece is a superior nation, that all problems are due to immigrants and "military junta" is the right political answer to our problems which most likely will revoke my nationality.

Ps. Have been living abroad for so many years (I have left Greece two decades back - still spending almost all my summers there), maybe things have changed and everything works perfect and as my brother says, you shouldn't express any opinion about Greece, you left and you do your life abroad so let to us to decide how we will solve our problems.