The metamorphosis - another Answer

I think I'll write a bit about the transition from academia to industry.

Now, before I go on about it, a disclaimer - I was a pretty frustrated postdoc.
Not in terms of the science, but of the people there. I think I've made it clear over and over again in the blog that it was mostly the people who were frustrating me (and how they perceived me and my abilities).
Also, I liked doing experiments and doing science. I like science. I am not one of the people who hated the lab bench and so moved. I also didn't have a financial motivation for moving, apart from getting a paycheck. I took a pay cut to be where I am. I wasn't frustrated by the length of contract, per se.
I was frustrated with the people; the politics; the Institute. The science also was futile - but I liked that about academic science, how it isn't supposed to be about immediate gratification of scientific goals (I am kinda anti-American style grant-funded science in that way). And I have absolutely no regrets.

Righty, now that's over, let's get down to the nitty-gritty.

The thing that hit me straight away (apart from the fact that on the first day I was presented with my own desk - which is 3 times larger than anything I ever had in my academic career BTW, my own PC, my own stationary, etc) is that people are actually nice.

They actually want to make you feel at home in the company. I think this is particularly so for the industry I am in, because a lot of the work is done in teams, a totally alien concept in most academic settings (certainly was in mine). But it's so refreshing and so alien to me, so alien, in fact, that I still have to consciously be aware that people aren't out to get me and make a fool out of me. I already was pretty defensive when I came to doing a postdoc, but the last few years definitely didn't help with my defensiveness.

Another thing that is nice, is that people actually do a job.
They don't swan in at 11am, gossip for an hour, have lunch for an hour, do "paperwork" (a.k.a. booking holidays using work PC), and then leave at 4pm.
I (and others) are in at 9 am (or earlier), work the 8 hours, and go home. Sometimes we have to work a little bit more when there are deadlines, but that's the nature of the job. Any job.

This leads on to another peculiar thing with our industry - time sheets. We have to log and account for every hour we are in work. And before you go "Ooooh, I'd hate to do that, having to justify what I spend my time on. I love the freedom I get in academia - I can do whatever I want, whenever I want"...

...having worked with someone who was a certified slacker (see above), who had no through (evidence-based!) scientific knowledge, but got that far for ass-kissing the PI (and being the PI's best pal's other half), I love the fact that I have to justify every single hour I am in at work. It's called accountability, and responsibility for your time.
The fact that you have to be accountable and responsible for what you do during your time in the office, makes you more disciplined. You think more about what you do, who you do it for, why you do it. (And of course you get time for tea breaks and coffee, and a guaranteed lunch hour)
Despite what academics think, I really cannot think why a time sheet is such a bad thing. Personally, I really like it. I think they should introduce it in to academia. No more of this "oh but I work extra some days and I don't others" nonsense. No more of this uber-flexitime.

Going back to the first paragraph, the great thing other great thing about where-I-am is that they help you to get your job done.
By "they", I mean people like the HR and IT. People who are supposed to support you, actually support you. They actually help you, which, in my experience, certainly wasn't the case in academia. Sure, you get those one or two who were capable of doing their job (and doing it well). But you had so, many, inept people around, it was......amazing that anything got done (or maybe it was just where I was). Some of their job description might have read "professional pass-the-buck'er".
Personally, I still marvel that the IT guys I work with are capable and knowledgable and so helpful. Which, really, is the way it should be.

I feel that there is less of a waste around me. Wasted money and time. It might be the peculiarity of the industry, as well as the office that I am in. I truly think I am lucky that way.

Having spoken to a couple of people in the industry, I do think the "nice, normal people working" fits.
What a colleague said was so true. If we weren't normal, we would've stayed in academia...!!! ;)

Luck

Having the right skills and mindset is important, but most of the time, finding a new job is down to luck. Luck, because the timing between you and your future employer has to be just right. You have to be looking when they are hiring, and conversely, the employer will have to send out an ad at the right time for the candidate to be looking.

I thought about that a lot during my postdoc, since my ex-supervisor used to sagely say that "whether you get a decent applicant or not is down to luck/timing". And my thoughts haven't changed - I know a person working in my industry, who tried to get a job in another firm, but didn't. She did half a year later, when she sent in her CV again. (Turns out that there was a little mix-up during the first try...)

In industry, especially in a "service" industry (I use that term loosely, as in any industry that has to work with a client to provide a service for them), business dictates the size and capacity. If you happen to send in your CV during lean times, they won't hire you even if you are good (they might if you are brilliant).
However, people come and go. And positions that were not available (or existed) when you first contacted the firm, may open up 6 months down the line.

So, I guess, the point is - be nice to the HR person you are contacting. You never know when you have to get back in touch with them.

Answer 4

Whilst I construct a meaningful answer to Andrew and labrat's questions, I shall answer Sophster's one (because it is easier).

...did you take a bit of a hit in salary changing career and was it worth it.

Yes, and yes.

I always knew that I would have to have a pay cut in changing. There was absolutely no doubt about that. To tell you the truth, I really don't understand why some postdocs (that I knew) don't understand that changing careers means taking a pay cut - you might be a PhD, and have years of experience, but you're still a novice in another world. And your so-called transferable skills are untested in another industry.

I also knew that there was more of a scope for my salary to increase, and there is more chance of lateral movement between companies within the same industry. Furthermore, I wouldn't have to be worried about my pay being stagnant or become less, after my contract has ended and when I start a new one, either at the same institution or another.

One thing I hated about a postdoc position is that you already know how much you will get paid, and also know how much it will rise by. It's fixed. And during my postdoc career, I was cheated on 2 pay points, then I took another pay cut. I liked science and I enjoyed doing lab work, but I really resented that, especially when other people was on a higher wage with lesser experience.
I also resented that your pay depended on when you started. During my postdoc career, there was one major bump up of pay - so whoever started their career 3 years after I did, was on a much much better starting salary (even considering inflation).

This is the problem with grant based funding. Every grant application goes for the minimum spine point, to make it easier to fund. There is no scope for someone with 5, 6 years experience as a postdoc getting their worth, unless they stay with one group and write their own postdoc grant (which doesn't always happen, like for me), or they can cope with a slightly shorter contract (which defeats the whole purpose of it, surely).

So is it worth it?

Yes, because even if you get a pay cut now, the future is more exciting and promising than being in academia. Delayed gratification to a certain extent, but there is scope for much increase (as well as decrease), and at least that increase is not predetermined as in the spine point system.

You also have a better prospect of lateral movement within the industry. To me, near the end of my postdoc career, there wasn't a worse position than being stuck in a frustrating job, even if it paid (slightly) better. Taking a small pay cut for a few years was and still is not a problem for me. Having an interesting job, where I enjoy working, where people appreciate my work/role, is more important for me. And the possibility for moving on (to either another company, or a slightly different industry) in a couple of years, should I choose to do so, is enticing.

I might not be saying this in 5 years time. But at the moment, it will do.


I will also add that my current salary is ~15% less than what it used to be. It really is not that much of a cut if you think about it - per month, after tax, the difference is less than 150 pounds.