Stories from Beyond Academia #20: Susan McGinty
PhD in Medicinal Chemistry
We’ve talked a lot in this series about skills attained across the course of completing a PhD: critical thinking, problem solving, analysis, just to name a few.
So, what about leadership: can a PhD set you up for success in leadership? In this Story from Beyond Academia, we ask this question to leadership expert Dr Susan McGinty.
Susan is Women in STEM Leadership’s 2023 Leader of the Year, an Emerging Tech Leader in the 2023 Women’s Agenda Leadership Awards, and Founder and CEO of Aya Leadership. Her career journey started with a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry, several years as a postdoc, then diverse roles in Defence, national security and STEM within the Australian public sector before moving into leadership coaching and training.
On the question of can a PhD set you up for success in leadership, Susan has conflicting thoughts and Jonathan leans towards ‘yes’, so a great discussion ensues in which they talk about cultural norms related to leadership in academia, and how being aware of these and planning for leadership could help if you’re interested in this path post-PhD. We talk about a mindset shift when it comes to real-world impacts, some PhD ‘skills’ you might need to ‘unlearn’, and the golden opportunities that can be found in a non-linear career.
Jonathan McGuire: Hi Susan, welcome and thank you so much for your time today!
Susan McGinty: Thanks for having me! I first learned about your Substack when I saw the interview with Chloe Lim, and was really impressed with how you are showing people different career paths that others have followed after a PhD. When I think back to my time in academia, I didn't even know what career options I had other than research! I think there's more promotion now of different career paths. This is a really important topic to discuss and if people can learn something from what I’ve done, or anything I have to share, I would definitely be glad for that!
JM: I agree, there was a point where I absolutely thought ‘well, what can I even do other than research’ and that was a really challenging and quite tumultuous time. I was quite worried about the stigma of ‘leaving’ but then, once I announced that’s what I was doing, people were bailing me up in the hallway asking me how to do it and that made me realise how many people were simultaneously thinking about making this transition but there wasn’t much in the way of mutual support because people felt they couldn’t talk about it. There were no peer discussion groups or CV review groups or anything like that, and so I really hope doing something like this inspires a bit more of that, and helps people to know that there's more than one possible career path post-PhD and if they do choose a career path outside of academia they didn’t ‘waste’ their years doing a PhD.
SM: Absolutely! I actually found the job advertisement that transitioned me out of research and into the public sector stuck up on a noticeboard in one of the hallways in the Department I worked in. I've got no idea who put it up there, but I'm so grateful because that post started me on an exciting career path that I’ve been on now for the past 16 years and changed my life. I think research is, in some ways, a very insulated little bubble and when you’re in that bubble there’s really no sense of other options that might be available.
JM: I felt that too, and I was worried that I’d just be bored all the time. I had this idea that academia was intellectual challenge, and freedom, and creativity; and office jobs would be drudgery, and false urgency, and no real importance of work. But, of course, I found that was completely untrue, so I’m very keen to help challenge that stereotype.
SM: I think there's also a real myth around the linear career path. I certainly believed that myth for a time, but now I'm a strong advocate for encouraging people to consider something nonlinear: move sideways, even perhaps go backwards if you have to, get creative and see where things take you. Moves like that can be a lot of fun and can offer opportunities you didn’t even know about, or didn’t know how to access. Some of the jobs I’ve done I never even knew existed! What I found is that once I stepped into the public sector, I came across a range of different jobs that were all highly engaging, fun and intellectual. Some of them are also bureaucratic, but it's an interesting challenge to learn to navigate bureaucracy! So, yes, I believe a non-linear career path is a great option.
JM: From getting your first job after seeing that post on the Department noticeboard to your roles across the public sector in Defence and national security, to your work now in leadership, I can’t wait to hear about the extent to which your career so far has ended up being non-linear! For a bit of context, let’s take a moment to go back to the beginning – can you tell us a bit about your PhD, what field you were in, what you were researching, and what your findings were?
SM: I started a PhD in 1998, and I was about halfway through the PhD when my supervisor told me he and the research group were moving to another city on the other side of the country. I had the option of going along or staying. I wasn’t interested in going, and my husband and I had already been living in a long-distance relationship (although we weren’t married at that point), so I decided to move back to where he was. I started over in another PhD, so will talk about that one! I had a Bachelor of Medicinal Chemistry, and I was completely fascinated by health science and drug design. The idea of being able to design and develop new drug candidates seemed incredible to me. My PhD was on the design of biomolecules to attach to the alpha-1B adrenergic receptor, which is a receptor in the blood vessels that helps control blood vessel dilation and constriction, among other things. We were trying to target blood pressure to help treat cardiovascular disease, looking for more specific approaches and drug candidates than currently existed on the market, and I was using natural products as the base molecules for my drug design and synthesis. When we tested the molecules we found we had developed something that was much more selective and active for a different alpha-1 adrenergic receptor: the alpha-1D adrenergic receptor. This was 20 years ago, and there was much less known about that specific receptor, so this result was really promising. We had a range of biomolecules which showed strong selectivity for one receptor over the other, which was fairly unique. I tried to get funding to continue that research post-PhD, because it really was pretty exciting, and I was a finalist for several funding options, but never quite got there, so unfortunately that was the end of that piece of research for me.
JM: Wow, I wonder if anyone else ever picked it up!
SM: I have had a quick look in the literature recently, and I can’t see that anyone did, which is a shame. That’s the way things go though: if you don't have funding, you can't do the research.
JM: Indeed, but a bit of a bummer that ended that bit of research. Did you stay in the academic sector at all following that?
SM: Yes, I stayed in the academic sector for another five or six years. I did a few postdocs, in Australia and overseas. I did quite a bit teaching throughout that time too, both at undergraduate and Master's level. I also had two children during that time.
JM: And I believe it was at this point that you moved into a government role. What were the factors that led you to make that move?
SM: A key factor was the nature of research in the academic sector. I was applying for funding for my own research without success. Like many others, I experienced instability around work: moving from one one-year contract to the next one-year contract. Another factor was the real tension between a science research career and a family for women. And while this is acknowledged and researched now, this wasn’t really talked about at all 20 years ago. It was implicit. Women knew it because they were living it, but it really wasn't recognised. And so, the combination of these things drove me to think “Ok, I'm not getting ahead in the academic world, and I'm finding it’s not very supportive for a woman with a family’. At one point I was even told that I couldn't work part-time once I returned from maternity leave. So, I started to think about what else I could do. And as I said, it wasn't that I’d started looking. It was just that I happened to see that job advertisement on the noticeboard of the Department hallway, looking for somebody with a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry. So essentially, I had the perfect background skills for it. That job was with the Department of Defence. I applied for and was lucky enough to get it. That involved a move to Canberra for us, which was a big life change. And at the same time, my husband chose to take a redundancy from his long-term career and look after the family so I could go back to work full-time and start a new phase in my career.
JM: I’m picturing a very fortuitous moment when you saw a black and white A4 sheet paper pinned to a noticeboard. I guess there's some element of luck there but more than that, I think there’s an openness to give it a crack and to consider that option.
SM: Absolutely, and the idea of having a permanent job, rather than something I’d have to renew or replace every 12 months, was really appealing. I knew very little about the job to be honest. I just applied for it thinking it sounded interesting, and thought “let’s see where this goes”.
the idea of having a permanent job, rather than something I’d have to renew or replace every 12 months, was really appealing. I knew very little about the job to be honest. I just applied for it thinking it sounded interesting, and thought “let’s see where this goes”.
JM: If you didn’t really know what the job was, and you hadn't done a whole lot of research into it, am I right in assuming there wasn't anything in particular that you did to prepare for switching out of academia into government?
SM: I did nothing to prepare! I think when you apply for jobs in science, particularly academia, you have this nice conversation with whoever's interviewing you about your experience and the type of work you've done, where you've presented and what papers you've written. I had no idea what a public service interview was going to be like, I honestly didn't think it would be any different, and I was woefully underprepared for that interview. That was an interesting experience.
JM: Yeah, they can be very structured…
SM: Incredibly structured! And some of the questions they asked me, I thought ‘Oh, I did not do my homework there’. I guess it's one of those opportunities that are just right for you at the time. It was a very easy transition though, and the move to Canberra fell into place really nicely.
JM: So, what was the new job that like after having been in the academic world for five years?
SM: It was so interesting working in Defence, going into a new environment. It's a whole new lexicon, a whole new way of thinking. And I quickly realised how little I knew about the real world, which was an interesting perspective for me. I enjoyed being able to start thinking in different ways, but I did have to switch the way I thought: I was used to thinking down at the weeds level, the minute details, going down rabbit holes. I realised I needed to start thinking at a more strategic level and learning to do that took a little while. For example, while the data and the technical knowledge was important for me to understand, what others want to know is why it's relevant and how we can use the information in the real world. I was part of a team of scientists, most with PhDs. I noticed that it wasn’t just me finding it difficult to think at that more strategic level and the ‘so what’ value in the real world. It did take a little while, but that was probably my biggest learning. That, and all the Defence acronyms!
JM: It's funny that mindset shift. I think sometimes in academia, the real world application is often kind of relegated to page three (or later) in a grant application, and that's the only time you've got to think of it. So you work really hard to come up with your 150 words there and then think “thank goodness I don’t have to think like that anymore, I can just get back to my research.”
SM: I think in science, you're doing research because you find it interesting and you find a way to make it interesting to others, but there’s so much science research that doesn't progress or get funded. The work that I was doing in Defence, though, was real world work that was impacting people's lives. I quickly saw that I couldn’t spend a month working on details: instead, I had about a week and then I’d have to present on why this was of value, how it was going to change how we do things, how it would inform strategy and policy.
JM: As well as working in Defence and national security, you’ve had a portfolio career with roles in universities, research, public and community sectors, and now you’re working in leadership training and executive coaching. Sounds like you've had a huge array of interesting experiences. Can you tell us how your career unfolded from that first Defence job?
SM: I loved working in Defence. It was so interesting, exciting, full of smart people, lots going on, lots to contribute to and lots to learn. Everything was always moving very quickly, and I really liked that pace. I was an analyst for the first couple of years, then I started leading teams and I discovered that I really loved leading people. I didn't mind starting to step back from the technical work - even though I found it super interesting - and I found I could continue learning through my team. What I really became passionate about was helping members of my teams develop, empowering them, giving them the opportunity to do what they could do really well and thinking at the strategic level. I led a variety of scientific and technical teams that advised defense policy and decision making, as well as broader government decision making at the national and international level, fascinating in the day-to-day real-world impacts. And I also led some less technical streams like customer engagement, international partnerships, and executive type roles, fascinating in terms of interactions at the government level, seeing how government works, advising ministers.
By about 2013, I was starting to mentor and invest in the development of the STEM women around me. I undertook a coaching qualification and started coaching others, and that was a real source of inspiration for me because I saw how powerful it was. I knew if I could help other people solve their own problems, come up with new ideas and empower themselves just by coaching them, that would make a significant difference for them, their careers and the teams they lead. By 2018, I was a bit frustrated with the leadership development opportunities for women in my organisation and the broader government, broader Defence, and broader science. I'd been watching the statistics for women in leadership for several years, it wasn’t moving and I was pretty frustrated by that. I did different things within my organisation to try to change that, but what I really wanted to do was develop leadership training for women. Women were telling me how frustrated they were, that they didn't see they could access development opportunities even though they were really smart, and they felt the system wasn't supporting them. And so I just did it: I started a pilot leadership development program with 10 women. When I was it was much more impactful than I anticipated I knew that I had to keep it going. That led to my business. I worked on my business part time from 2019 to 2022, when I left my government role and moved to the business full time. I am excited to be in this the third phase of my career now.
JM: Reflecting on it now, are there any skills or knowledge or experiences from the PhD and your academic training that has carried on into the work you've done since? In particular, I know you’ve been recognised as a Leader of the Year for Women in STEM Leadership, and a finalist for many other awards, really as a leader at the forefront, particularly for women in STEM. Do you think your PhD played any part in setting you up for success from a leadership perspective as well?
SM: Leadership fascinates me now in the same way that science has fascinated me too. There's infinite iterations of what leadership looks like. It's different for every single person and I love that it's that dynamic. I think there's lots of skills that I learned during my PhD that have absolutely helped me in the second sector of my career in Defence and national security, but also now in this third phase where I'm really focused on leadership development and helping build diversity in STEM.
I think some of that is the quest for knowledge, always looking to learn new things. I'm always researching, and being able to read academic papers and know what they mean is a good start. I've never lost that research drive, and I’ll always be a research geek in one way or another.
Analytical skills are also important: being able to sift through information for what's credible, what's not effective, there's a little interesting thread, I wonder where that leads. And then how can I think about this research data from a different perspective to make it really valuable? That creative problem solving is something I absolutely learned from research and my PhD. I've used that particularly in how I think about setting up and running a business, engaging people and getting people to be motivated by ideas that maybe they hadn't previously thought about.
Another real benefit from having done a PhD is I'm really familiar and comfortable with failure. If I go into a lab then I expect failure. Just because there are 10 papers that say this experiment is going to work, and it doesn't for me, it's not the end of the world. I just keep experimenting. I've always had this mindset of growth and learning, but also have been curious about how can I iterate. Nothing's ever quite done. I think that's really helped me with being creative in my problem solving, finding ways to get around bureaucracy that slows you down as well as thinking about how to get things done and get them done quickly. And if things don't work that’s okay, it's all learning, it's all data. I think a systems thinking approach is something that’s inherent in me and must have been built in me through my research. I do feel comfortable working with systems thinking and going back to process and logic.
I also took away a lesson to learn about the environment before I tried to solve the problem. Many times in government, I saw people trying to quickly jump to solve problems without really understanding the environment and the science of the problem. And if they don't understand what's going on, they're definitely not going to solve the problem. I would often pull people back to just look at what's going on. I've also used that to help me build my business.
There are also some things you learn from doing a PhD that are a bit less useful, like potentially getting stuck in that rabbit warren or maybe trying the same experiment too many times before accepting it’s not going to work. These are some things I’ve head to relearn.
And then there’s leadership. I do not think the PhD set me up for success in leadership. Actually, maybe I was a bit too quick to say that. What I found when I was in the science and research world was that it was quite stovepiped. People were working quite independently. Scientists aren't taught how to lead, or to consider themselves leaders, and that translates if they move into corporate or industry roles. Last year I was speaking to some female leaders in the US, esteemed researchers, professors in their area of research. One had previously led the American Association in her area of expertise. Yet she did not think of herself as a leader, because she was not a head of department. My observation is that in academia, there is a very limiting concept of what leadership is and people step back from leadership. I know world-leading, Nobel Prize winning scientists who are absolutely leaders, but they don't consider themselves leaders. I know that I wasn’t even introduced to the concept of leadership until I went to Defence.
My observation is that in academia, there is a very limiting concept of what leadership is and people step back from leadership. I know world-leading, Nobel Prize winning scientists who are absolutely leaders, but they don't consider themselves leaders.
JM: I think if you’re trying to understand and articulate what you’ve learned from a PhD, then a part of that might also be identifying things that might have moved you away from things you might want to develop. So if the cultural norms or modes of thought in science move you away from a self-concept as a leader, or from particular leadership type practices, then it would be important to identify that and think about how you can work on that too.
SM: I think there's a lot of initiative in research, but you're not necessarily leading people on a journey. You're not really changing the hearts and minds of people. The only people you're really influencing are the funders, and that doesn't necessarily come down to you having good leadership but is often just because you have great results in your research. When I think about what leadership is, I don't see a lot of it happening in research. My view is that if you want to learn leadership in research, then actively seek it out because I don’t think it will happen implicitly. Now, I haven't done specific research into that… But it's a big part of the reason I do the work that I do now. If scientists are going to be solving the biggest problems, and we need them to solve the biggest problems that we have around climate change, resource management, health, then we need them to know how to lead.
JM: It’s so interesting to me what you describe with leadership only being these kinds of heads of department roles. That’s a really hierarchical mindset to equate leadership with that kind of role only, I would very much want to separate those two things out. I want to go back a couple of years to when you were still in the public service – you were at the executive leadership level and so you would have done your fair share of hiring. I’m curious about the extent to which you’d recruited people who had an academic background, and what were the useful skills they brought in or any pitfalls. Pros and cons, I guess.
SM: Some of the roles I was recruiting for, we did want people with technical or science PhDs. We wanted those skill sets, we wanted technical knowledge, we wanted people who were analytical, who could research, because their job was looking at data and making sense of it to inform decisions. They generally had pretty good problem solving skills, and they could talk to the technical knowledge that we needed them to know. An important element in those roles was being able to translate scientific information, and not every scientist has that. And so that's one of the things we filtered for in interviews.
There were absolutely some cons. One is the issue that I referenced earlier, which is when you're doing a PhD, you're not really taught how to think strategically. And of course, what was really important in the roles that we were hiring for was not getting so focused on solving a problem that you weren't actually making judgments. Sometimes I saw people having trouble making a judgement and being able to provide the advice that was required. Sometimes they didn't like the pace: academic research is generally slow and where we worked, the pace was a lot faster and didn’t suit everybody.
JM: This conversation has had so many tips and tricks throughout, but, as we come to wrapping up now, is there one final bit of advice you'd give to someone who's considering a quick career switch from academia?
SM: I think the first thing for people to think about is what are you passionate about? And, more importantly, what change do you want to create in the world? If there's no change you want to create, that reflects what you're passionate about, then it doesn't matter what you do. But most people go into science and research because they want to create change, they want to impact something. I think it’s important to understand that about yourself.
Secondly, do a bit of research. What opportunities might exist in your area of interest? That might be related to your skill sets or related to where you want to create impact and change. Thirdly, think about where your skills could be valuable. A PhD gives you many great skills: you can think critically, you know how to problem solve, you've spoken at conferences and you've written research papers.
The fourth thing I would suggest is to talk to other people. Find a mentor; whether it's a one-off mentor or recurring mentoring, find someone who might have ideas about where you might be able to contribute your expertise and jobs that might be of interest. Related to this, build your network. It's really very important, and something I didn’t do early enough in my career. Try and build your network out so that you can cross paths with people who might be in areas where opportunities might arise that are of interest to you. If you're not looking, you're not going to find opportunities. Finally, I'd really say don't be afraid to try something new, and to really embrace that nonlinear career path, because that's where I think that's where the really golden opportunities lie.
And with that, we thank Susan for sharing her career story with us, sharing her thoughts on the PhD and leadership, and sharing her take on the idea of a linear career: one of us has definitely seen first-hand the golden opportunities that can be found in a non-linear career beyond academia...
If you are a PhD who has moved beyond academia and you are interested in sharing your story, please get in touch with us via our LinkedIn pages - Sequitur Consulting, Sam, Jonathan - we’d love to hear from you.
Interviews have been edited for length and clarity. Views, thoughts, and opinions expressed by persons interviewed in this series are solely that of the persons interviewed and do not reflect the views, opinions, or position of Sam, Jonathan or Sequitur Consulting.