​Last week a former student told me he had just gotten married, had a daughter, finished his PhD, and got a tenure-track job at a university.   Busy day.   He also wanted to set up a time to chat about how to be a successful new assistant professor.
 
After thinking about this for a couple days, here was the most important piece of advice I was planning to tell him.
 
If you’re starting a new professor, the most important thing you need to do is to look at your next 40 years and decide who your main audience is going to be.  I think there are four types of audiences that you can have as a professor:  1) Your school, 2) your field, 3) your mission 4) yourself.  You might be thinking you can serve multiple masters and split your attention to all four, but this is very, very difficult.  People who try to satisfy two masters often end up to two unhappy masters.
 
1. Your School.  As a new professor, you can focus on your school.  If you do this, your audience is the administrators, students, and other professors at your school.  You can aim at being a charismatic teacher, a go-to committee member, a friendly-to-all colleague, and a tenurable researcher.  The upside is you can be very successful at your school and grow a strong and appreciated community around yourself.  However, most of your investment will have been in “institutional capital.”  The downside is you may not be especially movable to other schools.  
 
2.  Your Field.  Some professors can focus on their field.  Their audience is other professors in their same field.  As graduate students, we grow to admire the famous people in our field or the ones who wrote the key papers we based our dissertation on.  Some new professors want to mainly focus on their field and to contribute to it in our own way.  This involves doing the right types of research and publishing it in the right types of journals.  If all goes well, you will have opportunities to more attractive schools.  But sometimes this doesn’t have an end. That’s the downside of a field-focus.  Some people can really grind themselves down trying to publish more and more, but it might frustratingly never be enough to satisfy whatever's driving them.
 
3.  Your Mission.  Some new professors focus on a specific mission that involves changing something.  Some might be driven to  change the criminal justice system, social justice, how companies operate, what people eat, how children are raised, and so on.  This offers a very satisfying mission because you can focus your research, teaching, and outreach at activities you think can change a corner or your specific world, and you can become a go-to expert in that area. Also, the impact you can have is more unique and more permanent in many ways.  The downside is that a mission-focus takes a while before it starts getting traction and having impact.  As a result, you’ll probably have to move around and change schools to eventually find the right school that most appreciates what you’re doing. 
 
 
4.  Yourself.  Still other professors focus on themselves.  This “March to my own drummer” approach sounds like the perfect ideal of academic freedom – doing what you want, when you want, wherever your muse leads you.  The downside of this approach is that focusing on yourself doesn’t always lead to tenure, the next promotion, job offers other schools, or to being appreciated and valued by your colleagues. 
 
 
Choosing one of these four audiences usually isn’t a conscious decision by most new professors, but it will probably be the track you’re on until you retire.  It’s like choosing a North, South, East, or West road out of town from your PhD School.  Once you’ve driven on that road for few years, you can’t go back, and it’s super hard to change roads. 

​To summarize these thoughts I had, when my former student friend got on the call, I was planning on emphasizing just three points:
 
1. Choose your audience carefully because you’ll probably have it for 40 years
2. Here’s the pluses and minuses of each audience
3. Realize it’s really difficult – either practically or psychologically – to change your audience down the road
 
 
That was the plan . . . but of course that wasn’t what happened during the call.   When I said the biggest piece of advice for a new professor is to carefully choose who your audience is going to be, he said, “Oh, yeah, yeah, that’s really important.”  Then we started talking and laughing about other stuff.
 
To then return and say “This is going to be a 40-year decision you make,” seemed like a heavy thing to say when we’re high-fiving each other about his new degree, new family, and new job -- and all in one day!
 
He doesn’t start his new job for another four months.  We’ll have time to talk again before he before he‘s shifting into fifth gear.

On a late afternoon about 20 years ago, I stepped into a slow elevator with my college’s most productive, famous, and taciturn senior professor.  After 10 seconds of silence, I asked, “Did you publish anything yet today?” He stared at me for about 4 seconds and said, “The day’s not over.”  Cool . . . very Clint Eastwood-like.
 
Most of us have some super-productive days and we have some bad days, but most lie in-between.  If we could figure out what leads to great days, we might be able to trigger more of them in our life.  For instance, if you want to write a whole lot, there might be a way to set up your day so that this happens with a surprising amount of ease.
 
Think of the most recent “great day” you had.  What made it great, and how did it start?
 
For about 20 years, every time somebody told me they had a great day, I’d ask “What made it great? How did it start out?   About 50% of the time its greatness had to do with an external “good news” event like something great happening at work, great news from their kids or spouse, a nice surprise, or nice call or email from a grateful person or an old friend.  The other 50% of the time, the reason for “greatness” was more “internal.”  They had a super productive day, they finished a project or a bunch of errands, or they had a breakthrough solution to a problem or something they should do.
 
External successes are easy to celebrate with our friends.  Internal successes are more unpredictable.  What made today a great day and what sabotaged yesterday?
 
When people had great days, one reoccurring feature was that they started off great.  There was no delay between when they got out of bed and when they Unleashed the Greatness.  People said things like, “I just got started and seemed to get everything done,” or “I finished up this one thing and then just kept going.”  
 
One of the most productive authors I've known said that got up six days a week at 6:30 and wrote from 7:00 to 9:00 without interruption.  Then he kissed his wife good-bye and drove into school and worked there.   When I asked how long he had done that he said, “Forever.” 
 
About a year ago, I started toying with the idea that  "Your first two hours set the tone for the whole day."  
 
Think of your last mediocre day.  Did it start out mediocre?  That would also be consistent with this notion.
 
We can’t trigger every day to be great, but maybe we have more control than we think.  If we focus on making our first two hours great, it might set the tone for the rest of the day.
 
What we need to decide is what we can we do in those first two hours after waking that would trigger an amazing day and what would sabotage it and make it mediocre.  For me, it seems writing, exercise, prayer, or meditation are the good triggers, and it seems answering emails, reading the news, or surfing are the saboteurs.
 
Here’s to you having lots of amazing days.  One’s where you can channel your best Clint Eastwood impression and say, “The day’s not over.” ​

Working from home is one of the 5,000 great benefits of being an academic.  But it can also turn into too much of a good thing.
 
Before the coronavirus, a lot of schools were hesitant to let staff work from home. “Working from home” rhymes too closely with “Shirking from home.” It includes surfing, posting, grazing, running errands, crushing Candy Crush, calling your brother “just because,” rereading online stories about the coronavirus, updating your vita, and spacing out on conference calls.
 
But what if working from home looked different? What if working from home made you 13% more productive, made you feel more satisfied with your job, and made you half as likely to send your vita off to another school?
 
This is in line with what was found in a 2015 Stanford study of a large Chinese travel firm called CTrip.  Researchers randomly split 249 call center employees from Shanghai into two groups. For nine months, half of them kept working at their desks as usual, and the other half were told to work from home four days a week (one day a week they came into the office). Then the researchers measured everything from the number of calls they made, to job satisfaction, to breaks taken, to sick days… everything but Facebook Likes and Candy Crush scores.
 
One conclusion: Working from home can make people more productive.
 
But wait. Before you move all of your books back home, there’s a huge caveat from this study (aside from country, culture, and industry): These workers had very specific measures of productivity—phone calls per minute and the amount of time spent on the phone.

Since working at home requires a discipline muscle that many of us need to strengthen, it’s easy to let our first days or weeks at home be structured by meetings and not our mission. That is, we might view the phone or web meetings on our calendar as the “Big rocks” of our day instead of seeing our biggest projects as our biggest rocks. After you conduct a weekly review of the projects that are most pressing, these suggestions might help.
 
            • Identify the three biggest project tasks you need to complete each day (not including meetings).
            • Make a promise to complete these tasks and deliver results to another person (boss or coworker).
            • Check in for a follow-up after making the delivery.
 
This is the productivity side of working at home. But there’s another side to working at home that has been widely ignored. It’s the human side.
 
There’s a story of three people who find themselves stranded on an uncharted desert island. Sort of like Gilligan’s Island, but without commercials. After years of learning how to smoothly work together to survive, the trio one day finds a bottle with a genie in it. The genie grants each person a wish. The first wishes to be back home in California, and—poof—she’s gone. The second wishes to be reunited with his family in Texas, and—poof—he’s gone. The third person looks around the empty island and says to the genie, “You know, I miss my two friends. I wish they were back.”
 
Here’s the rest of the story about the Chinese workers.
 
After nine months of working at home, the study was over. The workers were told they could continue working from home four days a week or they could come back and grind it out in-office for the full five. Slightly more than half of these workers wanted to come back and work in the office. They reported they were too “lonely.”
 
Leaning in (versus spacing out) during meetings might help, and checking in or following up after finishing a project piece might help. But this human solution will need some personal thought and personal tailoring for each of us. If we’re feeling restless after 4 days at home, the human side is where we might want to look.
 
And maybe call your brother “just because.”