What to do when you find your advisor's style difficult?

[hats]

Hi everybody, thanks in advance for any advice you have to offer.

When I started graduate school, one of my two primary advisors seemed like a very warm and caring person. Unfortunately, the more we go on, the more I feel like every conversation with him shreds my soul a little more. Specifically, I cannot stand the style he uses to give me criticism. Now, I've seen threads like this devolve into people telling OP that criticism is part of academia and makes your work better, so I'd like to note at the outset that I have a lot of savoir faire with regard to criticism in general.  I am, however, having trouble adjusting to Advisor A's style. I'm a brash, big city girl, to use some shorthand. Blunt criticism does not phase me, even when it's really harsh. A, however, is midwestern nice. By his own account, he has a lot of trouble expressing his preferences directly. That doesn't mean A doesn't have strong preferences; they just sneak out backwards in remarks I find to be catty and hurtful. It's hard to give examples, because honestly, it's relatively subtle. If I wrote an unclear paragraph, Advisor B might say, "This paragraph is a mess; fix it," and that would be fine. Advisor A might say something like "Written in haste...? I am left wondering what, if any, point was meant to be communicated..." Even as I write this, I feel like that comment fails to function as supporting evidence for the word 'soul-shredding.' It doesn't sound that bad. While no one example is all that problematic, though, the pattern has been bothering me more and more over time. For an example that actually happened—and that makes me think some of A's apparent frustration is specific to me—one time in my first year I misinterpreted a small class assignment. After this, he spent the next three months remarking "Ah, it's nice to finally see some evidence you're serious about professionalization." At least once a week. I probably deserved the first instance—I thought his remark was kind of funny—but boy did I get sick of hearing that he still thought I wasn't 'serious' after I made one small mistake and then did three more months of work correctly. 

I suppose I've written my way to the conclusion that it's not actually the style, but the fact that I suspect he either doesn't like me, doesn't like my work, or doesn't think I should be in graduate school, or perhaps all three. That attitude then finds its expression in this (annoying but not per se problematic) style. That said, the sort of passive implication that all of your work might be garbage does bother me more than direct criticism, so if you've adjusted from a more direct style to a less direct one, I would also appreciate advice separate from my working relationship with A.

Some answers I'd want if I were reading this: no, A isn't like this with everyone. Almost all the other students think he's the nicest and most caring member of the faculty, so when I tell them some of the things he's said to me—direct quotations, without editorializing from me—they invariably suggest I'm exaggerating or misheard. (On the other hand, I once saw him ream out a classroom of students in such a 'nice' way that I don't think more than 2 out of 20 actually noticed what was happening.) No, I don't know what I could be doing better. I work really hard and my CV looks fantastic. Unfortunately, asking A about areas where I have room for improvement seems to offend him, so he doesn't answer. Yes, I could work only with B and ditch A and still graduate...given A's status in our peculiar subfield, I'm pretty sure this would 100% consign me to finding a career outside of academia. (Which is, you know, fine, but I don't want that to be a certainty before I've even turned in a dissertation chapter.)

[Hope.for.the.best]

I don't know how far along you are in your program. If you are still at very early stage, and you have tried your very best but could not work out with him, then changing advisor is probably wise. However, if you are almost to the graduation mark, then probably it is best to try not to take his criticism personally and get whatever you need from him to finish. Probably turn to your other advisor more, if he provides criticism in a more constructive way. 

I don't know how exactly you and other students get on with your advisor, so it is hard for me to comment whether you are overreacted or not. You are probably not though, as it is common that we view people differently. It is also common that someone we find nice and easy-going is unpleasant to others.

[fuzzylogician]

Unfortunately, advisors' personal styles is something you either get used to or suffer from. They will not change. You can learn to accept that this is how he is and learn to "translate" his remarks in your head to more helpful ones. (This, through explicit training with friends or even a therapist, as needed.) Or you may want to find ways to minimize your interactions with him, if it's really grating on you. Is there a way not to ditch A entirely but to make B more of your central person and A someone you talk to less frequently? That may be a solution that could improve your qualify of life significantly but still leave you with a chance to stay in academia. 

[TakeruK]

I agree with what is said above. Sorry that you have to deal with Person A.

You probably already know but it might be helpful to hear: Person A's mode of criticism is a bad one. This is not just a matter of "style" or a "bad fit". They are objectively bad at providing feedback. I have worked on several review and evaluation panel now and they give us some training on how to actually provide good feedback to students in particular. And remarks like the one you quoted "Written in haste?..." are explicitly called out as bad feedback. 

In short, feedback like that is bad because 1) it makes assumptions about the writer, 2) doesn't actually address the actual problem. Feedback is supposed to either provide an evaluation (e.g. to determine a letter grade, for a committee to decide whether you should pass, etc.) or to provide a means for the student to improve. What Person A wrote in your quote is neither (if rewritten/rephrased, it might be the evaluation kind, i.e. "This paragraph does not communicate a clear point" might be one right way to say what Person A meant).

But just because someone (e.g. Person A) is wrong doesn't mean that you can change them or even that anyone can compel them to change. Fuzzy's advice above is practical and helpful and I would go with that path. The sad reality is that many academics need to play the role of manager and leader and mentor but most of us do not get training and most faculty aren't hired for these traits.

[ZeChocMoose]

Writing a dissertation can feel like a rollercoaster as there are a lot of ups and downs depending on how things are going.  There are going to be times when you need to reach out to your chair and get some guidance/advice when things aren't going well.  Given what you written below, I personally would find it hard to reach out to this person if I suspected they didn't like me and/or they didn't think I should be in a grad school.

On 5/23/2018 at 9:23 PM, hats said:

I suppose I've written my way to the conclusion that it's not actually the style, but the fact that I suspect he either doesn't like me, doesn't like my work, or doesn't think I should be in graduate school, or perhaps all three. That attitude then finds its expression in this (annoying but not per se problematic) style. That said, the sort of passive implication that all of your work might be garbage does bother me more than direct criticism, so if you've adjusted from a more direct style to a less direct one, I would also appreciate advice separate from my working relationship with A.

I am going to be blunt here - if you would find that hard too, don't pick this person as your chair.  You'll end up suffering in silence because you'll be afraid of how they will react.  Your dissertation will suffer and it will take you longer to get done.  I would pick adviser B as the chair and maybe put adviser A on the committee - but only if they are not going to be an obstructionist. 

[Sigaba]

On 5/23/2018 at 6:23 PM, hats said:

Specifically, I cannot stand the style he uses to give me criticism.... A...is midwestern nice.

[...]

No, I don't know what I could be doing better. I work really hard and my CV looks fantastic. Unfortunately, asking A about areas where I have room for improvement seems to offend him, so he doesn't answer.

I think I get what you're saying. When I was a T.A., the professor in charge of training and for whom I worked most often was a Midwesterner with a bone crushing handshake, an exceptionally kind heart, and also, at times, a razor's edge about him.

These days, I work for a consultancy that is based in the Midwest. Those of us who are Westerners at times have a hard time decoding what we're being told by The Powers That Be. A very senior VP, whom I refer to as Galadriel when describing her impact on our industry to new hires, cheerfully shreds peers, colleagues , and worker bees from time to time. My supervisor is from the Midwest and he more and more has an edge beneath the nice. 

When A makes a comment such as "Written in haste?" Do you press through the edge to see if the criticism has merit? Overall, are the criticisms consistent? Or does A sometimes say "blue" when other times the note will be "red"--to your or to others? If A's criticisms have merit and are consistent, I would see what I could do about having thicker skin. (This is easier said than done. Only you can decide if the price is worth paying.)

IRT your self assessment, I recommend taking a look in the mirror from a different angle. It may very well be that A is expecting you to behave more and more like a peer and less like a graduate student seeking approval and guidance--even though guidance and approval are what you may need the most right now.