2018 Career Development Session

The Spectrum of Careers in Neuropsychopharmacology:  From Government to Industry
Shin-ichi-Kano, M.D., Ph.D., ACNP Membership Advisory Task Force Member

Shin-ichi Kano

The spectrum of careers outside of traditional University settings have increasingly become highlighted as promising paths for academic scientists. These careers include, but are not limited to, scientific jobs in government, industry, and publishing. The required skills and criteria to obtain and succeed in these positions, however, are not necessarily clear to early career scientists and trainees in neuropsychopharmacology. Thus, a better understanding of diverse scientific positions may help those in university/college settings consider exciting new career directions. This year’s Career Development Session on Tuesday, December 11th from 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM will focus on several examples of scientific positions outside of the “typical” university setting and will also provide insight into successful transitions between these positions.  The proposed panelists include scientists who built their careers both inside and outside of universities, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), pharmaceutical industry, and a leading academic journal.  We identified the panelists based on their highly successful careers in multiple settings.  These individuals include, Sarah Lisanby, M.D. (Director of Translational Research, NIMH), Catherine DeAngelis, M.D. (past Editor-in-Chief, JAMA), John Docherty, M.D. (Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals) and Dimitri Grigoriadis, M.D. (Neurocrine Biosciences Inc.)  Speakers will address topics, such as: How did you get to your current position, and what are some valuable lessons that you have learned that are not typically taught or discussed in more traditional academic settings? How should we set expectations for non-academic jobs?  That is, what are some “benchmarks” for success?

What type of skill sets are highly valued by employers outside of academia?  Any that you can think of that are particularly divergent from traditional academic positions at a university?

What is the changing landscape for career tracks in industry? Are there any new career tracks emerging? How did you utilize networking opportunities? Have your networking strategies changed throughout your career trajectory? In your perspective, what is the best way to achieve success in navigating between career types? In addition to these primary discussion points, certain panelists will speak about the significance of their prior scientific training at academic institutions and their transitions to their current positions. Thereafter, the session will focus on the potential considerations for early career academic professors or trainees to consider transitioning into these jobs, including necessary experiences, different mindsets, and/or opportunities to return to professorships. Finally, questions from the audience will be taken to promote discussion of this important topic and other related considerations for career development. Myrna Weissman, Ph.D. and Julia Sacher, M.D., Ph.D., members of the Membership Advisory Task Force, will moderate the discussion. In sum, this panel will provide concrete insight into diverse roles that both junior and senior investigators can engage in both inside and outside of traditional academic institutions.

Summary of Membership Advisory Task Force Annual Survey

Shelly B. Flagel, Ph.D., ACNP Membership Advisory Task Force Member


Shelly B. Flagel

The 2017 Associate Member Survey was sent to 150 individuals, of which 38% responded. A comparable number of males and females responded, most of whom were within the 36 to 45-year-old age range, and 70% reported having children. The majority (70%) of the respondents have a Ph.D., 22% an M.D., Ph.D. and 7% an M.D. degree. Seven percent of the respondents self-identified as a member of an underrepresented minority, defined as an “African-American, Hispanic, Native American, US Pacific Islander, and/or Other”. These statistics are similar to those reported last year, except that we had a higher proportion (48%) of respondents last year and a larger percentage of underrepresented minorities (13%). Below are graphs illustrating the percentage of males vs. females and underrepresented minorities across the past 5 years.

Similar to last year, 74% of respondents rated ACNP “High” or “Very High” in terms of being a welcoming society for early and mid-career investigators, and a comparable number reported feeling comfortable asking senior members of ACNP about promotion and participation in the organization. When asked what aspects of ACNP are unappealing or diminish its value, respondents noted the requirement to attend the annual meeting, an elusive application process for membership and continued lack of diversity in senior leadership and full members.

Of the respondents, 81% reported acceptance as an Associate Member on their first try; whereas, 17% applied twice. These numbers have changed slightly from the previous few years, where ~88% applied only once and ~13% applied twice. Only 5% of the respondents have applied for full membership, but 88% plan to apply in the future and, of those, only 19% believe they will achieve full membership status the first time they apply. While 75% anticipate they will eventually achieve full membership status, most feel they are currently too early in their careers or only recently achieved associate member status. These statistics and responses are comparable to those reported last year. Similarly, as reported last year, 95% of respondents believe the dues for Associate and Full Members are reasonable. The top three reasons cited that would make membership more appealing included: 1) not making attendance at the annual meeting mandatory, 2) having a more transparent process for successful membership application, and 3) increasing the likelihood of acceptance. Finally, ~60% of respondents indicated that their home institution valued ACNP membership status when evaluating faculty for promotion.

Annual Meeting
Forty-five percent of respondents indicated that the location of the annual meeting affected their attendance. Thirty-seven percent prefer Florida, followed by 14% for both California and Puerto Rico. Only 14% reported that the registration fee influenced their decision to attend the annual meeting. While 70% of the respondents reported having children, only 12% indicated that they bring their children to the annual meeting, and 29% indicated that subsidized childcare would impact their decision to bring their children. Sixteen percent reported utilizing the on-site childcare over the past 5 years. When asked about their interests, needs and desires within the context of ACNP, access to the most exciting and recent advances in research and access to more senior and accomplished researchers were the top two selections.

The 2017 Past Travel Awardee survey was sent to all 215 Awardees from the past 5 years who are not current Associate Members, of which 45% responded. Sixty-one percent of the respondents were female, and 39% male. Approximately half were under the age of 35 and the other half between 36 and 45 years old. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents have a Ph.D., 18% an M.D., Ph.D. and 2% an M.D. degree. Twenty-five percent of the respondents self-identified as a member of an underrepresented minority, defined as an “African-American, Hispanic, Native American, US Pacific Islander, and/or Other”. These statistics are similar to those reported last year, but with a steadily increasing trend for the percent of females and underrepresented minorities. Below are graphs illustrating the percentage of males vs. females and underrepresented minorities across the past 5 years.

Sixty-four percent of the respondents rated ACNP “High” or “Very High” in terms of being a welcoming College for potential members, and 74% indicated that they felt comfortable asking senior members about promotion and participation in the organization. However, the following were noted as reasons for not pursuing membership: lack of diversity, onerous application process and “exclusive” culture.

Forty-four percent of the Past Travel Awardees have applied for membership, which is a marked difference from the 3% reported last year. Only 5% anticipated achieving full membership status upon the first submission of their application, but 56% believed they would eventually become full members. Those who have not yet applied believe they are too junior to obtain membership, are not confident they will be accepted and/or are unsure of the requirements. When asked what would make ACNP membership more appealing, the most common responses included: 1) a more transparent process for successful membership application, and 2) decreased dues and meeting registration costs. Finally, ~26% of respondents indicated that their home institution valued ACNP membership status when evaluating faculty for promotion.

Annual Meeting
The price of the annual ACNP meeting registration fee, the location of the annual meeting and the cost of the hotel was reported to influence attendance at the annual meeting for ~50-60% of respondents. Approximately 50% of the respondents reported having children, with 13% indicating that they bring their children to the annual meeting, and 44% indicating that subsidized childcare would impact their decision to bring their children. When asked about their interests, needs and desires within the context of ACNP, access to the most exciting and recent advances in research and access to more senior and accomplished researchers were the top two selections, as they were for the Associate Member Survey.

The majority of the early- and mid-career investigators who responded to these surveys reported feeling “welcome” and “comfortable” interacting with senior ACNP members, and we continue to make efforts towards increasing the representation of women and other minorities in the College. Yet, the perception of an elitist culture and homogeneity of the current membership, especially at the senior level, remain primary deterrents from the College for the younger generations. While access to high-quality science and senior leaders in the field continue to draw these junior investigators to the Annual Meeting, we could further increase interest by enhancing the transparency of the application process to become an Associate Member and reducing the mandatory meeting requirement and associated fees. It is important to note that only 26% of the Past Travel Awardees indicated that ACNP membership was valued by their institution. Exclusivity is not attractive in the current climate. With this feedback in mind, we must continue our efforts to improve the culture of the College in order to better reflect and accommodate the needs of our ever-evolving scientific community.

Expanding Diversity in ACNP Membership in the Past Five Years

Ryan Bachtell, Ph.D., ACNP Membership Advisory Task Force Member

The ACNP was founded as a professional organization of leading neuropsychopharmacologists and has excelled in advancing its research and education missions since its inception. As the field has continued to evolve, ACNP has thrived by becoming increasingly diverse in the subfields that make up the discipline including both basic and clinical psychopharmacologists, epidemiologists, geneticists, molecular biologists, neuroimagers, psychiatrists, among others. Another important aspect of diversity that contributes to the success of an organization is the degree of social diversity.

Ryan Bachtell

Decades of research demonstrate that socially diverse environments benefit organizations by expanding the various sources of information to add different perspectives and opinions. For example, large corporations having greater social diversity within the leadership group show greater innovation and profit margins compared with corporations having more homogenous leadership groups1–3. Scientific research and education show similar positive effects of socially diverse groups. Social diversity can not only influence the themes of a research study, but how a scientific problem is approached and the strategies that are used to analyze a problem leading to greater scientific innovation, creativity, and discovery. A recent report suggests that having diverse authorship groups is associated with publication in higher impact journals and higher citation rates4. Recognizing the positive impact of social diversity in science, ACNP has initiated several programs and strategies to build diversity within the College membership and attendees at the Annual Meeting.

ACNP took the initial step in building diversity by assembling the Women’s Task Force and the Under-Represented Minority (URM) Task Force to help promote diversity within the College. Both task forces have been charged with collecting and analyzing data about the diversity within the College. Based on this information, the task forces have provided a more enriched view of the social landscape, which has led to the implementation of several explicit approaches to grow the College into a more diverse environment. To build diversity within the membership, Council recently voted to open the nomination procedure to facilitate nominating women and minorities. Fellows and Members may now nominate more than one individual if one of the nominees is an URM or female candidate. In an effort to include more diverse attendance at the Annual Meeting, ACNP members are now able to offer an additional meeting invitation to a scientist from an URM group. The Program Committee has also been instructed to consider diversity, including career stage, gender, race, and scientific focus, in their decision process when considering proposals for activities at the Annual Meeting. The Annual Meeting also features a number of activities such as receptions, luncheons, and career development sessions that are specifically designed to welcome and foster the inclusion of diverse groups within the College. ACNP has also developed partnerships with socially diverse organizations, such as the National Hispanic Science Network, to build URM recruitment to the College. Lastly, in an effort to foster the career development of URM scientists, the College recently established the Dolores Shockley Minority Mentoring Award that is presented to an ACNP member who has been particularly successful in mentoring young URM scientists in the field of neuropsychopharmacology and related disciplines.

The College has seen progress in building diversity since the inception of many of these programs and initiatives. The most progress has been seen in the involvement of women in the College5. Participation rates of women in Annual Meeting activities have progressively increased over the past five years with just over 50% women participating in Panels, Mini-Panels, Study Groups and Plenary sessions in 2017. Over the past five years, women have comprised at least 50% of the ACNP Council and the College has elected 3 female Presidents. There has also been a steady increase in the percentage of women serving on committees with nearly 45% women representation on ACNP committees in 2017. Similarly, there are nearly equal rates of women Travel Award recipients compared with men, and acceptance rates at all levels are nearly equal with men. We are also beginning to see more women receive ACNP honorific awards. Over the last five years, five women have been awarded the Eva King Killam Research Award, two women have been awarded the Daniel H. Efron Research Award, two women have been awarded the Joel Elkes Research Award, and two women have been awarded the Media Award. With women representing just 26% of ACNP membership in 2017, these statistics suggest a growing presence of women in the College, especially in leadership positions.

Statistics for URM involvement6 in the College has shown more modest improvement and, in some cases, has remained stagnant. From 2013 to 2017, there was a slight increase in URM membership from 3% to 5%. While the percentage of URM Members and Fellows has remained steady, there appears to be a greater influx of URM Associate Members, which has ranged from 6% to 10% since 2013. This is reflected in a greater percentage of URM applications for Associate Membership (13% of applications) compared with full Membership (6% of applications). Since 2012, the acceptance rate of URM applicants for Associate Membership has been similar (67%) to overall acceptance rates (64%), and acceptance rates for full Membership have been higher for URM applicants (79%) compared to overall acceptance rates (64%). At the 2017 Annual Meeting, the first recipient of the Dolores Shockley Minority Mentoring Award was awarded to a female, URM member, and the Eva King Killam Research Award was also awarded a female, URM member. The 2017 Annual Meeting included approximately 7% URM program participants, which is a slight increase from the past five years that ranged from 4% to 6% URM participation. An important aspect to URM recruitment to the College is to support URM annual meeting attendance through the Travel Award program. There has been a progressive increase in URM Travel Award applications over the past five years with a 60% increase in 2017 URM Travel Award applications compared with 2013. The percentage of URM Travel Awards received has not seen proportionate increases with the growing number of URM applications. There has been a nearly 15% drop in successful URM Travel Award applications since 2013. These numbers reflect some of the successful strategies in recruiting URM participants to the College, but also reveal some of the challenges in building URM representation in the College.

As the College begins to implement and evaluate strategies to build diversity, there are several important considerations for the College membership. First, it needs to be recognized that there is a pressing need to make advances in this area. Participation by all ACNP members is vital in this process as the College seeks to better embrace diversity as reflected among its membership. Second, the ACNP is committed to building a membership that reflects the best talent in the field, and we realize that means recruiting members from diverse background. Third, the ACNP is committed to embracing diversity in all of our activities, because we acknowledge that doing so is an essential aspect of pursuing and achieving excellence in neuropsychopharmacology.


  1. Richard, O. C. Racial Diversity, Business Strategy, and Firm Performance: A Resource-Based View. Acad. Manage. J. 43, 164–177 (2000).
  2. Richard, O., McMillan, A., Chadwick, K. & Dwyer, S. Employing an Innovation Strategy in Racially Diverse Workforces: Effects On Firm Performance. Group Organ. Manag. 28, 107–126 (2003).
  3. Dezsö, C. L. & Ross, D. G. Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation. Strateg. Manag. J. 33, 1072–1089
  4. Freeman, R. B. & Huang, W. Collaborating with People Like Me: Ethnic Coauthorship within the United States. J. Labor Econ. 33, S289–S318 (2015).
  5. Women’s Advisory Task Force. (2017)
  6. Under-Represented Minority Task Force. (2017)

Interview with William Carlezon, Ph.D., Editor-In-Chief, Neuropsychopharmacology

Interviewed by Christie Fowler, Ph.D.

At this past ACNP Women’s Luncheon, Dr. William (Bill) Carlezon provided insightful thoughts regarding processes and considerations for manuscript publication in ACNP’s journal, Neuropsychopharmacology (NPP). As the current Editor-In-Chief, Dr. Carlezon has worked to maintain a high level of excellence for the journal through his various initiatives and collaborative efforts with his team of editors and staff. For this edition of the ACNP Bulletin, the Membership Advisory Task Force conducted the following interview to provide members with further insight into Dr. Carlezon’s vision for the future of NPP, as well as ‘behind the scenes’ considerations for publishing in NPP. Finally, in consideration of Dr. Carlezon’s eminence in the field, we have also taken the opportunity to pose questions about his own career development as a source of inspiration for junior scientists.

William Carlezon

Q: What current vision do you have for the journal?
A: The team of NPP senior editors—there are 14 of us—has a cohesive vision. Our foremost goal is for the journal to be useful to the ACNP community. We want NPP to be a place where people come to learn, to discuss, and to share their most exciting discoveries. This requires that the journal be visible, provide outstanding service, and offer ways of interacting that meet the expectations of our primary users: readers and authors.

Q: How has the journal changed over the years? What do you think the current e-communication initiatives will bring to the journal?
A: One of the most significant (and interesting) changes facing all journals is the fading prominence of the print version. Not long ago, people used to read their favorite journals from cover to cover. As a graduate student, I remember fighting over who in the lab would get to read the journals as they arrived by mail. There were no eTOCs (electronic table of contents) or author alerts; rather, there was mystery, excitement, and surprise. Now people can instantaneously find the individual papers they want (or need) to see, regardless of when they are published, often times well before they come out in their finalized form. This accelerates the pace of science but creates publishing challenges, including the fact that people may not see related, highly relevant materials that come out at the same time, sometimes right next to one another in the same issue. Readers have become focused on individual papers rather than collections. The NPP editors invest a great deal of energy in attracting outstanding papers while also making sure that the “NPP collection” of resources offers added value, both of which will bring people to the journal.

Q: The journal website was recently re-designed. What prompted this change, and how will this drive the publication going forward?
A: The website redesign was part of a new contract that we negotiated with our publisher, Springer Nature (formerly Nature Publishing Group). One thing that many people don’t realize is that there are 2 sides to journal function: the ACNP side, which is responsible for obtaining the content, and the Publisher side, which is responsible for getting the content out there. These elements are complementary and their interactions need to be seamless. With respect to the redesign, the website and the cover of the print version were both in need of updating so we wanted to make sure that was part of the agreement. The look is now more modern and there are new functionalities, including easier access to paper-related materials that change in real-time, such as social media uptake and Altmetrics. These changes are designed to make the journal a more appealing and valuable resource.

Q: Are there any specific goals for the journal that would you like to achieve in the next 5 years?
A: As stated above, my foremost goal is to make the journal as a whole—the NPP collection—as valuable as possible to the ACNP community as a whole. If we can do that, then everything else will take care of itself. One way we can do this is by being more sensitive to gender balance in journal function. We are actively studying our performance in this domain, asking important and creative questions. The ACNP community will be hearing a lot more about what we are finding by the end of this year. We strive to be transparent and constantly improving.

Christie Fowler

Q: How does the association between NPP and ACNP make the journal unique?
A: The ACNP is regarded as a prestigious group—with good reason. The college emphasizes the importance of translational work happening at the cutting edge. At NPP, we try to publish basic (preclinical) papers that will inform clinical practice, and clinical papers that inspire more insightful basic research. And, of course, papers that include both of these elements together.

Q: What recommendations can you offer to individuals seeking to publish in NPP?
A: I recommend that ACNP community members submit their best work to NPP! What we hope to publish has some combination of 3 broad characteristics: an important discovery that provides mechanistic insight on a translationally-relevant line of inquiry. I personally don’t need to see a “wall of data”; I am looking for something new with a narrative that our target audience (the ACNP membership) can follow. And by narrative, I mean that it tells a scientific story without resorting to sensationalism. It is very important that authors do not exaggerate the importance of their findings, which can be grounds for rejection.

Q: How is a manuscript processed after submission? How are the reviewers selected?
A: When papers arrive they undergo a quality assurance step to make sure that they meet the general (non-scientific) characteristics of NPP papers with respect to length, formatting, contact information for all authors, disclosures, etc. In the spirit of customer service, we try to be as flexible as possible without setting precedents that other authors can point to as justification for not adhering to the instructions for authors. I then perform an initial screen of all manuscripts, during which time I reject some without review (about 40%—more on this later). Next, I assign the manuscripts to the handling editor whose expertise is the best fit with the subject matter. At this point I become the handling editor for some manuscripts, but I put a lot of effort into making sure the distribution is equitable across the entire team. The handling editors solicit the reviewers and make recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief, who is ultimately responsible for the final decision. Because we are handling manuscripts in our field of expertise, we are often able to think of 3 ideal reviewers immediately, without much help. However, I have asked the senior editors to look at the list of suggested reviewers provided by the authors and, if they seem reasonable, try to assign at least one from the list. (We learned at last year’s annual meeting that this practice is not universal among journals.) These days the best reviewers are in high demand, so we are not always able to comply with suggestions for reviewers. It is important to point out that we are always attentive to the list of excluded reviewers; in fact, our system automatically “flags” when an editor tries to assign an excluded reviewer. The editors can override this flag, but that requires an additional step and is very rare—usually only when the list is excessive or includes all thought leaders in a domain. All of us who work in this field have justifiable exclusions, and the editors try to be respectful of that reality.

Q: Is the cover letter important, and if so, what should it include?
A: A cover letter is the author’s opportunity to speak directly to the editors without the reviewers, who are not given access to it. As of right now, the on-line submission system requires a cover letter, but my advice is to be brief, and instead invest more time in perfecting the abstract. The abstract is what the editors use to decide whether or not to send a manuscript for review, and what the reviewers see when deciding whether or not they wish to review the manuscript. In my estimation, the abstract has a much greater influence on success or failure. The greatest cover letter ever written cannot outweigh a poor abstract.

Q: What are the most common reasons that manuscripts get rejected from NPP?
A: We reject about 40% of all manuscripts we receive without review, primarily because they are obviously not right for NPP. That is, they are not on the correct subject matter (we focus on the neural mechanisms of psychiatric disorders and their treatment), they are of low quality, or they quite clearly have already been rejected by other journals (tell-tale signs include short and/or structured abstracts and incorrect ordering of sections) and the authors have not bothered to reformat them for NPP. I also reject without review manuscripts that seem overly complex or esoteric. If the editors cannot understand the abstract, then it will be impossible to get reviewers, which clogs the system for everyone. Beyond this, the most common reason for rejection is that the work is descriptive (identifying correlations, which can often reflect epiphenomena) rather than mechanistic (providing insight on cause-effect relations). But there are a host of other reasons as well, including limitations in experimental design or interpretation. It is also important to mention that while all journals function differently, at NPP it is the editors—not the reviewers—who make the decisions about whether a paper is accepted or rejected, based on what is best for the journal. When editors first receive a manuscript for handling, they often have their own concerns, but send the paper out for review nonetheless. Reviewers act as advisors to the editors, and sometimes a single reviewer can express a concern that perfectly aligns with the initial, pre-review concerns of an editor. This is one of the ways in which a single critical reviewer can outweigh two more positive reviewers. Authors often appeal rejections on the basis of the “2-1 argument”, or by pitting one reviewer against another, but these types of appeals on their own are rarely fruitful, because the editors are making the decisions on the basis of what they feel is best for the journal— the role in which they have been entrusted by ACNP membership.

Q: Is the impact factor an appropriate assessment, or are there more valid approaches that the field should consider?
A: We know from the membership survey that we did last autumn that authors place great importance on impact factor (IF). We cannot ignore this reality. However, we try to keep in mind that IF is a commercial product (like standardized school admission tests) with some idiosyncrasies, including being rather insensitive to the performance of individual papers once they are accepted. Specifically, papers take on the IF of the journal in which they are published, regardless of whether they are actually useful to the field. IF can also be “gamed”, using strategies that NPP editors choose not to engage in. For me, it is easy to envision a day when papers have their own impact score that reflect objective, transparent measurements of how useful a paper is to the field (e.g., how many times they are cited in other papers), and that these types of metrics will have a greater influence on career-related trajectories than they do currently. One issue is that, quite simply, better metrics are not broadly available. In the meantime, NPP engages in strategies that should increase IF as a by-product of our approach, rather than those that actively “chase” IF.

Q: For those seeking membership in ACNP, NPP reviewer service is an evaluation criterion. Thus, how can someone become a reviewer for NPP?
A: The best way to become a reviewer from scratch is to ask a mentor to recommend you as an alternate when they are not able to accept an invitation to review. The recommendation of an ACNP member is sufficient. We do not seek self-nominations to serve as a reviewer, regardless of on-paper qualifications. While this might at first seem confusing, it makes more sense when viewed from the perspective of an author. We have no context for evaluating self-nominated reviewers, and if their reviews do not meet our standards, this can be unfair to authors, while putting the editors in the awkward position of disregarding and replacing a reviewer. This can lengthen the review process tremendously. For this reason, the recommendation of a mentor is an especially critical step for first-time reviewers.

Q: Are there any opportunities for individuals to become involved in the journal’s initiatives?
A: Yes; as a perfect example, last year an ACNP non-member took the initiative to propose an editorial intern project, which has evolved into a critical element of our studies of gender differences in journal function. Anyone who has ideas about things that could be done to strengthen the journal can write to me or any member of the senior editor team with a brief proposal.

Q: How did you achieve your current position as Editor-In-Chief?
A: My road to being Editor-in-Chief started with many years of reviewing papers for whichever journals asked. This provided a strong foundation for what happened next. At ACNP, I was serving on the Public Information Committee (PIC), which brought me into contact with Jim Meador-Woodruff, who had just taken over as Editor-in-Chief of NPP. The combination of working with Jim on the PIC and having a track record of being a conscientious reviewer for NPP put me in the right place at the right time when he was building his team. I served as a handling editor on Jim’s team for 6 years, which offered the opportunity to learn about the business of running a journal. When Jim’s term-limited time as Editor-in-Chief came to an end, I applied for the position and received an interview. I owe much to Jim for all he taught me and for his graciousness in the transition; he set an example that I will follow when it is the next person’s turn to take over NPP.

Q: What general advice could you offer junior scientists as they navigate their careers, or what is the best piece of advice that you’ve ever received?
A: Be proactive; don’t hope (or expect) that people will find you—because they might not.