Spring 2007
Issue 49

Network conducts online survey on Research Leadership and Management.

Dr Rancourt and the SCN Training Committee are exploring the needs and interest in
Research Leadership and Management training within our community.  Starting this week we will be conducting a survey to identify the awareness, competency and training needs of network members in such diverse areas as strategic planning, external relations, project management and professional development.

The results of this survey will assist the Training Committee in developing a leadership training curriculum, which could be in turn be used as a model for other networks in Canada and internationally.

If you have not received an invitation to take part in the survey, and would like to do so, please email Lori Barron.

TERMIS North America 2007 Conference and Exposition
2007-06-13 to 2007-06-16
Westin Harbour Castle Toronto, Ontario Canada
Learn More

5th ISSCR Annual Meeting
2007-06-17 to 2007-06-20
Cairns Convention Centre Cairns, Queensland, Australia
Learn More

Honing Your Leadership Skills through Teamwork

Derrick E. Rancourt

Academic leadership is largely judged by performance at the forefront of scientific or technological knowledge.  Its measure is publication in high impact journals, participation in international symposia, etc.  Hence, graduate students and postdocs are encouraged to work hard at the bench in order to accumulate high impact papers.  Unfortunately, this type of ambition forsakes the more conventional definition of leadership: “the art of influencing and directing people in such a way that will win their confidence, respect and loyal cooperation in achieving common objectives.”[1]  Astonishingly, many academics believe leadership is naturally bestowed upon an international authority.  Although this has never been true, these cultural assumptions are finally being tested as the research world embraces multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder modes of research[2]. Promoters of the “mode 2 research” concept suggest that research is more effective when conducted synergistically in multidisciplinary teams.

            World governments now invest in the mode 2 concept, so modern research has had to evolve beyond the single investigator model.  Today, principal investigators contend with multiple institutions, multiple research stakeholders, complex organizational structures (networks, centres, and teams,) and increased pressure for knowledge transfer and accountability.  Similarly, values surrounding leadership are evolving within this new reality.  Although caliber of research publications is still respected by other disciplines and stakeholders, the ability to develop and orchestrate wildly different resources towards a common goal defines the mode 2 leader.

            Often, this leadership ability challenges many scientists who are trained only with scientific and technical skills.  It is ironic that their success is now predicated upon their ability to lead teams when they have been encouraged to remain isolated and bench-focused throughout their training.  A mid-career scientist must juggle many tasks, including research, teaching, committee work, grants, papers, lectures, reviews, networking, etc.  This mid-level academic scientist moves from project to project adding momentum as they pass, much like a plate spinner at the circus. Unfortunately, the scientist in’t spinning plates, but people. These people include employees, trainees, colleagues, collaborators and potential collaborators. They all invest in and feed off this person.  Combine current pressures with little leadership and management training, it is no wonder many scientists retreat to small labs with little funding, forsaking their duties as teacher, mentor and promoter of innovation.

            Similar pressures exist in industry.  The desire for increased efficiency has driven the trend of “flattening” as the business world becomes increasingly competitive.  In this anti-pyramidical configuration, fewer layers of bureaucracy exist, leaving an integrated management and workers to form teams.  It is believed that flattening results in employees who are empowered, happier and more productive.  However, skeptics believe as Orwell suggests: “All are equal, but some are more equal” in a world of organizational equals[3].  In a world of flatter organizations and outsourcing, employees are measuring their importance by their project stature and are becoming more focused in their own skill development and portability, rather than the success of the organization.

            In classical corporate structure, scientists worked individually or in small scientific teams.  Their training made them well suited for this task until they were promoted to a management position, where they would often behave erratically based upon their limited leadership training[4]. In a flattening world, companies have moved to an organizational structure based upon product-focused multidisciplinary teams.  Many scientists find themselves developing products not with scientists but rather experts in marketing and finance.  They may even interact with customers, because customers are now brought into the product development cycle earlier. Accordingly, scientists often experience problems with communication, culture and leadership.

Industry leaders recognize that teamwork helps to train new leaders, so teamwork is a critical skill in new recruits.  Recruiters will probe teamwork experience with questions that include how you resolved roadblocks or conflicts within a team.  Your answers forge a picture of emerging leadership skills. Your abilities are important to the recruiter, because leadership is no longer concentrated at the top; it is now distributed, such that individuals lead different activities toward a common set of goals.  Some activities may be technical in nature, so the roles may depend upon technical expertise.  However, others could relate to team dynamics (facilitator, recorder, organizer, prodder, supporter, etc).  Each role is important, forming a part of a team, which works synergistically. If you fail to fill the needs of the team’s leadership vacancy, you will not get the job. 

Questions about teamwork allow recruiters to investigate other skills.  Modern organizations rely upon effective communication and goal orientation for their success.  An employee who is a skilled communicator, and who can cooperate and work efficiently in diverse environments will succeed in today’s fast paced corporate world.  Industry thrives on “mission critical” projects; these are high risk projects, which can catapult a company to the forefront of its competitors.  Companies are only interested in individuals who recognize the need for working synergistically towards a goal.

Lawrence Chambers argues, in Effective Communication Skills for Scientific and Technical Professionals communication is the single most important skill that researchers should learn before joining a company.  Without communication skills a new employee will be unable to establish relationships, which form the basis for trust, and synergy within the team.  Communication between disciplines further increases the challenge when working in multidisciplinary teams.  Hence, scientists must lose their field-specific jargon and simplify their concepts.  Furthermore, they must strive to fully understand the other team members’ contributions.  The trust arising from effective communication skills allows everyone the opportunity to air concerns or seek help.  It also fosters understanding and appreciation for problems other members face.  Finally, one the most difficult of leadership skills, negotiation, can only be learned through effective team communication.

Filling successful leadership roles within a team depends upon your personality.  Myers Briggs indicators are one measure of personality. Myers Briggs breaks down personality into four spectra. Extroverts think out loud and are great explainers, but can be overwhelming.  In contrast, Introverts concentrate well, but need time to think and they are often silent.  Intuitive people visualize the big picture, seeing all connections in everything; intuitive people are great planners but poor executors.  However, sensors are great executors, but often miss the importance of the big picture.  Thinkers understand how things work, while Feelers know why something matters.  Judgers make decisions quickly, are good at schedules, and completion, but may overlook vital issues.  Perceivers on the other hand, are slow to judge, always wanting more information and rarely acting.  Individuals with differing personality types bring different perspectives to a team.  Having a balance of personalities and understanding how others on a team view the world, helps teams to synergize. 

Personality traits often define what roles people naturally fall into, but they should not restrict individuals from filling more challenging roles.  Team building experts suggest team members must understand and communicate their personality “strengths and weakness” to other team members.  This helps define roles the team members would be comfortable in.  However, people must learn various leadership roles within teams.  It is important to discuss roles alongside the individuals’ expectations.  For example, a well-organized person doesn’t always want to organize things for the team. Indeed, personality traits can be modified.  Introverts, for example, may wish to facilitate to help them become more extroverted.

Understanding and communicating individual strengths and weaknesses can be expanded to develop a picture of the whole team’s strengths and weaknesses.  Knowing where a team is strong or where they need support is also an important part of strategic planning.  During strategic planning, teams use SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis to examine operational, situational and competitive positions.  Teams look at both internal and external assessments to determine where they lie upon a SWOT matrix.  SWOT analysis guides future directions and planning for the team by identifying weaknesses and threats, which must be protected against, while strengths and opportunities may be exploited.

It is through teamwork, that the organization can develop a vision. Using SWOT analysis combined with team members’ values and expectations, the team develops a vision statement. The vision statement must resonate with team members to inspire their commitment, innovation and courage. From there the team begins to set goals. Goals must be SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound.  Furthermore, each goal must be championed and have an action plan, which defines who, what, where, when and how.  Finally, teams must review their goals regularly, which allow them to reward successes and “manage” productivity gaps.

As research trainees, there is no better time to “experiment” with teamwork and leadership skills. Being a part of a NCE provides you with a unique opportunity to work in multidisciplinary, multi-institutional teams.  The training committee is interested in supporting trainees form teams around their initiatives.  Take initiative.  Your leadership skills must be honed to ensure your success in the new research community, so find a way to train as a leader, not just a scientist.

Derrick E. Rancourt is the Director of the University of Calgary’s Master of Biomedical Technology, a one year course based MSc that integrates life science and business.  Elements of this paper were presented at an experimental trainee leadership workshop held in conjunction with the hESC project.

Executive Committee Meeting
Teleconference
May 22, 2007

Contact Lori Barron at
lori@stemcellnetwork.ca