|
Dale
Carnegie, whose self-help empire was built on the premise that dealing
with people is man’s most difficult challenge, once said "Even in
such technical lines as science and engineering, only about 15% of a
person’s financial and career success is due to technical knowledge,
the other 85% is due to skill in human engineering and the
ability to lead people."
Whether you are a bench scientist or
already on the management track at your company, developing the skills
to lead people should be a part of your career plan. It’s not just the
boss who needs to be up-to-date on leadership skills. As a consultant, I
often see examples of technical people who are denied that move up the
ladder . . . some of them are brilliant in their respective fields, but
they may have failed to move into the rungs of management due to their
inability to positively influence those around them.
At today’s fast-paced biomedical
companies, you can’t expect to be promoted into the ranks of
management without some leadership ability already under your belt.
Senior managers tend to be risk-averse, and unlikely to promote a person
who hasn’t demonstrated such ability. However, those who have taken
the time to study the management skills exhibited by the people around
them generally put themselves in a much better position for future
promotion.
Here are a few examples of leadership
styles that are commonly seen in the biotech, medical device and
pharmaceutical industries. Study these, and observe your coworkers to
see what mix of leadership styles you have around you.
The Autocratic Leader:
No one likes an autocratic leader. This
person has little concern for his or her colleagues and refuses to see
them as individuals with unique skills. Instead, they’re viewed as
tools to get a job done. An example is the project manager who shows
great results under tight deadlines, but has trouble sustaining the
results once the team demoralizes and breaks down. Autocratic types need
to focus more on the contributions of the individuals on the team,
recognizing and nurturing each as the project progresses.
The Democratic Leader:
This leadership style sounds great, at
first. This leader believes that the best decision is one that is made
in a truly democratic fashion. Everyone gets a vote, and as a result the
process itself starts to mire all progress. Momentum takes place only
when there is a consensus of opinion (opinions are generally not in
short supply).
This leader needs to recognize that he or
she has been given the opportunity to lead others because of a presumed
ability to make decisions – not to simply guide others in making
theirs. One repeating nightmare scenario that I see as a recruiter
generally occurs when I work for a manager like this; hiring decisions
are never made without a vote. The recruiting process goes on and on,
almost as if a huge hiring committee was at work. Have you ever seen
this at your company?
The Parental Leader:
This type of leader will take the team
in-hand as a parent would care for children, protecting and sheltering
them from the elements of the organization. The parental leader prefers
to have team members emotionally dependent upon him or her, which leads
to a subtle frustration of their technical growth and development within
the company. These leaders, often the firm’s most respected staff and
managers, need to remember that a part of the job is to help team
members develop into leaders themselves by cutting the "apron
strings."
The Hands-Off Leader:
Working for a hands-off manager sounds
like a dream until you suddenly find yourself out on a limb. At the
other extreme of the scale of involvement, these leaders feel that their
team members can do what they wish, even to the point of letting the
organization’s goals flounder. They allow subordinates to get way too
far into quicksand before offering to help. Everyone likes independence,
but the hands-off leader needs to remember that each person also needs a
touch of support and some occasional direction.
The Driven Leader:
We have a lot of driven leaders in the
startup biomedical arena. This type of manager has the best interests of
the organization at heart, but manages by imposing his or her will.
Forceful and goal-oriented, this person requires perfection, but not at
the expense of missing an opportunity to get results before the
competition.
Driven leaders tend to forget that their
people want to be led, not
|
 |
|
|
|
pushed. Although blessed with better
"people skills" than the autocratic leader, this sort of
person still needs to focus more on making her team want to
succeed.
The Consultative Leader:
Here’s where leadership really starts
to have an impact. Consultative leaders are a dream come true for a CEO,
because they build new ranks of leaders beneath them.
The consultative leader makes the
assumption that each individual has unique skills that may outshine him
or her in certain areas. Ideas are encouraged and shared, and decisions
are made that reflect the combined intelligence of team members. This
leader consults with them and smoothes the way for them to do
a better job.
Where a parental manager may give the
team a sense of confidence in the leader, the consultative leader gives
the team members a sense of confidence in themselves. This in turn sets
the stage for what is known as "maintenance behavior," which
is the ability to keep things moving along on an even keel. In that
regard, this leader becomes a sort of organizational gyroscope, valued
by the company for the ability to develop internal harmony.
The Force Behind Leadership is Influence
:
In the excellent book Clout(1)
by Stephen Graves and Thomas Addington, the authors go to great
lengths to describe the importance of influence in relationship to
leadership. Using the analogy of a mighty river, they state,
"Leadership is the surface, influence is the current."
Being a person of influence does not
require the title of a leader or manager. Look through your organization
for those who have had an influence without the "management"
title, and you’ll find scientists, engineers and others without whom
the company would not be the same. Here are just a few of the
differences noted in Clout between leadership and
influence:
(1) Leadership is visible; influence is
out of sight,
(2) Leadership is usually conscious;
influence is often unconscious,
(3) Leadership is immediate; influence is
long-term, and
(4) Leadership is public; influence is
often behind-the-scenes.
If you are presently waiting to be moved
up the ladder for an "official" leadership position, take note
of the above. Being a person of positive influence can be a mighty
powerful substitute.
Leadership Can Be Learned:
Volumes have been written about
leadership skills. Study these tools and take advantage of outside
training programs sponsored by your company, because whether in the
regulatory arena or the executive suite, those who exercise good
leadership skills create their own future by their ability to motivate
others.
Reference
(1) Stephen Graves and Thomas Addington, Clout:
Tapping Spiritual Wisdom to Become a Person of Influence, Jossey-Bass,
2003.
----------------------------------
David G. Jensen is founder and managing
director of CareerTrax Inc., a biotech, pharma and device recruiting
firm located in Sedona, AZ. He can be reached at (928) 274-2266 or dave@careertrax.com
|
|
