Is there a problem with leadership in science?
In essence, this is the question addressed by this paper from the Industrial Research Institute, in which data from thousands of 360-appraisals is analysed to compare the ratings given to research managers with those given to managers working in other contexts.
Part of the study looked at data from the Benchmarks 360 tool, which collects colleagues’ ratings of managers’ abilities through 155 questions focusing on different skills and situations.
Each item in the survey included a statement such as “Adjusts management style to changing situations”, with respondents asked to rate the manager on a scale scored from one to five, depending on their level of agreement with the statement.
The authors averaged the scores given to research managers for each question and then compared the results to the averages of the scores given to non-research managers.
The results were striking. Out of 155 questions, research managers scored less favourably than non-researchers on all but three. These were:
- Quickly masters new technical knowledge necessary to do the job
- Is creative or innovative
- Is calm and patient when other people have to miss work due to sick days
In every one of the other 152 questions, research managers underperformed non-researchers, according to their colleagues. But let’s concentrate on the areas where the gap was largest.
The average scores of research managers were especially poor relative to non-researchers on these items:
- Understands higher management values, how higher management operates, and how they see things
- Has solid working relationships with higher management*
- Can deal effectively with resistant employees*
- Is able to fire or deal firmly with loyal but incompetent people without procrastinating*
- Adjusts management style to changing situations*
- Uses good timing and common sense in negotiating; makes his/her points when the time is ripe and does it diplomatically*
- Effectively manages others’ resistance to organizational change*
- Has made mental transition from technical manager to general manager*
- Resolves conflict among direct reports*
- Could handle management outside current function*
- Has adapted to management culture
- A promotion would not cause to go beyond current level of competence
- Hires people w/good technical skills but poor ability to work w/others*
Where research managers are strong is in the areas that are especially relevant to research contexts: the ability to assimilate new information and to think creatively. But, as the authors note, they “are not scored highly on resolving the challenges inherent in balancing their technical understanding with the interpersonal skills that produce a creative, welcoming working environment… [and] are generally regarded as not dealing well with resistant employees and not being able to deal promptly and effectively with incompetence.”
Soft skills and emotional intelligence are often the Achilles heel for managers who have come from a scientific background. As described in this post, these are not skills that are especially highly valued or nurtured in scientific training, and as a result, are a common weakness for scientists when they eventually move into management roles.
And this seems to be reflected in the list of relative weaknesses above. Ten of the thirteen involve a significant component of emotional intelligence (marked with asterixis).
This aligns with other evidence discussed on this blog, which supports the idea that scientific managers – particularly those new to people management – often need extra support to build the soft skills they need to be successful in their roles.
* * *
If you are looking for help building the management skills of your scientific leaders, our Lab to Leader programme is a management development course designed specifically to address the needs of scientists and researchers as they take the step into management. Please click here to find out more.