Development Coaching: Helping Scientic and Technical Professionals Make the Leap Into Leadership

Why is it so difcult for many technical professionals to become effective managers? As a vehicle for detailed, actionable feedback and early individualized support, coaching can guide the new leader in shifting fundamental values and developing the practices and relationship skills needed to succeed in the roleand to help others succeed. The author discusses four shared characteristics of scientic/ engineering professionals that create challenges for them when they take on leadership responsibilities and illustrates two key strategies for successfully transitioning these professionals into leadership roles. She explains the six steps of the leadership development coaching model for deploying these key strategies, and presents coaching case studies of four peoples journeys to become effective leaders. 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The vice president of quality leaned across his desk. We had been discussing the common leadership challenges of his direct reports. One day, he said emphatically and with a smile, we should write a book about why its so hard for technical people to become effective managers. I knew what he meant. After 30 years of working within, and consulting to, global technical and scientic organizations, I had plenty of real-world experiences of the challenges and frustrations that these professionals face when moving into leadership positions. Whether they are engineers working in product design, manufacturing, or quality functions, or scientists working in research and development, or information technology specialists, these new leaders want and need to lead in a way that enables the

JEAN L. HURD

maximum use of science and technology and results in the most effective business decisions. Organizations should take this to heart. In the current economy, strong leadership requires not only setting a good direction and inspiring others, but also creating a culture of innovation and creativity. Without good leadership, especially among scientists (I will use scientists in this article to include scientic and technical professionals), organizations that derive a competitive advantage from knowledge and technology face the very real risk that innovative thinking goes by the wayside at the very time that it is most needed. The bottom-line cost to organizations that fail to develop effective scientic leaders, simply put, is that people do not have the opportunity to contribute their best thinking:

r r r r r r r r

Opinions are not expressed. Problems are not communicated. Ideas are shot down. Risks are not taken. Opportunities are missed. Ideas are not challenged. Motivation to solve problems declines. Innovation and decision making suffer.

Organizations must recognize both the needs of scientists in assuming leadership roles and the value of leadership development for addressing those needs. While the challenges that each scientist faces are as varied as the individuals are, inuenced by personality, background, culture, and the like, my experience and the research provide evidence that scientists as a group tend to share a unique set of challenges when

c 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) Global Business and Organizational Excellence DOI: 10.1002/joe.20277 July/August 2009

39

moving into management.1 Addressing these as part of the transition to the new role and responsibilities will increase the individuals satisfaction as well as chances of success. The rst part of this article describes the unique characteristics of scientists as identied in the research and specic leadership challenges articulated by the scientists themselves. The second part explains my process of one-on-one leadership development coaching, used successfully with numerous clients and based on personal experience, academic research, and interviews I conducted over the past ve years with scientists at all organizational levels, from rst-level managers to senior vice presidents. Finally, four case studies demonstrate how this model addresses the specic challenges of scientists and the resulting benets to both the individuals and their organizations.

years in a management role. When I go through Customs, I write scientist on the form. That is my identity. Strongly identied with their expertise, scientists are often blindsided by the magnitude of how much of their identity they leave behind when they make the move into management. No longer purely a scientist, not quite a businessperson, these former star performers can feel suddenly ineffective and demoralized. Perhaps nothing contributes to a difcult transition into management as much as the failure of the organization or the scientist to think through what she or he will have to let go of in order to move up the corporate ladder.

Shared Characteristics of Scientists Research tells us that scientists share several characteristics that are key to being successful as a scientist but can present challenges in their transition to a leadership role:

Perhaps nothing contributes to a difcult transition into management as much as the failure of the organization or the scientist to think through what she or he will have to let go of in order to move up the corporate ladder.

Independence in Thought and Action

r a view of science as a calling, the core of their r independence in thought and action; r love of creativity and exploration; and r technical expertise.
To help ensure a scientists professional growth as a skilled leader, an organization must understand these characteristics in order to create and implement a developmental strategy that addresses the persons unique needs and challenges while leveraging his or her strengths.
Science as a Calling

identity;

By their very nature, scientists tend to be independent thinkers, and the considerable inuence of academe, where most scientists have spent many years studying and perhaps working, reinforces this.3 I heard this again and again in my interviews with scientists:

r Were trained that it is your ideas. We doesnt

come into it. Academic labs are cauldrons of competitionthey dont want you talking to the person next to you. r As for realizing and living as if we are in this together, in academe, you dont care what happens to another department. Here also, scientists can be blindsided by the reality of corporate expectations, where suddenly its all about collaborationlistening to the ideas of

For many scientists, research is a calling and the core of their identity.2 One senior VP described to me just how deep this connection was for him, even after

40

July/August 2009

DOI: 10.1002/joe

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

others, managing equals, being vulnerable and open to asking questions of others. This goes against all that has previously been rewardedcertainty about their own ideas, and having their judgment respected and accepted. As one researcher writes, The fact that you might have to listen to other people if you want to sell them things, this is news to [scientists].4
Love of Creativity vs. Corporate Goals

people. If you undervalue that, thats a problem. When these abilities are lacking, technical expertise on the part of the leader can be perceived by team members or colleagues as intellectual arrogance, to the detriment of the needed exchange of varied perspectives and inclusive decision making.

Scientists frequently describe being torn between their love of scientic exploration and the need to meet corporate goals. Many consider themselves to be scientists rst and corporate workers a distant second.5 They can feel caught between two worlds: being seen as a business thinker while at the same time motivating the scientists who work for them. As they have described to me, it feels like a constant balancing act to them:

It is not uncommon for a scientist who was hired and valued for her or his technical skills to be promoted, as a reward for technical contributions, into a leadership positionoften without any real preparation.

r A managers role is to make sure that things

are done efciently, which feels totally against curiosity and exploring. r In the scientic community, people have to be creative; in business, they want you to be efcient and productive, which can stie creativity.
Technical Expertise vs. People Skills

The Leadership Challenges for Scientists The characteristics and traits described in the last section lead to three specic types of leadership challenges for scientists as they transition into management/leadership roles: 1. Managing others, 2. Collaborating cross-functionally, and 3. Having the business conversation.
Managing Others

It is not uncommon for a scientist who was hired and valued for her or his technical skills to be promoted, as a reward for technical contributions, into a leadership positionoften without any real preparation. Youre the best scientist, a star, and then you just get dumped into management, one bewildered new manager told me. As these individuals experience their role requirements changing from individual technical accomplishment to socially skilled leadership,6 many quickly discover that they have not developed the people skills critical to effective leadership. In the words of one technical manager, You get promoted for managing a responsibility technically. No one ever asks, Can this person make his people happy? A technical team leader had a related observation in his new role: It all boils down to your ability to communicate and connect with

Scientists discover that responsibility for managing others calls on an entirely new set of skills, and the ability to delegate is by far the most frequently cited challenge in the interviews I conducted, mentioned by managers at all levels. All of a sudden, you are asked to step back and let someone else do it, one interviewee said. The toughest thing in the world is to let go. More specically, interviewees described two aspects of difculty with delegation: (1) letting go of their personal active involvement in the science losing touch with the details, and (2) learning to empower and develop their direct reports. While the latter is challenging for almost any manager, it is the double whammy of also being distanced from the science they lovethe loss of much or all of their hands-on involvement in scientic workthat

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

DOI: 10.1002/joe

July/August 2009

41

makes this particularly challenging for scientists.As for the reality that much of their work is now about developing others, one VP put it succinctly and rmly: Management is being a coach. Youre not a player anymore.
Collaborating Cross-Functionally

in marketing and business strategies. It feels amorphous and vaguethings that scientists hate.

As organizations become atter, more team-based, and global, projects are increasingly run by leaders with no direct organizational authority over their team members, who may be drawn from other functions, units, or regions. As a result, the ability to collaborate across organizational boundaries has become a critical skill. Two previously noted characteristics hinder scientists in this capacity: their identity of themselves as a scientist, and the independence and certainty of their viewpoint. The challenge takes two key forms:

Many scientic professionals describe scientic creativity and business thinking as opposite ends of a spectrum, and they nd it very difcult to learn to move back and forth along this spectrum.

r Simply working closely, perhaps for the rst time,

with people from other parts of the organization who have perspectives very different from those of scientistsin the words of one interviewee, developing the ability to recognize that others have different styles and process information differently than you do r Developing the ability to inuence others rather than dictate a course of actionarticulated by another scientist as nding the balance between the surety of my ideas and the need to work as a team; listening to others and questioning for full understanding
Having The Business Conversation

Another challenge for scientists is to actively engage in strategic meetings and other types of business discussions. One described feeling that Im a scientist. Why should I try to contribute to a marketing decision? Being asked to contribute their critical thinking skills and express their viewpoints outside of their own domain or expertise can seem like an unreasonable (and risky) request to scientists who much preferand, in fact, are trainedto base their opinions and conclusions on empirical evidence. Two Key Strategies for Transitioning Scientists to Leadership Roles Once organizations understand and recognize the characteristics of scientists and the specic challenges they face in taking on leadership roles, they can begin to develop these leaders more effectively. Two key strategies for doing this might seem deceptively simple but are often overlooked or poorly executed, especially within the technical areas of the organization: 1. Provide targeted feedback that will lead to selfawareness. 2. Provide early individualized support in developing leadership skills.
Providing Feedback

Many scientic professionals describe scientic creativity and business thinking as opposite ends of a spectrum, and they nd it very difcult to learn to move back and forth along this spectrum. Sometimes the problem is as basic as mastering the language of business. One director articulated how this felt to her: The challenge in talking to the business is that words mean different things. There is a fuzziness

The ability to provide effective feedback that is specic, thoughtful, supportive, and actionable may be the most important skill an organization can

42

July/August 2009

DOI: 10.1002/joe

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

nurture in its leaders. Much has been written about this in the business literature, but unfortunately, in my experience, many managers do not have the skills, time, or desire to provide the sort of clear and concrete feedback that is required to help someone to grow as a leader. So often I have had managers explain their reluctance to engage in this dialogue with their employees as I dont want to get into a conict or I dont know how the person will react. They have a point. Giving effective feedback is not easy. It requires an investment in time to make careful observations so that the feedback can be sufciently detailed to be actionable, as well as a certain amount of interpersonal skill to deliver the information in a constructive fashion. But no matter how constructive or actionable the feedback, delivering it can still feel like a very risky endeavor to many managers. Uncertainty about what the recipients reaction will be, and the mere possibility of an emotional situation, is enough to prompt some managers to entirely avoid giving any feedback, or to dilute their feedback into nonthreatening generalities, which may be easier to hear but in fact are not helpful to the recipient or actionable. This was also conrmed in my interviews with scientists and technical professionals in managerial roles. It was stunning how often VP-level leaders, when asked what had most contributed to their success, said they were very lucky, having had a manager (or mentor, trusted peer, coach, or staff member) early on who gave them honest feedback. Their use of the word lucky is key here, underscoring how often this critical part of the personal development process is absent, and perhaps not even an expectation in many organizations. Some interviewees said they had received performance feedback, but it was so general as to be unclear about the required action or change. Often, even if they attempted to get clarication, the person giving them feedback was unable to be specic

enough for the feedback to be meaningful and actionable. In some cases, the person sensed that something was wrong but was unclear as to what, and no role modeling existed to make it safe to ask. But contrary to the sentiment (frequently) expressed by supervisorsOh, but they know what they are doing; I dont really have to tell themthe employee is almost always completely unaware of the performance problems that others perceive. If the person does eventually receive some specic and detailed feedback, it is usually followed up with a wide-eyed I had no idea that I was coming across that way. As one interviewee said ruefully, What people end up telling you youve done is always different from what you think youve done. Instilling a feedback culture, where everyone in the system becomes skilled in giving and receiving constructive feedback, can be a very valuable initiative for an organization to undertake.

Instilling a feedback culture, where everyone in the system becomes skilled in giving and receiving constructive feedback, can be a very valuable initiative for an organization to undertake.

Providing Early Individualized Support

In my experience, the most intense and sometimes wrenching changes that scientists experience in taking on management roles occur during their transition into the rst two levels of leadership. This is partly because they need to develop the core relationship skills required in the new role. But even more signicant is the major shift in values they must navigate to become successful managers, which, as described earlier, can be experienced as confusing changes in identity and difculty nding personal value and satisfaction in getting work done through others rather than being the expert themselves. In the

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

DOI: 10.1002/joe

July/August 2009

43

words of one scientic manager, Now Im aware of the next couple of levels up, and its not going to be anything about the work that I doits going to be completely about the personal relationships. Thus, while individualized leadership development is valuable at any level, the support it supplies to scientists is most critical in the early stages of building leadership skills. The organizational ramications of failing to do this can ripple far beyond the individual scientist. A rst-level scientic manager who does not receive support for the shift from technical to people skills, from science to business, from problem solver to motivator, may never resolve the fundamental values dilemma or learn the basic people skills important for success at not only this but the next management levels in the organization. Such a manager, if promoted to the next level (which can and does happen), is now responsible for helping managerial reports develop leadership skills that he or she never learned. Although two levels removed from the work, the person is still thinking and acting as a tactical individual contributor. It is hard to exaggerate the extent of the problem this creates. An unprepared second-level manager becomes a signicant bottleneck in the system. Such individuals are unable to function effectively in any direction. And most problematic, they cannot support or be a role model for their rst-level managers. Lacking the self-awareness of their own leadership gaps, they are unable to coach or develop appropriate skills or work values in those who report to them. Potentially good rst-level managers are derailed before they even get started. It is likewise hard to exaggerate the benets of early leadership development. The skills of an effective leader radiate in all directions, and the sooner such leaders are developed, the more the organization benets from all that they can contribute, through both direct actions and role modeling that cascades and inspires others. As one VP disclosed, I used to look for the best technical talent to promote. Now I

look for the person under whom people have blossomed.

The skills of an effective leader radiate in all directions, and the sooner such leaders are developed, the more the organization benets from all that they can contribute, through both direct actions and role modeling that cascades and inspires others.
Cross-functional/-unit participation and collaboration used to be an expectation only at the higher management levels, allowing managers and individuals lower in the technical organization to remain comfortably in their silo. But globalization, atter organizational structures, and the formation of cross-functional teams much earlier in project cycles now require that people further down in the organization communicate, cooperate, and even manage across organizational boundaries.7 Thus, effective interpersonal skills have become more critical earlier in ones scientic career. In fact, there is now increased attention to beginning this skills development at academic and research institutes so that scientists enter the corporate world with some level of awareness in this area.8 Leadership Development Coaching If targeted feedback and individualized support are two key strategies for grooming scientists to become good managers, what process or practices can organizations deploy to implement these strategies? We have seen earlier in this article that even in situations where individuals have gotten some feedback, they often have no idea of what to do with ithow to address it, what or how to change. Research has shown that adults learn best when they can apply abstract concepts to immediate situations of personal importance to the learner.9 Leadership and management training can provide an individual with valuable information and awareness, but successful application of the information to actual work situations requires experience-based learning.10

44

July/August 2009

DOI: 10.1002/joe

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

I and my clients, and the large knowledge-driven companies that employ many of them, have found leadership development coaching to be a particularly valuable solution for improving the leadership performance and personal development of scientists and technical professionals, and consequently the effectiveness of their organizations. Leadership development coaching combines one-on-one feedback, education about useful tools and techniques, and ongoing supportincluding challenge, encouragement, reection, and direction over timeto enable the individual to integrate learnings into day-to-day realities. Although this process can produce good results for managers at any organizational level, it is intended primarily for those just entering or relatively new to the leadership pipeline. The Process Science is all about observing and experimenting, and what else is there in the management of people? So we should be great at it! The scientist who said this to me had a solid point. Intentional observing and experimenting are core to learning to be a great leader. In fact, as outlined in Exhibit 1, the six-step Leadership Development Coaching Process is analogous in many ways to the scientic method, with the data in this case being observable behaviors. Presented as such, the process can be seen by a potential participant as less mysterious or threatening.
Step 1. State the Broad Objective

Exhibit 1. Similarities Between the Scientic Method and the Leadership Development Coaching Process

Scientic Method
Problem/Question Observation/Research Formulate a Hypothesis Experiment Collect and Analyze Results Draw Conclusions

Coaching Process
State the broad objective Gather feedback and assessment data Develop goals and action steps Experiment with new behaviors Note and discuss outcomes Conduct formal assessment and intentions for the future

learn they are not crazy or unusual, and are not alone. In a joint meeting with the coach and client, the clients manager claries the operational goals of the coaching and his or her expectation of the coaching outcome (i.e., the clients behavioral changes). It is not unusual for this to be the rst time the manager has provided this level of feedback to the individual. As we have seen, giving specic feedback is not common practice, even when the feedback is positive. When it is negative, managers nd it particularly challenging to give and frequently avoid doing so. Following this, the manager and coach meet separately to delve deeply into the managers perceptions of the clients strengths and challenges, as well as the operational environment and how it impacts the client. An objective here is to collect as many specic examples of specic situations as possible that illuminate the issues facing the client.
Step 2. Gather Feedback and Assessment Data

To provide a framework for the work to come, the coach starts the process with an explicit discussion of the characteristics and challenges of scientists, as described earlier, within the context of the clients personal experience and situation. The emphasis is on valuing and leveraging those characteristics, and recognizing that leadership challenges are real and to be expected. While this may sound like stating the obvious, what the shift into a management or leadership position means for technical professionals has often not been explicitly communicated to them. Almost always, clients are hugely relieved to

Gathering feedback and assessment data about the individuals strengths and his or her specic leadership challenges is essential to the process. It

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

DOI: 10.1002/joe

July/August 2009

45

provides a foundation for self-awareness and for understanding the (sometimes radically different) styles of others. For feedback to be meaningful, it must be as situational as possible. The key source here is 360-degree interviews. From the stories told by interviewees emerge pictures of the clients behavior that have enough specicity to create true Aha moments of understanding and insight. Accordingly, the interviewees are carefully selected to ensure a comprehensive picture of the clients effectiveness with his or her key stakeholders. In addition, instruments and models for understanding differences in personality and leadership style (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Situational Leadership, etc.) provide the client with a basis for understanding his or her own behavior as well as that of others. Frequently the individual has had one or more of these assessments prior to coaching but most often has not internalized the information to make it meaningful and useful, or has been unaware of how to practically apply the insights to actual situations. The coach and client analyze the feedback and assessment data to identify common threads and determine their implications for gaps in leadership skills and competencies. For some individuals, this feedback step is the rst time they become aware of the nature of the challenges they face in order to be successful in their new role. One scientist commented with a wry smile, I thought I was being very open, but it turns out I am viewed as controlling and didactic. Individuals often cite the input from the 360-degree interviews as the most valuable part of the coaching process for them.
Step 3. Develop Goals and Action Steps

results are sustained. Root-cause thinking helps to narrow the goals to the key one to three expected to have the greatest positive impact across the broadest spectrum of needs, and always with an emphasis on leveraging and building on innate strengths.

Root-cause thinking helps to narrow the goals to the key one to three expected to have the greatest positive impact across the broadest spectrum of needs, and always with an emphasis on leveraging and building on innate strengths.

For each goal, the individual takes time to reect on the following questions and clarify his or her understanding of what each will entail:

r How will my work group and the broader orgar What will I personally gain by achieving this goal r What will I have to give up? r What obstacles might I encounter, and how will
I manage them? When this is clear, specic action steps are developed for each goal.
Steps 4 and 5. Experiment With New Behaviors; Note and Discuss Outcomes

nization benet?

and by participating in the process?

As the old saying (from engineer and inventor Charles Kettering) goes, A problem well stated is a problem half solved. The process of diagnosis and planning in Steps 1 through 3 can provide sufcient data, reection, clarication, self-awareness, and support to set the stage for signicant change in Step 4. Step 4 is where the rubber meets the road. The individual brings specic upcoming situations where experimentation can take place. Depending upon the situation, the coach introduces (or reintroduces from

Armed with this new self-awareness, the client works with the coach to craft specic development goals. These blend performance needs with personal goals to ensure that the individual has enthusiasm for and commitment to the action plan, and that the

46

July/August 2009

DOI: 10.1002/joe

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

previous trainings) tools, techniques, models, and approaches the client can use for communication, inuencing, meeting management, group facilitation, giving and receiving feedback, motivating others whatever the need may be. The two then discuss how to apply the tools/techniques to the upcoming situation. As mentioned earlier, real-time application of new approaches in situations of immediate concern is key for adult learning.

individual can integrate the learnings. Specic next steps are planned, and the process of experimentation continues as needed.
Step 6. Conduct Formal Assessment and Intentions for the Future

Real-time application of new approaches in situations of immediate concern is key for adult learning.

A formal assessment of progress at regular intervals (usually three months) draws on feedback from brief selected 360-degree follow-up interviews, and the coach meets jointly with the individual and his or her manager to gauge progress and the effectiveness of actions to date. They modify the action plan, if necessary, and outline explicit intentions and actions for the individuals ongoing development. Case Studies In the following four examples of actual leadership development coaching engagements, each scientist (whose real name has been changed here) experienced a true Aha moment at a different stage in the coaching processsome early, some later on. But in all the cases, the process provided the clients a profound revelation or insight that energized them for the sometimes-hard work of learning new skills and experimenting with new behaviors in order to become more effective leaders.
Sam

Armed with a willingness to try out new behaviors and skills, the individual develops a habit of people observation, of both self and others, paying attention to the process as well as the content of day-to-day interactionswhat exactly is happening with the people involved, the observable behaviors and their explicit impact, and so on. This practice leverages an innate strength that most scientists already have: the curiosity and ability to objectively observe a phenomenon to learn about its nature and behavior. In the case of leadership developmental coaching, we help the individual to apply this skill to people and interactions. The individual also creates personal feedback loops, telling as many people as is comfortable (but an absolute minimum of one trusted person) what he or she is working on in the coaching process and enlisting them to provide immediate, specic, situational feedback. These feedback loops not only support the individuals personal process but also set the stage for instilling this openness to feedback in others. The individual begins to model for others the kind of open communication and willingness to learn that is critical to organizational effectiveness. In Step 5, observations, feedback from others, insights, what worked, and what didnt are all noted and discussed in the coaching sessions so that the

Sam was a rst-level R&D manager who was still operating like a bench scientist. According to the HR manager, he was not delegating, was taking credit for his direct reports work, and had a closeddoor policy. This previously nice guy now had reports who were frustrated and demotivated. He was viewed as rigid, opinionated, and defensive by his peers. The HR manager was looking for in-depth personal assistance for him; Sams manager also had poor management skills and was unable to provide role modeling, coaching, or performance management support.
The Coaching Engagement. In our rst meeting, Sam

told me that he had just learned that his people

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

DOI: 10.1002/joe

July/August 2009

47

had been complaining about him to his manager for the past four years, but no one had ever given him the feedback. He was stunned. He simply was not aware of what the expectations for him in his new role were. While he understood in the abstract what management meant, he did not know how that translated into his specic personal actions and behaviors. This was Sams Aha moment, right there in Step 1 of the process. He was open and eager for more feedback, to start learning to apply some of the management concepts he had gotten in a training course a few years before, and to learn tools and techniques to improve his communication and leadership skills. He brought a high level of commitment to all the steps in the coaching engagement, and made rapid progress.
Coaching Outcome. By the end of the coaching engagement, Sams reports felt that he was an advocate for thempersonally and professionallyrather than a competitor. He found ways to promote them to others in the organization, and ensured they were acknowledged and rewarded for their contributions. They were pleased and motivated. His peers reported that he was able to bring his expertise to the team meetings without shutting others off, and that he was able to listen to conicting views, accept disagreement without personalizing it or becoming defensive, and come to mutually acceptable decisions.

presenter in change management workshops. Unfortunately, he effectively outgrew the managers above him, and in frustration he left the organization. Four years later, he is a successful senior director at another company.
Gary

Gary, an MD/PhD who was an associate director in medical affairs for a large pharmaceutical company, was having difculty leading a critical crossfunctional product development effort. His VP presented the issue this way:
This guy is brilliant, an expert with a sterling reputation and respect in his eld. But he is alienating people so badly that they cant work with him. He is actually great at managing people in his own area, but in cross-functional settings, he is arrogant and dismissive to those who disagree with him or who he perceives as having less stature. His attitude is This is my babyI know it, Ill do it. Dont challenge my expertise.

The VP felt that he had tried to explain these issues to Gary but acknowledged that he had not been very specic.
The Coaching Engagement. In our rst meeting, Gary,

By the end of the coaching engagement, Sams reports felt that he was an advocate for them personally and professionallyrather than a competitor.
He so much embraced his transition from bench scientist to manager that he went on to become engaged in leadership development events within R&D, working in collaboration with the organizational development group, and participating as a

like Sam in the previous case, had been unaware of a problem with his performance. Garys background in research and private practice had not prepared him for his team leadership role. His success had always come from being the expert in whatever he did. In his area of expertise, he was an excellent communicator, with strong interpersonal skills, who genuinely cared about the people he worked with. The paradox was how much of that went out the window when he was put in the lead of a crossfunctional process. He wanted very much to be successful in the role but believed success would come from demonstrating his technical expertise. The situational feedback from 360-degree interviews with his peers as part of Step 2 of the coaching process revealed to Gary that he needed to be less

48

July/August 2009

DOI: 10.1002/joe

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

of an expert and more one of the team, and he was suddenly able to see his role from their perspective. He understandably had never developed the fundamental skills needed for facilitation, meeting management, or managing team dynamicsall of which were essential to him as leader of the crossfunctional initiative if he were to elicit the best contributions from everyone on the team. In many ways, he was relieved to be able to let go of trying to control everything and start engaging others.
Coaching Outcomes. In the follow-up 360-degree in-

terviews near the end of the coaching engagement, Garys peers reported a signicant change in his behavior. His style had became much more inclusive. In team meetings, he let others take the stage, deliberately giving subordinates and peers more exposure and ownership. The dismissive behavior was goneas several peers described it, he had an air of humility, of were all in this together, and was very generous, acknowledging and valuing others. Another said, He can take feedback now, and not personalize it and get all rufed. . . . I simply trust him more.

the organizational ladder and nally into a C-suite position, where he was much more engaged in making decisions that had impact across functions. But two conicting views of Billthe rst that he was an outstanding listener who really draws people into open discussions and the second that he could be very harsh, cutting people off at the knees who disagreed with him and needed to listen better raised a warning ag as a potential derailer in his new position. It was agreed that Bill, although not new to the role of leader, might benet from the leadership development coaching in his new, broader role.
The Coaching Engagement. Bill had received conict-

In the follow-up 360-degree interviews near the end of the coaching engagement, Garys peers reported a signicant change in his behavior.

ing feedback in 360-degree assessments over the years, which were conrmed in my interviews as part of Step 2 in the coaching process. Everyone agreed, once they reected on it, that Bill had two sides. The question then became what were the specic situations in which he displayed each behavior. What emerged was a clear differentiation: When Bill was working to arrive at a decision, he was very open to input, involving a broad group of people in lively discussion and listening to all points of view. But once hed made his decision, hed announce it with no explanation of his rationale, and close off any further discussion. If a peer or advisor questioned if their concerns had been adequately taken into account, Bill, as the expert, might respond harshly, seeming to take the question as a personal insult. In Step 3 of the coaching process, we worked to get to the root of this one listening issue and its implications for his effectiveness as a leader. Bill came to understand that his problem was not about listening but about inuencing, an essential element of his senior-level role. He realized that the depth of the anger and resentment that people felt about how he treated them in those situations was causing push-back in the implementation of decisionshe was losing valuable support and undermining his own efforts. Furthermore, he was shutting down dialogue and the ability for someone to raise new

The effort he was leading resulted in a successful submission to the Food and Drug Administration six months later. Following that, he was given leadership of a critical new product development effort. The company was able to continue leveraging his expertise even as it beneted from his newfound ability to facilitate and lead critical cross-functional initiatives.
Bill

Bill was a high-performing executive with a strong technical background who had been promoted up

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

DOI: 10.1002/joe

July/August 2009

49

issues or information that might rightfully affect the decision or its implementation. The minute he understood this, he was eager to learn strategies to more effectively communicate decisions, ways that reected how much he valued and considered each point of view in the process.
Coaching Outcomes. Even before the coaching engage-

The Coaching Engagement. The 360-degree feedback

ment ended, Bill was noticing when people had unspoken concerns, and checked in with them. He soon saw that taking that extra time was paying off down the road in peoples increased engagement and buyin, and in the establishment of a healthy ow of dialogue. He applied his new skills to being a more effective coach to his reports. About a year later, he was chosen to be a key contributor to the change management process in a major acquisition, a solid afrmation that his new skills had cemented his position as an inuential senior leader in the company.

helped to clarify that her internal clients and peers wanted Carla to be more open to alternate views and opportunities for innovative thinking, rather than just taking the Quality view. In talking this out together in our meetings, Carla came to realize that this meant, in part, learning to value, solicit, and promote the ideas and perspectives of her clientsa common issue for technical experts but a requirement of her as a director so that she could nd solutions that accommodated her clients needs as well as met quality standards. In Step 4 of the coaching process, Carla began to experiment with a new approach for how she responded to the ideas of others. As Carla tells it:
I got wind that an internal client was unhappy about a quality decision. Previously, I would have believed my decision to be the necessary and correct one and done nothing, hoping the disagreement would just go away. This time, however, I proactively called the client and asked to get together for the sole purpose of listening and fully understanding his concerns. I told myself I would not offer opinions or solutions. I also took along two of my peers so that we all would get the same understanding. In the meeting, I was sure that what the client wanted would not work, and had to really bite my tongue several times as I was about to cut him off. But I stuck with the experiment and used the technique I learned in the coaching process of speaking only to question for clarity and understanding, and to summarize what I had heard to be sure I was clear. By the end of the meeting, I was amazed to nd that not only was there an alternate approach, and not only would it work from a quality standpoint, but it was also really good for the business! The client called me the next day and said the meeting was transformational. I advocated the new view to my manager, the VP. Several days later, he advocated that viewpoint at the board meeting where the issuewhich had great risk and huge nancial implications for the companywas being discussed. He told me what transpired was a very different

Even before the coaching engagement ended, Bill was noticing when people had unspoken concerns, and checked in with them.

Carla

Carla, a relatively new director of quality and compliance at a large company who had been highly respected as a quality expert, was eager to be a seen as a valued contributor to board decisions pertaining to a very signicant project in which she was currently involved. But her superiors were looking to her in her role as director to generate more engagement and open discussion in strategy meetings in order to ensure that everyone was aligned on the right decisions for the business. She admitted that her internal clients, colleagues in the functions her department served or partnered with, were telling her, You arent listening to me. But she had no idea what her superiors meant by more engagement, and she was exasperated that her clients felt she wasnt listening.

50

July/August 2009

DOI: 10.1002/joe

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

conversation, and it resulted, as everyone agreed, in a substantial win-win for the business. Coaching Outcome. This experiment represented a

profound learning for Carla, one she was able to build on in more experiments with new behaviors related to her goals of listening and engagement in order to stimulate everyones best thinking about solutions that would benet the business. The length of the engagements described in the cases of Sam, Gary, Bill, and Carla ranged from three months to a year and a half. In all the cases, the individuals were extremely bright, respected for their expertise, and personable, when in their comfort zone. But they had moved into new leadership challenges and were now operating in ways that were counterproductive, for both their personal success and for the achievement of operational goals. They were either unaware of or unclear about the behaviors that were blocking their success. Through 360-degree feedback, all obtained valuable insights into their leadership challenges, clarity about their innate strengths, and insights that were translated into action plans they were excited to implement. Feedback and individualized support got these careers back on track, with a positive impact on the individuals, their teams, and their organizations.

feedback, education, and early support is key. The result is motivated and engaged employees, effective cross-functional collaboration resulting in successful problem solving, and a climate to support innovation. Notes
1. Sapienza, A. M. (2004). Managing scientists: Leadership strategies in scientic research (2nd ed.). New York: WileyLiss. 2. Zuckerman, A., & Brajkovich, L. (2003). Managing the innovator. Pharmaceutical Executive, 23, pp. 5058. 3. Ibid. 4. Brickley, P. (2001). Transforming scientists into managers. The Scientist, 15, 3334. 5. See note 2. 6. Tyrrell, B., & Swain, B. (2000). The right stuff. Pharmaceutical Executive, 20, 8694. 7. Reynes, R. (1999). Training to manage across silos. Research Technology Management, 42, 2025. 8. Aschwanden, C. (2008). Managing to excel at science. Cell, 132, 911913. 9. Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (1998). The adult learner: The denitive classic in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. 10. Pearson, A. (1993). Management development for scientists and engineers. Research Technology Management, 36, 4549.

Summary Organizations thrive one effective leader at a time. These leaders facilitate open communication and the ability of others to contribute their best thinking. Scientic and technical leaders have a particularly critical role to play in ensuring that valuable expertise is nurtured and fully leveraged. By understanding the unique characteristics and challenges of these leaders, organizations can support their success. An individualized approach that includes

Jean L. Hurd PhD, is a leadership consultant and coach. Her approach to individualized leadership development blends her years of line and management experienceincluding her early work in the design and implementation of crossfunctional information systems within pharmaceutical, engineering, and information technology rmswith academic research in adult and organizational development. She can be reached at jean@jeanhurd.com.

Global Business and Organizational Excellence

DOI: 10.1002/joe

July/August 2009

51