Wanted: leadership
| 18 May, 2011 | Richard P. Grant |
2
|
|
Morgan‘s posts about careers, science and science funding seem to strike nerves with some of our readers. One thing Morgan hasn’t addressed, although I’m sure it’s on her list, is leadership.
We’ve just published an evaluation of an article in the Harvard Business Review, The Wise Leader, in their ‘The Big Idea’ series. The two (Japanese) authors–one at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo, the other at Harvard Business School–have spent the last twenty years studying, teaching and interviewing business leaders in different types of organizations. They’ve come up with six abilities common to successful ‘phronetic’ leaders–that is, Aristotle’s ‘practical wisdom’.
Briefly (and paraphrased), these qualities are
- Wise leaders make good moral decisions;
- They quickly grasp the essence of any situation or problem;
- They create informal and formal shared contexts for colleagues to interact;
- They use metaphors and stories educate individuals and groups;
- They exercise political power to bring people together and motivate them;
- They mentor front-line employees to develop practical wisdom.
The authors expand on what is necessary for each of these six qualities, and you can read all about it on the HBR website. I suspect that these abilities or qualities apply equally (rather, they should apply) well to scientists and medics. Our evaluators, Jessica Heath and Mitchell Tsai, go further, saying “the application of these principles will be necessary to create change in the health care system.”
What do you think? (And yes, I’ll make sure Morgan knows about this…)
|
|
previous post
I am not talking about political leaders in this message, they must reach wide arrays of people. I am referring to leaders in research groups (I am so lucky that I do not have much experience about hospitals, yet).
In my experience, the main quality must be to find people who know what to do, and who like to do it (it is not so difficult in research, and I know many surgeons who LOVE to cut people just as much as I like diving in a coral reef). And then they must let them do what they want (i.e. to do what they like). So, the crucial quality is to be able to choose the right people. Science is not a “Dirty Dozen” kind of job. You cannot train them to do the job. It is a state of mind. The other quality is to choose people so that each member of the team is much much better than the leader in at least one thing (preferably more than one). If the leader is the best of the group in all the things that the group has to do, then s/he is not a good leader, and the group is mediocre.
A good leader does not need to make lab meetings and define strategies. The group must be like a pack of wolves. They do not go through any meeting. They know what to do. The less you interfere, the better it is. Do not tell them what to do, they should know.
The leader, unfortunately, has to do the dirty jobs, like go to stupid administrative meetings to fight for the lab. The best ones do not even need to fight.
A good leader trusts his or her group and delegates as much as possible. Once a job is delegated, a good leader forgets about it (the person who gets the job realizes that there is trust on his or her qualities).
If an investment in human capital proves to be wrong, it is useless to hope to change the person. People do not change, after they are 17. Sometimes they pretend to be something else, though. So be very careful when giving tenures.
A good leader does not put his or her name in all the papers that are published by the group. The people in the lab must be able to have stuff in their publication scores that identify them as individuals, and not as part of that group (where the name of the leader is always prominent).
At a certain age, a good leader should be able to look back and find several of her pupils that are much better than him when s/he was their age (I am using odd genders on purpose).
So, a good leader does not need to be a leader. When she will retire (or die), the philosophy of the group will go on and evolve. But his name will remain anyway (eventually they will name the institute after him, or at least a hall).
Ah, the door of the office must ALWAYS be open.
And it is better to hang around and talk to people, getting to know them, visiting them and making them speak. It is not a waste of time (if they speak about the last soccer game, and they speak only about such things… then you made a bad choice).
I do not have so many examples for such leadership, besides Walt Disney. But he was not a scientist (or a medical doctor).
I like the idea that a good leader is not not the best at everything (or even anything). Instead, they inspire others to excel.