Spotting The Leader Within

There is a gaping industry blind spot regarding sourcing executive talent. It comes from the assumption that a scientifically or clinically brilliant individual should naturally possess comparable leadership abilities. While brilliant scientists may indeed come with leadership potential, these abilities are often dormant and require developmental diligence.

The manifestation of this blind spot is most pervasive at the field-based medical science liaison (MSL) level popular with pharmaceutical and big biotechnology companies, where entire teams are staffed with doctorate-degree holders who act as field-extensions of the company’s medical affairs function. Companies assumed that hiring scientists and physicians meant these individuals would naturally garner the credibility of scientists and physicians in the medical communities and that these medical science professionals would come equipped with the necessary interpersonal skills to effectively liaise between the medical communities and the companies they represent.

This blind spot also is found upstream where high-level R&D executives may be plucked from world-renowned thought leaders in academia. These thought leaders are appointed to run large-scale discovery and development programs. For many such individuals, this transition is a significant departure from their academic leadership environment and may require a longer acclimation period than companies are willing to acknowledge. Scott C. Stromatt, M.D., senior VP and chief medical officer at Trubion Pharmaceuticals, said, “Scientific skills have to be developed over time as do managerial skills. The ability to diagnose and treat disease takes years of study and practice, and the same applies to running a department and managing people.”

Issues inherent in running an academic group are often very different from issues emerging from the need for efficient innovation in the life sciences industry, as observed by John Hood, Ph.D., chief scientific officer at Wintherix, LLC. Companies are engaged in a juggling act of delivering new therapies to market before their current products face patent expiry. “Government grants typically focus on posing innovative questions to test underlying biological mechanisms, whereas pharmaceutical focus is to address unmet clinical needs quickly and efficiently by making innovative therapeutics and testing them in patients,” said Hood. “The hurdles faced at pharma in terms of manufacturing, safety, capital risk, and market needs are unique and require a totally different mindset compared to even the most brilliant academician with the largest laboratory of postdocs.” Hood noted that academic scientists may work in an environment where being territorial about their ideas and narrowing their project scope are conducive to succeed. Failing to guard ideas before thorough evaluation in academia exposes researchers to the risk of rival scientists winning the race to publication and securing grants.  Hypotheses of large scope projects are tougher to thoroughly evaluate prior to publication or within a defined postdoctoral tenure.

Rather than improving over time, this blind spot may continue to grow because of the changing trends in life sciences staffing practices. Edward F. McNiff, Ph.D., senior VP of pharmaceutical development at Agennix USA Inc., saw a shift from the incremental career growth that used to be the norm in industry, where industry-naive scientists acquired management skills through merit-based awards of increasing responsibilities and promotion. “These individuals would first manage one or two technicians, then a small group, then a department,” said McNiff. Today, there is a demand for what recruiters tout as “high potential” candidates who are then rapidly promoted into upper echelon ranks without the opportunities or the time necessary to acquire management skills. “Many people forget that they don’t teach management skills in most Ph.D. or M.D. programs,” said McNiff.

Bozena Korczak, Ph.D., vice president of drug development at PolyMedix, agrees. When the strengths and weaknesses of scientist managers have been identified, opportunities to use those strengths in a new area of responsibility are then presented. Korczak gives an example of a medicinal chemist who synthesizes compounds in the discovery group and was given the opportunity to oversee large scale manufacturing or product development. “This responsibility adds a different dimension to their current position,” said Korczak. It would require management skills to help with the interaction with manufacturers, the ability to set up project timelines and execute tasks in a timely fashion, and learning about the regulatory time frame for preclinical- and clinical-stage projects. At the same time, the knowledge gained during chemical synthesis of the molecule on the small scale provides continuity to a project and is essential in process development. As part of this new managerial role, the scientist manager would go to workshops and meetings and join professional networks.

Read Full Article

Source: Life Science Leader