Biopharma Leadership for a Changing World

in ,

As the distance between colleagues increases, the need for leadership skill skyrockets. As it becomes clearer that every aspect of the R&D enterprise is interconnected, people at all levels of the organization are being forced to think more cross-functionally, more globally, and more collaboratively.

Critical lessons emerged from a knowledge exchange with leaders across the industry who convened on July 21, 2020:

  • Communicate clearly and widely
  • Expect the unexpected
  • Look beneath the surface
  • Face change with collaborative re-thinking
  • Focus on your priorities
Read the case study

Learning from Leading through Upheaval

in ,

On June 23, 2020, a group of biopharma leaders met for a virtual knowledge exchange on how to emerge from this tumultuous time stronger, smarter, and more resilient. We’d like to share some stories from the front lines and critical lessons for the future.

For coming back stronger

  • Build new relationships across organizational boundaries.
  • Don’t be afraid to take ownership.

For coming back more resilient

  • Solicit ideas from outside your own circle.
  • Open yourselves to help from all your stakeholders.

For coming back smarter

  • Focus on what’s most important to accomplish.
  • Experiment with new ways to communicate.
Read the case study

Free yourself from the fear of being wrong

in , ,

You don’t have to be right; you just have to be curious. Freeing yourself from the fear of being wrong is transformational for life science leaders.

Two scientists came to my leadership programs with the same goal: to better convince team members to agree with them. Their styles were different, though: one couldn’t speak up and the other couldn’t stop talking.

In our coaching sessions, I had them ask themselves, “If I did the opposite, what do I worry about?” Their answers were identical: “What if I’m wrong?” We turned the worry into a different question: “What if the others have useful information I don’t know?” With this new concern, they experimented with new behavior: asking questions.

The nonstop talker started writing down his thoughts before meetings, identifying what he didn’t know. He then sought out people who had the knowledge and put together the big picture for his team to discuss. The non-talker practiced being curious in meetings. He started asking questions.

Both learned that their teams appreciated their contributions more and more. They felt less frustrated and found ways to interact more effectively.

Each of them marveled at how much more confident they became. The quiet one reflected, “I say what’s on my mind and whether I’m right or wrong, it brings the important issues to the table.” The talker mused, “It lifted a burden off my shoulders. I don’t have that fear. I walk in with an open mind.”

A New Leadership Model for Biopharma Teams

in ,

Successful life science leaders shift their approach from unilateral action – directing others – to mutual action – engaging with others to find a collaborative way forward.

The authors, organizational learning consultant Merle Kummer and Regulatory Affairs leader Liz Bloss, began work 15 years ago on developing leadership mastery for cross-functional drug development teams. We have not only built new practices, but discovered new ways for life science leaders to build more productive mental models.

It takes work to learn how to recognize and reframe one’s own mental models. Most life science R&D leaders find it hard to imagine changing their thinking in real life. Because scientists are highly socialized to push their points, in the heat of conversation they tend to stop learning and revert to telling.

We have developed this case study so you can see what goes on in a leaders’ mind in order to apply a mutual action model skillfully in a difficult meeting. Liz describes her experience, and Merle explains how the new leadership practices were applied in real time.

 

Read the case study

 

Using Powerful Questions to Align Research and Development

in , , ,

Do you watch different functions blame each other for problems?

You’re not alone.

Problem: A recent client was bringing its first compound to Phase Two after decades of research on a new class of therapeutic agents. An investor deadline loomed for starting the dose-finding study.

Development was pushing to finalize the study but Research continued to oppose the design, insisting that the effect would disappear above a certain dose. Development found the arguments unconvincing. Research increasingly questioned the competence of the Development staff. Read more