How do you disrecommend someone?

I have been extraordinarily remiss in not linking to C&EN's Employment Outlook section, but as readers may have sensed, it has been busy here this week. So, to rectify that, 3 links: 

• Sophie Rovner's broad economic outlook is quite interesting, especially the focus on Paul Hodges' thoughts. It's worth a look, especially the ending paragraphs where they focus on the unemployment amongst East Coast pharma scientists versus the need for petrochemical workers in the Gulf region. 
• Susan Ainsworth's look at hiring amongst large corporations is excellent and too good to excerpt; I am planning a tabulation for tomorrow or the weekend. 
• Linda Wang has a great look at what hiring managers want during an interview, which is where we're going to land today. (Check out Derek's take (and his commenters'))

Linda interviewed Bob Gadwood at Kalexsyn -- here's what he had to say about interpersonal relationships during an interview: 

At Kalexsyn, a small contract research organization in Kalamazoo, Mich., the entire staff participates in interviewing a candidate, from attending the seminar, to asking questions, to meeting with the prospective hire one-on-one. “Everybody has the ability to influence the decision-making process on who’s going to be brought in,” says Robert Gadwood, president and chief scientific officer of Kalexsyn. “If somebody says, ‘No, I absolutely will not work with that person,’ that’s pretty much it.” 

Gadwood acknowledges that interviewing is not an exact science. “That’s why you have a process in place that gets the opinion of multiple skilled interviewers on a particular candidate,” he says. “You can feel more confident that you’ve made the right choice.” 

In situations where the staff is split on a candidate, “we haven’t hired those people,” Gadwood says. “We have to have pretty much a unanimous decision that this person will fit in well here.” The company typically hires two to three scientists a year, he notes. “We’ve gotten pretty good at identifying the people that we think would fit in well at Kalexsyn.”

Do all companies go this way? I suspect that, at most companies, if enough trusted people express negative/something-less-than-enthusiastic opinions, a hire decision is not made. That said, I am sure there are as many stories of hires being made over-people's-dead-bodies.

Finally, let's say that you're working at a large organization and you hear about someone being interviewed who should not be hired. How should you go about making your opinion known? Personally, I would find 1) the hiring manager or 2) the person that knows the hiring manager the best and express my opinion in person (i.e. not on paper). Readers, what are your thoughts? 

It's a simple question: do you care about your people, or your career?

Nick Palmisciano is a former infantry officer in the U.S. Army. At the start of an interesting set of comments about being a new Army infantry officer (engagingly titled "Don't Be A Douche"), an interesting comment on caring about your people:

2.) Your guys are more important than your career.  

This ties in nicely with my last point, but it is worthy of its own bullet.  You’re all going to be civilians someday, no matter how much you love the military or how long you serve.  Years from now, the fact that you made Colonel or Sergeant Major won't erase the fact that you threw some unsuspecting subordinate under the bus to avoid punishment, and it certainly won't remove a stupid decision you made based on pressure from above that got someone killed or injured.  Every leader I've ever respected has been willing to stand in the Gates of Fire when it mattered.  If you're not willing to do this for your people, be honest with yourself and quit.  Join corporate America – you'll just annoy people, not get them killed, and you'll make more money.  Everyone wins.

I'm reminded of (former Marine commandant) Al Gray's comment to The Basic School in Tom Ricks' great book Making the Corps:

What bothers him most about today's military, he goes on to say, is careerism. It has eroded the other services  he warns, and is creeping into the Corps. The only thing you should worry about, he tells the assembled second lieutenants, is taking care of your people. In fact, he recommends adding one new little box to the officer evaluation reports: It would say, Does this officer care more about his career than about his troops? A "yes" mark would terminate that officer's career. 

Obviously, the evaluation criteria for officers in the military and managers in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries are very different. The military expects 'leadership' (a vague term, to be sure) out of its officers and senior non-commissioned officers as a primary responsibility; that's not necessarily the case for the business world.

However, I believe that direct reports can sense when supervisors and managers see them as valued members of a team (not, I note, just by referring to them as "a team") and not human data collection devices that will provide information/products/processes that will lead to greater corporate glory.*

I'm not naive enough to think that there isn't a mutual benefit aspect to this, of course. A good way to move up in the world is "make your boss look good." (Making your boss look bad, of course, is a good way to move down as well.) Direct reports are very, very good at sensing when that "mutual benefit" is out of balance, and they're even better at sensing when managers are actively taking credit for results and decisions that they did not make.

I agree with General Gray -- larger organizations should take note of the potential careerism of their employees and incorporate it into their evaluations of managers. I am, of course, hopelessly naive.

*This is probably where industry's long-time model for scientific administration may be failing. It is usually the case that the person at the top is some combination of "the smartest scientist" and "the most senior person" and "the person most likely to make good decisions." Somehow, that got translated into "to be a people manager/supervisor, you probably need a Ph.D." Academics don't teach leadership/mentorship skills to their graduate students, and I am not sure that they should. 

Non-compete agreements in the chemical industry?

A respected commenter writes in with a set of questions (with a [redaction] by CJ):

[The poaching thread] has me wondering, what do other non-competes look like in the chemical industry, and how many of us are bound by them? Furthermore, has anyone actually been sued because of their non-compete? 

I recently had a conversation with a family member who is [a medical professional]. She pointed a job out to me that was with a company that is essentially a competitor to my current employer. I told her that I was uncomfortable applying for that job, and explained that while I am a good fit for the position, accepting a job at that company would open me up to liability.  

During the conversation, I explained that a non-compete has always been part of the employment paperwork that I sign. Then, I began to realize that it was a little odd that when you start becoming an expert in a (sub)field, you may have to completely abandon it if you want to change jobs, for fear of being sued.

I'll be honest and say that I've never been important enough to merit a non-compete, although I've been bound by a number of non-disclosure agreements. (My favorite part of my last day at the Blue Pill Factory was being handed a copy of the NDA I had signed on my first day. Well played, paperwork folks, well played.)

I suspect that non-competes are rarely enforced, but I assume that threats of lawsuits are quite common. (It seems that employers will play all sorts of tricks to claim legal territory that is not technically theirs. 'Twas ever thus.) Here's a blog dedicated to non-competes (there's a blog for everything!) and an article that argues that they hurt employees (surprise!)

I don't think Big Pharma uses them at any level, but I don't know about the broader chemical industry. Readers? 

An ad for a Pfizer "design chemist" position

On LinkedIn, an ad for a Pfizer CVMED design chemist:

Responsibilities  

The Cardiovascular Metabolic and Endocrine (CVMED) Design Chemist provides scientific leadership in the medicinal chemistry group aligned to the CVMED Research Unit (CVMED RU). This individual is responsible for leading the medicinal chemistry effort on 2-3 projects within the CVMED RU in collaboration with the CVMED Biology Group and synthetic chemistry.  

An outward looking focus is important given the network of resources within World Wide Medicinal Chemistry (WWMC) that will be leveraged to advance CVMED programs. These include, but are not limited to, structural biology, computational chemistry, chemical biology, drug safety and drug metabolism.  

Collaboration with additional external academic collaborators will be necessary to advance the CVMED portfolio and drive discipline excellence within the CVMED RU and WWMC. This design chemist will be responsible for all of the molecular design for their assigned programs and will be directly accountable for their designs advancing projects from exploratory stages to delivery of clinical candidates that survive to positive proof of concept (POC). The design chemist is also accountable for working with synthetic chemists to ensure that design and synthetic excellence drive appropriate selection of target compounds and speed to FIH. (emphasis CJ's) The design chemist is accountable for driving a strong scientific agenda wherein internal research capabilities are integrated with a broader research network to drive new thinking and capabilities in design.  

Qualifications Doctoral level degree, or equivalent with at least 5 years experience in the
pharmaceutical industry and 3 years experience leading design efforts on a project. 

Strong working knowledge and track record of delivery in drug discovery - from exploratory chemistry to clinical testing. 

The role is located in Cambridge, Mass and will require visits to the Groton Connecticut sites for face to face meetings. The frequency of these visits will be 6-12 times per year. 

I've expressed my skepticism about these positions before. (I've seen 200-foot separations between managers and workers cause communication issues; a 2 hour drive?) That said, there are a lot smarter people than I who will be filling these positions; I sincerely hope they can succeed. 

Readers, what do you see in all of this? 

Age discrimination in Silicon Valley

I don't really know very much about age discrimination, but I assume that it does happen. (My short experience observing large pharma layoffs tells me it might, in its weird legal fashion.) The San Jose Mercury News has an interesting article about it, with plenty of quotes about investors and executives ideas that young software developers are more knowledgeable about modern software protocols and have more time on their hands:

Some technology recruiters say unequivocally they see bias at work. Marta Fuentealba, a principal at start-up specialist Talent Farm, says she's encountered it many times. 

She recalls a meeting at a software company a few years ago, when the human-resources executive told her he would like to find somebody "around age 26 or so" to fill a job. An age requirement along those lines would violate both state and federal laws on discrimination, California labor lawyers say. 

"You mean, somebody less jaded?" Fuentealba recalls asking, hoping to jolt the executive back into legal territory. "And he said, 'No, I mean somebody young, probably no older than 26.'" Back at the office, she sent the executive resumes from a variety of candidates. 

..."I am just an incredibly enthusiastic fan of very talented 20-somethings starting companies," Sequoia Capital's Mike Moritz, 58 years old and a top VC, once said at a conference, echoing similar comments he has made over the years. "They have great passion. They don't have distractions like families and children and other things that get in the way of business." He was 49 at the time.

Yikes. Remind me not to try to become a Silicon Valley entrepreneur anytime soon; seems like being a husband and a father could be a liability.

I've never really worked with older chemists as peers for an extended amount of time; I've mostly had them as bosses. I don't really think there's a significant creativity difference between younger and older chemists.*

This bit in the article about certain cosmetic changes during job hunting I found particularly distasteful:

Silicon Valley veterans try to adapt as best they can. Adams of Socialdial ticks off a list of faux pas that he believes peg older jobseekers as outsiders. "You can't have an AOL email," he says. "That's horrible. A Gmail address is okay. What's really cool is an email with your name on it," as part of the domain. 

In person, older job applicants should carry a backpack, not a briefcase, he says. Avoid Blackberries and Dell laptops in favor of Android phones and Apple products. And above all, steer clear of wristwatches, which most younger people have replaced with the clocks on their phones. "The worst would be a gold Rolex," he says. "Tacky, and old."

I wonder if similar (and stupid) age-related cosmetic issues are at work in the chemistry world -- I tend to think not, but I dunno. It seems that we have a culture that values wisdom and experience (relative to Silicon Valley, anyway). But I haven't been in the big world of the pharma/chemical industry very long. Readers, please feel free to correct me.

*I have, on occasion, found older chemists who have failed to keep up with the chemical literature in any serious fashion. (Around the time of Suzuki's Nobel prize, I was amused to talk to one manager who found palladium-catalyzed chemistry to be a cute academic oddity, as opposed to a technology that should be seriously considered.) I don't think that's really age-related, so much as it is about failing to exercise an important prerogative of a Ph.D. chemist's life: to keep current with important, job-relevant literature. I assume that these mental discipline issues are found in both the young and the old.

I don't understand what this guy is saying

From this week's C&EN, Rick Mullin interviews Ian Shott, the head of AMRI's European operations on his business improvement philosophies:

“Yes, I think of myself as a process engineer,” Shott said, reminiscing about his efforts to combine process development R&D with contract manufacturing at Rhodia ChiRex. Shott also challenged his peers to rewrite the organic chemistry playbook by exploring the use of special catalysts, continuous reactors, and “greener” processes. These days, however, his interest in process design reaches further upstream to basic laboratory chemistry. 

“I think the whole road map from discovery to mature manufacture needs to be rethought,” Shott said. “I am quite interested in things like network analysis.” Applied in other fields of R&D, notably electronics and computers, network analysis is an engineering discipline used to predict interactions between components of a system or network. In drug discovery, for example, researchers are beginning to use chemoproteomic data to develop mathematical models for analyzing protein networks. It is a matter, he argued, of interjecting principles of engineering in an environment that is dominated by traditional chemistry. 

“People have been talking about systems biology, which tries to model and predict every chemical reaction, whereas network analysis isn’t going to that level of detail,” Shott said. “It is focused more on the outcome, rather than simulating the interaction, and so it is intrinsically simpler and intrinsically cheaper, using data that are available.” 

Shott sees the increased emphasis on data analysis as a revolution in drug research that will bring the chemical engineer into the process earlier. In drug discovery and development, “you have your classic paradigm in which first you have the discovery chemist, then you have the organic synthesis chemists, and then, very late in the day, you get chemical engineers involved,” Schott said. “But chemical engineers can actually be involved at any one of these stages. They’ve got the mathematics, they’ve got the statistics, and they’ve got the chemistry. If they are biochemical engineers they have biology as well. This is really a hot topic for me.”

I confess (not a surprise) to some level of territoriality, but this set of statements really confuses me. I am not sure what Mr. Shott means, other than that smart engineers can help chemists do math (which, I admit, is not a strong suit of chemists.) Is that the difference? That chemistry projects need more mathematics to guide their decisions? I dunno.

"Stack ranking": a good way to encourage backstabbing

While the bell curve is indeed found in nature, it's probably not
found in corporate America. Credit: Wikipedia

Last month, Vanity Fair published a pretty remarkable story on Microsoft and how poorly its management has been adapting to the new challenges of the internet, including Google and Apple. But I noted this rather remarkable section about their employee review system:

At the center of the cultural problems was a management system called “stack ranking.” Every current and former Microsoft employee I interviewed—every one—cited stack ranking as the most destructive process inside of Microsoft, something that drove out untold numbers of employees. The system—also referred to as “the performance model,” “the bell curve,” or just “the employee review”—has, with certain variations over the years, worked like this: every unit was forced to declare a certain percentage of employees as top performers, then good performers, then average, then below average, then poor. 

“If you were on a team of 10 people, you walked in the first day knowing that, no matter how good everyone was, two people were going to get a great review, seven were going to get mediocre reviews, and one was going to get a terrible review,” said a former software developer. “It leads to employees focusing on competing with each other rather than competing with other companies.” 

Supposing Microsoft had managed to hire technology’s top players into a single unit before they made their names elsewhere—Steve Jobs of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Larry Page of Google, Larry Ellison of Oracle, and Jeff Bezos of Amazon—regardless of performance, under one of the iterations of stack ranking, two of them would have to be rated as below average, with one deemed disastrous. 

For that reason, executives said, a lot of Microsoft superstars did everything they could to avoid working alongside other top-notch developers, out of fear that they would be hurt in the rankings. And the reviews had real-world consequences: those at the top received bonuses and promotions; those at the bottom usually received no cash or were shown the door. 

Outcomes from the process were never predictable. Employees in certain divisions were given what were known as M.B.O.’s—management business objectives—which were essentially the expectations for what they would accomplish in a particular year. But even achieving every M.B.O. was no guarantee of receiving a high ranking, since some other employee could exceed the assigned performance. As a result, Microsoft employees not only tried to do a good job but also worked hard to make sure their colleagues did not.

“The behavior this engenders, people do everything they can to stay out of the bottom bucket,” one Microsoft engineer said. “People responsible for features will openly sabotage other people’s efforts. One of the most valuable things I learned was to give the appearance of being courteous while withholding just enough information from colleagues to ensure they didn’t get ahead of me on the rankings.”

I am no expert when it comes to employee reviews. It makes sense to me that employees need to be evaluated, both as a team and as individuals. (I've always suggested to my friends that perhaps the Pro Football Hall of Fame should not allow entry by individuals, but by unit, e.g. quarterback + offensive line + wide receivers, etc.) How to do it well and fairly, of course, is the real problem.

But stack ranking or its other monikers cannot possibly be a good way to get intelligent people to work together well. It is probably an excellent way of distributing gains unevenly, though. Thanks, business world.

Readers, I understand that stack ranking has been used in the pharmaceutical research world -- how's it worked out for you all?

What are the chances to make it to Big Pharma from a small company?

I'm heading straight for Big Pharma after
I bust this guy's head open and break
out of this developmental league.
Credit: Ryan Wolf/Phoenix New Times

There are a lot of talented new graduates and postdocs who are finding their ways to smaller pharma companies and startups these days; there are also the various new academic drug discovery centers. The same assumption is that some percentage of these people would have been part of the traditional campus recruiting hires for Big Pharma.

Will they ultimately transition to the large pharmaceutical companies, as older entry-level employees or lower-to-mid-level management? I've covered this once before, when I said:

If smaller companies are like the minor leagues in baseball (where future talent is grown and developed over time) and assuming that there is a more-than-likely chance (unlike the minor leagues) that your experience will translate into a better-paying job in the future, then it's worth it. 

If taking a job at a smaller startup or a CRO is more like joining an independent league American football team* (where the chances of joining the NFL are vanishingly small), then no, it's not worth it and we're just keeping our jobs because we want to keep doing chemistry.

To which beloved commenter bbooooooya said:

...there is little transition from biotech to the big boys, though it does happen. The opposite transition seems more favored. A few years as a director or group leader at a big pharm makes it easier to slide into a VP role at a small biotech with, I assume, a jump in salary (at least while the company is around). I'm assuming non-executive salaries in big pharms tap out near $200K for group leaders, maybe a bit more for directors(but really don't know)?

I assume that bbooooooya would probably stick to his now year-old statement. 

Lower in the hierarchy, if Pfizer (and other big pharma companies) are going to stick to their designer/synthesizer motif, then I don't see why designers at small organizations can't become designers at large organizations. (Apart from the typical nepotism networking reasons, of course.) At the same time, I don't see the Big Pharmas deciding to hire lots of synthesizers (entry-level or otherwise) any time soon. 

I'm sure there's a pony in here somewhere. Readers, your thoughts? 

*Or an independent wrestling league (as pictured?)

Who would you let go?

More notes on an occasional topic on this blog: firing. First, the Navy, as is traditional, let another ship captain go and told everyone about it (via Tom Ricks). Not for zipper problems, but for not handling his ship correctly:

The commander of the big-deck amphibious assault ship Essex was fired Monday due to a “loss of confidence in his ability to command,” a Navy spokeswoman said Tuesday. 

Capt. Chuck Litchfield was commanding the Essex on May 16 when it collided with the replenishment oiler Yukon a day before both ships returned to San Diego. “There were a number of factors that contributed to the collision with Yukon,” Reese said. “Part of it began with the loss of rudder control. There was a breakdown in command and control, in bridge resource management and in communication between the two ships. … All those factors contributed to the collision.” 

The problems “essentially began with the partial loss of rudder control,” she said.

When did you last hear of a pharma or chemical industry manager being fired for job-related performance issues?  While the life-and-death stakes are not as large, the financial costs to mismanaging a large project in industry is probably similar (or within an order of magnitude) to fixing "parts of the starboard elevator, lifeboats and catwalks... the flight deck and davits."

On a similar note, you are presented with 4 hypothetical people, one of whom you need to fire. Here are their profiles*:

Who would you dismiss? Via Bryan Caplan, here's how a study with a similar example worked out (I moved the years ahead to 2012, kept the ages and performance evals the same, and converted from pounds to dollars):

Who gets fired?  Almost half the respondents make what sounds like the profit-maximizing decision - firing #3.  But #2 is almost as popular, and almost 15% fire the older but excellent performer.  (See the bottom row of Table 2 for details).  More strikingly, though, answers vary radically by country... England fits the standard caricature of the "greedy" Anglo-American business model: over three-quarters fire #3.  Germany is at the other extreme.  Almost three-quarters fire worker #2, with worker #4 a distant runner-up.  Spain is closest to England, with France and Italy about midway between England and Germany.  In Italy, over 20% fire the excellent #4.

Click on the link to find out why. (Culture and economics play a role in how these decisions are made, unsurprisingly.) Personally, I would have gone with ol' #3 myself, assuming that the performance evaluations are fair and believable. Hard to say, though.

Readers, what would you have done?

Independence: learn to be a Big Player in the lab

Not who you want to be in the lab. Credit: deepfriar

There's an aspect to lab work and "having your own project" as both a graduate student and a young industrial researcher that's best explained by that literary classic, Ben Mezrich's Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six MIT students Who Took Vegas for Millions. Here's one of the older members of the MIT blackjack team explaining their team structure to the new player:

"A Gorilla is just a big bettor. He gets called into a hot deck, stumbles over like a drunk rich kid, and starts throwing down big money. He doesn't think for himself -- he lets the Spotter tell him when the deck goes bad. He's just a Gorilla, brain-dead. But depending on how high the count is when he's signaled in, his percentage advanatage can be staggering. He doesn't count, he just bets and bets and waits for the seated Spotter to signal him that the run of good cards is over. Then he gets up and wanders off in search of his next call-in." 

[snip] "A Big Player," Martinez said as they crossed the street, "does it all. It's acting and counting and betting, it's tracking the shuffle and cutting to aces. It's the toughest role and the most important. You carry the big money, and you get yourself known by the casino personnel. They comp you the big suites because you're betting a thousand dollars a hand. You get called in by the Spotters, but then you take over the play. You do things the Gorilla can't, like raising the bet as the deck gets better -- but you have to do it with style, so the casino doesn't nail you. You have to look the part." 

Being a Gorilla on a grad school project can be nice -- you're just doing the work, you're not really responsible for any of the results, you're just doing what they tell you to do. It can be relaxing, but it doesn't grow your critical thinking skills. I suspect that at some point, you can't unlearn your Gorilla behavior and you're stuck.

At some point in your project in both graduate school and afterwards, you need to be able to be independent. The best way to learn to be independent in the lab is to become the relevant expert on your topic, such that your professor or (in industry) higher-up doesn't have to offer you day-to-day advice. Their strategic and long-term advice can be invaluable, of course -- so I wouldn't ignore it. But the sooner you can make the transition to being a Big Player, the better. 

On Martin Mackay -- when does your record become your record?

Martin Mackay: I've always liked his grin. (Credit: 1kpharm)

With the news that AstraZeneca has removed its CEO this morning, I'm reminded of another AZ honcho, president of R&D Martin Mackay. I note that I pseudo-worked for the Blue Pill Factory's R&D division while he was the president of Global R&D; he seemed like a nice fellow in his public appearances, but I don't really know his successes or failures. During his tenure as president, there were at least 2 rounds of layoffs.

He's since moved to AstraZeneca, where he appears to be making a number of interesting moves, including changing many research heads and forming a new virtual neuroscience collaborations group, which seems to have the unfortunate name of iMed.* There have been, of course, rounds of layoffs in the R&D divisions.

Layoffs aren't always their fault, for sure -- shareholders, CEOs, the board probably has some role in demanding 'reductions in headcount.' Also, the discoveries and successes of the scientists in their organizations aren't necessarily theirs, either. But through their "go/no-go" decisions and their personnel moves, they do have some impact on their organizations. 

My question about Dr. Mackay and other heads of large pharma R&D: at what point are they responsible for the scientific success of their respective companies? In the American football world, "true" coaching success seems to be described as: winning games and championships with players that you have selected, as opposed to winning with players that have been selected by previous coaching staffs (think Jon Gruden's early success versus his later years.) The common rule of thumb for judging the success of college-level coaches is the results of their 3rd or 4th full season. Is 3 years enough for heads of R&D? 

So when do we get to judge Dr. Mackay's tenure at either Pfizer or Astra-Zeneca? And what constitutes a failure to succeed, such that the reins of large research organizations get taken away from them? 

*This is a continuation of common thought that anything having to do with Apple is the height of technology and innovation. I'm less than convinced with this marketing decision. 

Why managers need intellectual humility

I confess that the evils of micromanagement is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine, but I think it's really important. More from Tom Ricks' defense-oriented blog, from a Major Robert Stanton who was in combat in Afghanistan and what he said about micromanagement's opposite (?), which is intellectual humility on the part of leaders (in this case, specifically about counterinsurgency (page 17)):

It was interesting because -- we talked about this before you turned the mic on -- living with the population and separating the enemy from the people, that was novel to me.  I didn't really understand what I was doing.  Now to see it codified as doctrine is pretty neat.  To know that there were guys doing it in Afghanistan, and I'm sure there were guys doing it in Iraq, long before the doctrine was ever written.   

I guess the lesson learned is that if you give young Soldiers and young leaders the flexibility to figure things out, if you have the intellectual humility as a leader to realize you don't know everything, whether you're a battalion commander, brigade commander or company commander.*  I can't take credit for that, that was the deployment brigade commander, now BG Nicholson, who taught me that.  If you have the intellectual humility to realize that you don't have all the answers, and you are willing to underwrite enough risk to let your junior leaders and Soldiers do what needs to be done.  You can take a group of American Soldiers, give them a vague mission, and as long as you resource them, they're going to do things you never could have imagined them being able to do.  They're going to solve your problems for you, half the time when you don't even know you have a problem.  (emphases CJ's)

For me, the biggest lesson that I think I learned -- and I learned a lot of lessons from that deployment -- was that.  As I continue in the military and as I see other leaders, you've got to have that intellectual humility, because you don't have all the answers, and you don't need to have them all.  You've got some brilliant 21-year-old kid who loves what he's doing and is going to solve your problems for you if you just give him the freedom to do it, and you resource him enough to do it.  You make him feel empowered to do it.  If you can do that, then the things we can do as an Army are unbelievable.  That's what I would say.

As I've said in the past, there are limits to how much this philosophy can be applied to chemical research, with respect to minimum levels of competence and safety concerns. That said, I think it's really true that you need to communicate your goals to your people and trust them to coordinate with each to deliver solutions and then get out of the way. A lesson for all of us, especially the most senior among us.

*A company: 80-225 soldiers, a battalion: 300-1200, a brigade: 3,200-5000. 

AstraZeneca at Waltham: not being smart

     Now, look, Carlo, it's been a very busy time for the 

     family. We know what you did with the Barzinis, and 

     we know you set up Sonny. Did you think you could

     fool a Corleone? 

     But as I said, it's been busy around here, so we're 

     gonna take a few days, we're going to look around, 

     do some analysis, do some Six Sigma  regression 

     analyses, and then we'll figure out whether or not 

     we're going to terminate your relationship with the 

     family and whether or not we'll decide to take 

     matters further. Okay? 

     

    (Photo credit: emulsioncompulsion)

With all of the announcements of cuts at AstraZeneca, it's surprising to hear that the facility at Waltham, MA has not heard their fates yet. Derek Lowe's thoughts:

From several reports, here's what I have on AstraZeneca's plans in Waltham: they've told people there that cuts are coming. But they haven't gotten very specific on when, or who, or how many. All those questions (that is, all the questions there could be) are under review. 

Pfizer has done this to their people before, as have other companies in the throes of layoffs, and it's the only way I know to actually push morale and productivity down even further in such a situation. You come to work for weeks, for months, not knowing if your, your lab, or your whole department is heading for the chopping block. All you're sure of is that someone is. And will your own stellar performance persuade upper management to keep you, when the time comes? Not likely, under these conditions - it'll more likely be the sort of thing where they draw lines through whole areas. Your fate, most people feel at these times, is not in your own hands. A less motivating environment couldn't be engineered on purpose. 

But that's what AZ's management has chosen to do at their largest research site in North America. I hope that they enjoy the results.

Once again, I suggest the Chemjobber Layoff Plan, knowing, of course, it will never happen:

1. Management decides that they're going to revisit cuts at some future date, 2 or 3 or (dare I suggest) 4 years in the future. 
2. Day 1: Management lays waste to their R&D departments, cutting all the people they think they're going to cut in the next 4 years. 
3. Day 2: Management announces to their workers: "We've cut all the people we're going to cut until October 1, 20XX. Congratulations, you're the new team. You have (whatever) years until we make another decision on layoffs. Breathe easy until then."
4. After 2 months of survivor's guilt and freaking out, everyone settles down and gets to work, ignoring that future date until it's soon enough to worry.  

If you go over and look at the comments, it's pretty clear that people prefer to be surprised or at least not have months of dread, knowing (but not knowing) when the axe will fall. 

My very best wishes to those at the AZ Waltham site, and to all of us. 

What's the pharma version of "going out with the troops?"

"Who stole all our HPLC acetonitrile? I'm finding that SOB."
Credit: The Best Defense

From Tom Ricks' blog, here's a picture of the current Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces going on a training mission with a line unit. His commenters note that this is quite the photo op, in that he's easily recognizable, which he would not be, if he were wearing all the gear (helmet, body armor, etc.) that he would be if he were just one of the troops. The guest blogger, Mr. Williams, makes an interesting note about an Admiral Olsen, the former head of USSOCOM (the command over the US military's various special operations units):

While unlike Gantz he did not join a SEAL platoon doing exercises on San Clemente Island, he did frequently showed up at Coronado to join in doing free weights, long distance runs, and more gruelingly, swim out to the Point Loma buoy and back with the teams. Even at age 59 it was hard to beat him in the water.

From the comments come a smattering of stories of general officers doing field work, including stories of David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal participating in foot patrols and raids in Iraq and Afghanistan. I enjoyed this little story about a Lieutenant General (3-star) Lynch:

LTG Rick Lynch, when he was commander of III Corps and Fort Hood, was known to spontaneously join PT formations. I remember turning around and seeing his face and asking my buddy, "Who's the old guy?" Whoops. His CSM (Ciotolo) wore buck sergeant rank on his PT gear and was a common sight during PT. 

LTG Lynch would also go "undercover" and pose as a regular civilian to see how post services were serving Soldiers and the community.

I'm hard pressed to think about a pharma executive doing similar things in their time leading scientists. I think it would be silly to see ol' Jeff Kindler or Fred Hassan attempting to run a column. At the same time, I would think it would be helpful for a Ph.D. chemist at the director level to take a portion of her week/month and run a scale-up reaction or two, use the LC/MS, the NMR and the ELN and run a column on the Biotage. I presume that it would give the senior manager a perspective of the expected productivity of a bench scientist, the bottlenecks in research and the ability to observe their scientists in action.

I'm probably full of it. Readers? 

Quote of the week: what a good organization feels like

I love this quote from Lt. Gen. Walter Ulmer (via Tom Ricks) about what a good organization feels like:

What is the essence of a 'good climate' that promotes esprit and gives birth to 'high performing units'? It is probably easier to feel or sense than to describe. It doesn't take long for most experienced people to take its measure. There is a pervasive sense of mission. There is a common agreement on what are the top priorities. There are clear standards. Competence is prized and appreciated. There is a willingness to share information. There is a sense of fair play. There is joy in teamwork. There are quick and convenient ways to attack nonsense and fix aberrations in the system. There is a sure sense of rationality and trust. The key to the climate is leadership in general, and senior leadership in particular.

I can't agree with this statement enough.  I especially like the bits about "joy in teamwork" and "convenient ways to attack nonsense." 

Living and dying with your project? Hmmm....

Two readers have mentioned this interesting development at GSK:

Six months ago, Roberto Solari talked eagerly about his research into the mechanisms that govern asthma. Now he must let someone else finish the job.  

Solari, who until last month headed one of GlaxoSmithKline Plc (SAN)’s targeted research units, is one of the casualties of the company’s new approach to drug discovery. Chief Executive Officer Andrew Witty turned up the dial on an overhaul initiated by his predecessor after he took over in 2008, dividing six disease-focused research centers into smaller teams known as Discovery Performance Units. The teams, or DPUs, compete for funds bestowed every three years after a review. Those that fail to meet their targets may get disbanded. 

Solari, an unassuming 55-year-old scientist of Italian origin, is still working at the company and no longer heads the team, Morgan said. She declined to comment on the reasons for the change. So did Solari.

So what could possibly happen when you divide your company into little units that might have to compete for resources to keep their positions? Well, they compete for resources!:

Glaxo has been hunting for ways to encourage teams to cooperate, according to Vallance. One example, he says, is to give credit for inventing a molecule that gets picked up by another one of the company’s 38 DPUs. 

“We need to keep working on that because I think 38 silos is a disaster,” he said in a May 13 interview. “It’s not what we got, it’s not what I want. It’s not a sort of bear pit with everyone fighting each other.”

I cannot imagine the infighting that's resulting from this. I might note that the higher management seems to think that this is a good way of growing and picking good leaders of scientists. I'm a little skeptical. (Also, what's the likelihood that the executives will be facing a similar judgment?)

Apple's corporate innovation? The 'directly responsible individual'

Now that Steve Jobs has gone on to his reward, the negative stories are coming out about him. I found this story about a failed product launch at Apple to be fairly interesting:

Shortly after the launch event, he summoned the MobileMe team, gathering them in the Town Hall auditorium in Building 4 of Apple's campus, the venue the company uses for intimate product unveilings for journalists. According to a participant in the meeting, Jobs walked in, clad in his trademark black mock turtleneck and blue jeans, clasped his hands together, and asked a simple question: "Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?" Having received a satisfactory answer, he continued, "So why the f--- doesn't it do that?" 

For the next half-hour Jobs berated the group. "You've tarnished Apple's reputation," he told them. "You should hate each other for having let each other down." The public humiliation particularly infuriated Jobs. Walt Mossberg, the influential Wall Street Journal gadget columnist, had panned MobileMe. "Mossberg, our friend, is no longer writing good things about us," Jobs said. On the spot, Jobs named a new executive to run the group.

My favorite defense blogger, Tom Ricks, find this to be actually a good thing ("In fact, what Jobs did strikes me as simply enforcing accountability -- which is what leaders should do.")

I'm of two minds about this and its relatability to the pharma/chemical world. First of all, nobody likes failure and Ricks is right -- someone needs to be held accountable when there are large failures. Relieving the executive in charge seems like accountability that doesn't seem to happen in the pharma world very often (or, at least, in my short time, I haven't seen it yet.) But Apple and other software companies control the horizontal and the vertical to a much greater extent than a pharma exec. Apple's software and tech products are subject to a man-made environment, while successful drug launches are subject to biological complexities that can stymie the best of plans.

But there's one thing coming out of Apple that I find extraordinary, and something that I hope catches on everywhere -- the Directly Responsible Individual:

The accountability mindset extends down the ranks. At Apple there is never any confusion as to who is responsible for what. Internal Applespeak even has a name for it, the "DRI," or directly responsible individual. Often the DRI's name will appear on an agenda for a meeting, so everybody knows who is responsible. "Any effective meeting at Apple will have an action list," says a former employee. "Next to each action item will be the DRI." A common phrase heard around Apple when someone is trying to learn the right contact on a project: "Who's the DRI on that?"

Obviously, this is equally subject to gaming and politics, like anything else in life. But it's a good idea, nonetheless. 

Fewer layoffs, more firing?

You didn't coordinate with Biology to
get those assays completed in time?
Photo credit: sodahead.com

I enjoy reading the blog of Tom Ricks, the Washington Post's former longtime Pentagon correspondent. (He's since moved to the Center for a New American Security as a defense analyst.)

Ricks enjoys covering the Navy's habit of routinely firing the commanding officer (CO) of its ships and other shore units. Here, Ricks notes Commander Mike Varney, who was recently relieved for mishandling sensitive documents aboard the USS Seawolf. Here's the head of the Navy's Norfolk, VA shipyard, removed for his "command environment." Here's a post for a pair of COs removed for not stopping hazing amongst the crew of the USS Ponce.

I think Ricks thinks that the Navy's tradition of not hesitating to remove the CO of a unit is a good one, in that it's better to address a leadership problem sooner rather than later. While it certainly can be harsh (and it's well-known that captains can be removed for more-or-less bad luck), the Navy allows its ship captains to have quite a bit of freedom in their leadership styles in return.*

Would a policy like this work in the pharma industry? There aren't equivalents to ship captains in pharma, but I have noted that project managers have a special leadership role. I haven't been around long enough to note whether or not project managers get summarily removed for "lack of leadership" or other "Hey, you're just not getting the job done" issues.

Readers, what say you? Should pharma managers be removed from their positions more often (as opposed to waiting for layoffs or other attrition?) Have you seen it happen?

*It should also be noted that removal from command doesn't necessarily mean that you're immediately removed from the Navy; you're probably not going to commanding any more units, though. 

An unusual answer

Pfizer CEO Ian Read, in the Wall Street Journal about his moves with Pfizer research sites:

WSJ: Cutting costs is also part of your growth strategy. You're shutting down Pfizer's laboratory in Sandwich, U.K. Was it inefficient? 

Mr. Read: Sandwich was working in areas where I don't think we were competitive enough. It was in areas of allergy and respiratory and urology, and other areas where I didn't think we had the science, or the competition was ahead of us. And it was better to redirect those resources. 

WSJ: You're also moving scientists from Pfizer's long-time research and development center, in Groton, Conn., up to Cambridge, Mass. Why? 

Mr. Read: Historically, Big Pharma was driven by manufacturing, and very often they put manufacturing sites up on rivers because there was fermentation involved and they needed access [to water]. Now, I think you need to be in centers of innovation and hubs of innovation that are represented by La Jolla, Calif; Boston, Mass; and also in the U.K. in Cambridge.

Rivers? I'm really flummoxed by this answer, even though I (sort of) understand what he is getting at: Groton is where it is (historically) because of now-irrelevant geographical features. That being said, I'm afraid this sort of "we need to be there" logic isn't really historically supported. While geographical isolation isn't good, I'm unconvinced that Pfizer chemists from Groton will somehow be magically more productive or innovative in Boston. Color me unconvinced.

A modest proposal: Judgement Day (not a week or a month or years)

"Today, I settled all family business, so..."
Photo credit: emulsioncompulsion.com

Rumors of layoffs seem to always overhang the pharmaceutical business -- it seems like, at some companies, there's a slow painful drip of impending cuts. Worse, the pace of cuts seem to be accelerating from once every couple of years to once every few months. These cuts seem to take place in a few awful steps:

1. Cuts are rumored to take place at some near-future date; often, this date gets delayed. 
2. Productive higher-level thinking often grinds to a halt as the 'true' date gets closer and everyone waits until the ax has fallen. 
3. The ax falls: shock, dismay and horror. Survivors' guilt reigns amongst the survivors. The laid-off leave and their absence is felt profoundly. 
4. Employees say, "Wow, they're now cutting bone, not fat. They can't possibly cut anymore."
5. After being asked and asked and asked, management says, "We don't plan to make any cuts again for a long, long time..."
6. Cuts are rumored to take place...

Here's the Chemjobber plan for creating some level of morale in the meantime. It will never get implemented, but what's the harm?:

1. Management decides that they're going to revisit cuts at some future date, 2 or 3 or (dare I suggest) 4 years in the future. 
2. Day 1: Management lays waste to their R&D departments, cutting all the people they think they're going to cut in the next 4 years. 
3. Day 2: Management announces to their workers: "We've cut all the people we're going to cut until October 1, 20XX. Congratulations, you're the new team. You have (whatever) years until we make another decision on layoffs. Breathe easy until then."
4. After 2 months of survivor's guilt and freaking out, everyone settles down and gets to work, ignoring that future date until it's soon enough to worry. 

This, of course, is a plan that completely ignores the reality that business expectations (shareholders, etc.) in our modern times seem to hold. It will never happen. But I think it would create some space for being able to engender some level of trust and calm among the employees.*

*I suspect that this plan would have all sorts of weird effects on hiring, etc. The pharma world would start to look a lot more like professional sports in its hiring patterns, which I'm not quite sure is a good thing.