8.3. LEADERSHIP IN R&D ORGANIZATIONS
While P behaviors of the leader are needed, most leaders do P, but many do not do enough M. M behaviors are especially important in R&D labs. However, subordinates still require a certain amount of guidance from the manager; otherwise their activities will become unrelated to the needs of the organization. Pelz and Andrews (1966a, b) have shown that when there is either excessive or insufficient autonomy, the contributions of the professional to the research organization are minimal. An intermediate amount of autonomy provides optimal conditions for the professional. Only then can the contributions of the scientist to the organization be maximized.
Some R&D managers feel that administration is just paper-pushing and that the "real" work is technical. Thus, they miss the point that consideration is needed to develop the right kind of environment for subordinates. Also, some of these managers feel that "holding hands" (an aspect of consideration) is not consistent with their self-image; it is too soft or feminine an activity. Perhaps it would help such managers to know that research on psychological adjustment suggests that better-adjusted people have traits that traditionally were considered both masculine and feminine ones. That is, they are independent and self-reliant, but also warm, supportive, and nurturing. People who have trouble relating to others will be better off restructuring the environment to make it compatible with their leadership style, as suggested by Fiedler, or they may find it is better to limit themselves to technical work.
One way to paraphrase this is to say that good managerial policy requires "controlled freedom." This view is also consistent with the writings of Andrews and Farris (1967), Fisher (1980), and Smith (1970). Some examples relevant to R&D organizations follow.
Research by Pelz and Andrews (1966b) also suggests that the most effective scientists in R&D laboratories are those who are allowed to do some basic research in addition to their applied research. It is frustrating for a scientist to come up with an idea that requires basic research and then not be allowed to pursue it because it is not obviously linked to the needs of the organization. A manager who protects subordinates from this kind of frustration is a good manager.
A good manager also makes sure that his subordinates do not become overspecialized. One of the problems in many laboratories is that some people become so specialized that when their specialization becomes obsolete, so do they. Further research by Pelz and Andrews (1966b) suggests that the effectiveness of a scientist increases with the number of demonstrated areas of specialization.
According to Pelz and Andrews, the scientist who spends about 50 percent of his or her time in research and 50 percent doing other things often is more effective than the one who spends 100 percent of the time on research. The manager who is sensitive to these issues and makes assignments so that they take into account this fact is likely to be more effective.
A large dose of delegation is essential in the case of research scientists. Praise, recognition, and feedback are also extremely important. The manager who rewards, praises, and recognizes good work is more effective than the supervisor who simply grins when he or she sees good work but says very little. On the other hand, the good manager should be able to identify incompetent work and to make sure that it is not rewarded. A good manager encourages subordinates to take sabbaticals, to develop and apply new skills, and to set difficult but achievable goals. Goal achievements are reexamined every six months or so, and rewards are given.
Another problem that is unique to many research and development organizations is that people often have two bosses. Usually, there is both a functional supervisor (who is a specialist in the particular field that the scientist has been trained in) and a project supervisor (who focuses on a particular problem that has to be solved). Classic organization theory warns against arrangements in which there are two supervisors, but this arrangement can be made to work.
In such cases, the effectiveness of the scientists often depends on the balance between the influence of the two supervisors (Katz and Allen, 1985). The best performance in the studies by Katz and Allen occurred when the project manager was mostly concerned with relating the project to the outside world (i.e., the suppliers, the customers, the organization), while the functional manager did most of the inside work. These authors say "project performance appears to be higher when project managers are seen as having greater organizational influence." This is an outward orientation, and, as a result, they should be concerned with gaining resources and recognition for the project, linking it to other parts of the business, and ensuring that the project's direction fits the overall business plan of the organization. According to Katz and Allen, functional managers, on the other hand, should be concerned with technical excellence and integrity—that is, seeing that the project is scientifically sound and includes state-of-the-art technology. Their orientation is inward and focuses on the technical content of the project. The technical decisions should be made by those who are closest to the science and technology.
The location of technical decision making in functional departments, however, implies important integrating roles for project managers, who are responsible for ensuring that the technical directions overseen by several different functional managers all fit together to yield the best possible end result. Clearly, the greater the influence of project managers on the organization, the easier it is to integrate and negotiate with the various functional managers, whose technical goals are often in conflict.
From this study one might conclude that project managers should have more organizational experience and more status than functional managers. A good tactic might be to deliberately place highly competent young professionals in the role of functional manager to supervise the technical aspects of the work, while having the older ones act as project managers.
A study of 66 industrial R&D project groups found transformational leadership to account for higher project quality in research projects (Keller, 1995). What is a transformational leader? According to Keller, a transformational leader strives to achieve results beyond what is normally expected by (a) inspiring a sense of importance about the project group's mission by stimulating professional employees to think about the problem or task in new ways, and (b) emphasizing group goals. In development projects, however, a more directive style of leadership was responsible for higher project quality. Berson and Linton (2005) followed up Keller's work in their research of transformational and transactional leadership within an R&D setting. A study of 511 research engineers and scientists concluded that transformational leadership was important for a high-quality environment, improving both the job and employee satisfaction in an R&D setting. Similarly, Gumusluoglu and Ilsev (2007) found that transformational leadership is beneficial at both individual as well as organizational levels and is positively related to creativity and thus innovation.