What do you do if your boss's decisions in R&D are hindering progress?

You are starting the question with a forgone conclusion - the question itself is wrong. Remember, the boss has visibility of many other things which you can't fathom. And often, he may not even be in a position to reveal all to someone at your level. The best way is to ask him "why he chooses that way when (your) logic points the other way." Be open to the idea that he may not want to reveal all to you. Ultimately, you have to be aware that you are accountable for your outcomes - and the boss is accountable for the entire team's outcomes. I am particularly wary of such "emotional molly-coddling" questions which start with a "poor junior" assumption. The structure is there for a reason, and if you are particularly irked, escalate properly.

Understanding the reasoning behind your boss’s decisions in R&D is crucial for addressing hindrances to progress. Review past communications and organisational goals, identify constraints and risk tolerance, seek clarification from your boss, consider past experiences, empathise with their perspective, and foster constructive dialogue. The understanding provides valuable insights for addressing challenges effectively and collaboratively, so you can propose solutions.

To understand the reason it’s better to have open communication, active listening, and asking questions to grasp his/her perspective. Providing alternative solutions, collaborating with colleagues, and staying flexible are the keys to finding a compromise. By engaging constructively with him/her, one can navigate challenges and work towards solutions that benefit the progress of research and development efforts. .Documenting discussions can aid in future reference and showcase proactive problem-solving.

In R&D it is assumed that there is a plan, a schedule, objectives, a strategy and roles and responsibilities for each person on the team. In a theoretical framework this shouldn't change. But if it does, it's the boss's responsibility to explain it so everyone knows. Otherwise, mistrust and fatigue are generated, apart from how this can affect budgets. A leader never acts alone or without the opinion of the team.

Providing evidence to support the perspective can be very beneficial. Evidences can help illustrate the potential impact of the decision and provide objective data to support the arguments. This might include data from previous projects, industry benchmarks, market research, or technical analyses. Presenting evidence in a clear and organized manner can strengthen R&D case and increase the likelihood of the boss understanding your concerns and being open to alternative solutions.

It is a mistake to create distance or hierarchy between members of a team, be it the boss or an assistant. Respect and empathy must never be lost in either direction.

seeking feedback can be extremely valuable . Feedbacks from colleagues, stakeholders, or other experts in the field can provide additional perspectives and insights that may not have been considered initially. This feedback can help validate the concerns, provide alternative viewpoints, and offer suggestions for potential solutions. Additionally, involving others in the discussion can increase the likelihood of finding a resolution that addresses everyone's concerns and ultimately improves progress in the research and development efforts.

Exponer al jefe claramente: - Cómo los objetivos del proyecto se alinean con los objetivos generales de la compa?ía. -La coherencia con la misión corporativa. - La importancia de que dicho proyecto sea desarrollado por el equipo propuesto en el plazo planteado. Asimismo se le presentará la rentabilidad estimada, y potenciales beneficios obtenidos por la organización, una vez se implemente completamente el proyecto, con la correspondiente ejecución presupuestaria en un 100%.

Of course negotiating and compromising can be highly beneficial. Negotiating involves finding common ground and exploring alternative solutions that address both your concerns and your boss's objectives. By engaging in constructive dialogue and being open to compromise, you can work towards a resolution that balances the needs of the project with the priorities of the organization. This approach enhances collaboration, strengthens relationships, and ultimately leads to more effective outcomes in research and development efforts.

Escalating the issue should be considered as a last resort after all other steps have been exhausted. If the issue has been already communicated, listened, provided evidence, sought feedback, negotiated, and compromised; and the boss's decision continues to significantly hinder progress in R&D, then escalating the issue may be necessary. However, it's important to approach escalation with caution and professionalism. Consider involving higher-level management if appropriate channels exist .Clearly articulate the reasons and present any documentation or evidence that supports the case. Keep in mind that escalation should be a carefully considered decision and be done with the ultimate goal of finding a resolution that benefits the project .

If the boss's R&D decisions are preventing advancement, one would start by having an honest discussion to find out why they made the decisions they did. One would politely voice the concerns, supporting them with information and analysis and highlighting how they might affect the project's results. If required, one would suggest different approaches or modifications to the current strategy, emphasizing the advantages for the project and organizational objectives. To ensure alignment with the team's goals and the overall success of the R&D endeavors, it is imperative to advocate for necessary changes with professionalism and diplomacy. Don't hesitate to have an open conversation to understand why the boss so.

My advice could be misplaced or rather, mistimed here. As the title states that R&D decisions are hindering progress, this could be taken as fact. However, I would suggest considering first whether there are solutions and alternatives that haven’t been considered that could lead to the R&D changes being successfully implemented. Essentially, do not rule out that the decisions might still have merit before looking to advocate for their overhaul.