Developing stronger science leadership as the basis for innovation

Proof of the value of scientific leadership and its vital role in innovation has arguably never been clearer than in the record-breaking speed at which effective vaccines for COVID-19 were developed. Leading scientists took astonishingly large bets and bold decisions. India’s Serum Institute gambled $85 million on Oxford University’s vaccine candidate before human trials were even completed, enabling the institute to get a head start. In Germany, BioNtech co-founder Ugur Sahin read an article about a mysterious disease in Wuhan, China, in January 2020; by February, his lab had produced 20 different versions of mRNA that triggered an immune response. The rest, as they say, is history.

The leadership of individual scientists was undoubtedly at the heart of the unprecedented success and speed of the COVID-19 vaccine drive. However, the reality is that most scientific fields are becoming more cross-disciplinary, with innovation often arising at the boundaries between fields—as well as among individuals who need to collaborate. Examples include nanomaterials in drug delivery, advanced engineering in cancer diagnostics, and the increasing use of machine learning in clinical trials. Some experts call this a “revolution of convergence .” How should leadership in science evolve in response?

Cross-disciplinary problem solving to manage convergence

Our experience of working with R&D leaders suggests that scientific excellence, focus, and cross-disciplinary/-functional ways of working are important predictors of success. Not surprisingly, collaboration in the laboratory is a critical success factor alongside talent . We have coined the term "scientific leadership" to describe what matters in sciences more than anywhere else: Yes, successful leaders in science need to master the science (i.e., content), but also be capable of motivating and mobilizing ever more cross-functional—and cross-disciplinary—teams.

Managing convergence is becoming even more vital as science and technology increasingly collide, fueling advances. Technological progress in several fields outside biology, including physics, electronics, chemistry, nanotechnology, computer science, and information technology, are enabling unprecedented quantitative analyses of biological systems—and what we call the Bio Revolution .

What makes a science leader?

Businesses have got the message on leadership. Indeed, over 90 percent of CEOs we have talked to are planning to increase their investment in the development of leadership , because they see it as the most important aspect of human capital building. The question is what kind of leadership? McKinsey’s work on “centered leadership” finds that mastery of all aspects is the key. Leaders who do so are 12 times more likely to achieve the highest outcomes.

Beyond breadth of applied leadership, what attributes are most important? I agree with much of what Roche’s Bill Anderson suggests : stop doing everything that doesn’t directly contribute to the mission; develop big, exciting, end-to-end roles for people and ensure that individuals, rather than “teams” own the work and the results; where teams are necessary, make them accountable for all operational decisions; and create the opportunity for people managers to produce content.

These ingredients will certainly help, but leading cross-disciplinary innovation and managing convergence is tough. What else do we need? The answer is fleshed-out thinking on “science leadership”.

How do we “grow” as science leaders and grow more leaders?

McKinsey has been thinking about science leadership and how to develop it—addressing the three questions that are most top of mind. ?

First, what constitutes effective leadership in a science setting, be it in academia or business? McKinsey research suggests these behaviors are in common among high performing leaders: effective problem-solving, focusing operations on results, seeking different perspectives, and being highly supportive of others. Using a broader framework, the Centered Leadership project has defined leadership attributes that can be applied to varying levels of knowledge and leadership intensity, from leading oneself to leading organizations through transformational change. Empirical evidence supports the value of what is called a “T-shape profile” for science leadership where an individual has both depth in a particular areas and broad interests and understanding across domains. Integrators or polymaths from Kepler, Pasteur and Darwin, and today’s Buffett, Gates, and Bezos—innovators with “range ”—have also proved to be highly effective.

Second, taking a public (education) and private (industry) lens, what can be done to develop more, and more effective, science leaders? Research is needed into how best to motivate, support, and mentor individuals as they commit to science and develop needed leadership traits.

Third, what is the impact of a rapidly evolving and complex world—characterized by interdisciplinary opportunities, geographic variances, rising connectedness, and a 24/7 digitized world—on science leadership? How should budding science leaders develop their careers, and on what discipline or, more likely, disciplines should they focus their energies? ?

It will benefit the development of science leadership if we can facilitate a dialog between highly experienced science leaders from different cultural and geographic backgrounds, young researchers, and successful business leaders to sharpen these questions and push the answers further.?