After decades working R&D and technology development in national laboratories and companies of several sizes, it still amazes me how much confusion there is around what a lead scientist’s actual job is. Here I define the term “Lead Scientist” as a technically trained individual who formally manages a team of technical direct reports. The terms “Group Lead” or “Group Leader” are sometimes used for the same role. If you aspire to be a lead scientist, then it is wise to think ahead about how to be a good one. If you manage lead scientists, then consider writing out your own expectations for the role to train your people. Here is my take on what differentiates a good lead scientist from a bad one:
Good lead scientists know their subject and have deep technical expertise. They also recognize that they do not know everything and cannot do it all themselves, so they artfully leverage the knowledge and effort of their team. A good lead scientist is the CEO of their technical area. They take full responsibility and measure themselves in terms of their whole team’s progress toward technical objectives.
Bad lead scientists think and act like they are still individual contributors and either view their team as competition or as assistants incapable of acting independently. Instead of taking the time to understand the capabilities and career maturity of each of their direct reports and trusting them to act with the maximum appropriate level of autonomy, the bad lead scientist holds up everything until they personally understand every minute detail and endlessly frustrates their team.
Good lead scientists always keep the big picture of what their company or division is trying to achieve in mind, and they ask questions when clarification is necessary. They use that understanding to maintain good relationships with their peer lead scientists, constantly communicating to coordinate work, clear up ambiguities, and ensure balls do not get dropped. Bad lead scientists focus narrowly on their own fief, get into hostile arguments with their peers at schedule status meetings, and lobby behind their backs for resources and increased scope.
Good lead scientists always keep themselves and their team focused on the key technical objects they need to achieve to advance the overall goals of the organization. They simultaneously watch out for and nurture new ideas and innovations that could be game changers, while gently curtailing tangents and politely saying no to off topic mission creep. Bad lead scientists succumb to day-to-day firefighting, lose track of their key objectives, say yes to everything their team suggests because the want to be liked, and generate lots of activity without much clear progress.
Good lead scientists understand matrix management and help their direct reports navigate their matrix assignments. They hold regular one-on-ones with all their people and let their direct reports set the agenda and lead those meetings. This creates a venue for the employee to effectively communicate about their work, problems, questions, and new ideas with their manager. Bad lead scientists cast their direct reports adrift in the matrix and then scramble to figure out what they have been doing when annual performance review time comes around.
Good lead scientists focus on clarity and understand that good communication takes effort and often requires reiterating key messages and stating the seemingly obvious. They also write quality papers, give lucid talks, and submit clear ideas for patents while simultaneously coaching their direct reports to do the same. Bad lead scientists just assume that communication happens without their intervention and either never bother to express their ideas formally or hog all the speaking, writing, and intellectual property generation opportunities for themselves.
Good lead scientists seek to improve their own skills and those of their team. They take training seriously, make sure their direct reports get the functional training they need to do their jobs well, and create formal training materials themselves whenever necessary. Good lead scientists also coach their people on an ongoing basis to foster continuous improvement. Bad lead scientists think training is a waste of time for themselves and their people and do not balance current needs with investment in the future.
When it comes to hiring new team members, good lead scientists look for more than just a strong technical resume. They recognize that the ability to work well with others and see projects through to completion are just as important a scientific brilliance. Bad lead scientists ignore the human factors of their work, hire for technical skill alone, and end up bringing “brilliant jerks” onto the team who churn up conflicts and ultimately cause more problems than they solve.
Good lead scientists show up to meetings and turn in their reports, slide decks, status updates, etc. on time every time because they are disciplined. Bad lead scientists show up late or turn in their work late, because they do not value discipline.