Content uploaded by Sebastiano Massaro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sebastiano Massaro on May 14, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
nature biotechnology volume 30 number 7 july 2012 1
Often, life scientists trained in academia
develop ideological conflicts while working
in industry, because their involvement in
commercial research exposes them to radical
cultural differences. Understanding the key
issues that lead to such tension will assist
managers in recognizing and addressing these
challenges.[AU: “these challenges” = the
tension or the key issues?]
Industry versus academia. An academic
scientist’s focus usually centers on the
pursuit of innovative research with the aim
of producing scientific articles. But when
working for a company, the scientist must
redirect his or her research efforts, because
the results must ultimately drive profit and
help achieve the company’s financial goals. The
shift from academic to commercial research
usually means more effort toward projects
that fit the company’s aims and less intellectual
freedom for the knowledge-intensive worker.
Scientists may resist management styles that
seem to ignore the true dynamics[AU: Which
dynamics? Scientific? Intellectual?] behind
biotech research. Given this dichotomy[AU:
Managing knowledge-intensive workers
Sebastiano Massaro
A manager’s understanding and ability to provide knowledge workers with the personalized goals, motivation and
tools they need to perform at their best will bring outstanding results.
The management of human resources (HR)
has acquired greater importance for com-
panies since the concept of the ‘knowledge
worker’ was introduced nearly 50 years ago1.
Employees in the biotech industry create,
use and share knowledge, thus making them
central to the success of their knowledge-
based companies. Yet there are recurring
issues regarding how best to manage scientists
as employees. These concerns arise mainly
because most startups do not employ HR
professionals—or if they do, they assign HR
functions to lower-level administrators2.[AU:
Do you mean that they assign all HR func-
tions to lower-level HR administrators or
that they assign HR functions to administra-
tors who are not just HR professionals?] This
article suggests a set of principles for identify-
ing these recurring issues and applying orga-
nizational leverage to direct biotech workers to
fully meet their potential.
Identifying sources of tension
Managers of life-sciences companies lacking
dedicated HR teams generally fall into one of
two categories: scientists who have ‘reinvented’
themselves as managers or de facto executives
who have entered the world of biotech with no
prior scientific experience3. The former tend to
relate to and treat employees as coworkers[AU:
Technically, they are coworkers – revise to
‘peers’ or ‘equ als’?] by assuming that they will
not only focus on their scientific duties but also
prioritize the company’s commercial interests.
The latter perceive knowledge-intensive work-
ers as traditional employees[AU: Some types
of ‘traditional’ employees have presumably
always had higher-level skills – do you mean
unskilled employees, or nonspecializing
employees?] without acknowledging their
characteristic higher-level capabilities and
skills. Consequently, both types of managers
tend to apply organizational rules and prac-
tices that often lead to workers’ disappoint-
ment. Management that is very lenient may
provide employees with too little guidance,
which increases the risk that these scientists
will lose focus on the company’s priorities. On
the other hand, supervision that is too stringent
can be destructive to workers’ creativity and
morale and can have negative effects on their
performance. It is becoming increasingly dif-
ficult for managers of knowledge workers to
find an acceptable balance between these two
extremes.
Executives must understand the needs of
knowledge-intensive workers (see Box 1),
their ‘ideological tensions’ and their individ-
ual motivations. Once aware of these charac-
teristics, managers must adapt accordingly to
improve scientists’ efficiencies.
Sebastiano Massaro is in the Management
Science and Innovation Department at
University College London, London, UK,
and the Department of Sociology at Boston
University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
e-mail: sebrain1@bu.edu
Box 1 Needs and characteristics of knowledge workers
Scientists and other highly skilled workers often:
[AU: To avoid
generalizing and/or seeming to patronize knowledge workers, rephrase to something
like “Need feedback on their work but prefer to be approached as peers rather than
subordinates”?]
AU: Higher
than what?]
AU: As meant by ‘priority’?] for
CAREERS AND RECRUITMENT
2 volume 30 number 7 july 2012 nature biotechnology
Key organizational levers
To succeed in applying a more individualistic
HR view, managers should establish a
dedicated framework using the company’s
culture and a style of leadership in which the
talents and needs of each employee can be
fully addressed. Managers need to recognize
remarkable talent, consultatively[AU: in
consultation with whom?] set clear objectives
and performance metrics for each employee,
and provide incentives and rewards that match
each individual’s motivations. In building
such a framework, managers can apply
several organizational levers so that the team
of employees performs optimally and each
worker is targeted individually.
Be a coach, not a boss. Managers should
ask themselves: “Are we managing or
leading?” Most knowledge workers are
uncomfortable having a manager closely
oversee their activity. Scientists are not
subordinates; they want to be considered
as associates. Managers should create a
working environment in which scientists
can ultimately monitor themselves5. To do
this, managers need to ‘personalize’ each
scientific project and be open-minded and
flexible with the company’s resources and
working conditions. The manager’s role is
then to lead these knowledge workers as a
team and optimize the strengths, knowledge
and experience of each individual within the
context of[AU: All of this is in the context
of the enterprise -- do you mean ‘to fit the
goals of the enterprise’?] the enterprise.
Set milestones. Knowledge workers are
motivated by challenge. To believe in the
organization’s mission, they need to see it as
a contribution to their ‘intellectual status.’
When knowledge workers understand[AU:
and support?] their company’s mission, they
are more inclined to consider it[AU: ‘it’ =
the mission, or the accomplishment of the
mission?] a milestone of their work, similar to
What is the dichotomy between?], scientists
need precise supervision to understand the
structure and purpose of building a business.
[AU: OK?]
Social interactions and education.
Researchers often associate work in biotech
companies with fewer opportunities to interact
and brainstorm with their intellectual peers.
Many scientists view these relationships as
crucial to their endeavors and, therefore, desire
a workplace structure that encourages dialog.
Employment in a biotech company usually
means limited opportunities for independent
research; therefore, scientists express creativity,
inventiveness and understanding through
social interactions.[AU: Would they not
ideally also express these things, to some
degree at least, through their work at the
company?] Thus, they crave opportunities
to attend training sessions, courses and
conferences so that they can interact with
colleagues, stay connected to the academic
world and continue their education.
Personal interests and attitudes. Most
knowledge workers view their contributions
and skills as unique. However, this mind-set
can lead to tension with management if an
individual scientist is viewed as merely one
among many. When treated as no different
from any other colleague, the scientist feels
interchangeable and, therefore, not fully valued.
In other words, employees often lament that
managers are not flexible enough to customize
the development of research projects according
to their passions and capabilities. Scientists
want to be assigned duties that closely match
their primary interests and goals.
The manager’s role is to understand
these obstacles and channel workers’ efforts
into targeted areas that will contribute to
the company’s goals. Instructing scientists
to perform at full capacity is not a matter
of making them work harder but of
understanding their individual characteristics.
Targeting the individual
The first two issues[AU: It’s not immediately
clear which two issues you mean here. Can
you name them briefly?] described above can
easily be addressed at a collective level via a
company structure that highlights the goals of
the firm and an increase in social exchanges for
employees[AU: Is this referring to the confer-
ences, trainings, etc mentioned above? If so,
perhaps ‘social and intellectual exchanges’
would be clearer.]. The biggest challenge for
managers, however, is in responding to the per-
sonal concerns and needs of their employees.
Managers cannot use identical management
styles and reward schemes for every knowl-
edge worker. Instead, they need to couple tra-
ditional, collective HR thinking with a more
individual-oriented perspective4 (Tab le 1).
Managing HR[AU: It’s not clear what’s
meant by this – ‘HR administrators’ or ‘the
act of managing HR’?] in biotech companies
usually assesses employees as equal knowledge
contributors in achieving the company’s aims.
Conseque ntly, the attribut ion of responsibilitie s
and outcomes, as well as incentives or rewards,
is usually addressed to a team or collection of
scientists. However, this approach should be
integrated with one that treats each scientist
as a distinct carrier of knowledge. Thus,
reward schemes—as well as accountability
and research outcomes—should be tied to the
individual scientist’s expertise, achievements
and needs (for example, one employee may
prefer to be rewarded for an accomplishment
with customized working hours; another may
prefer a monetary prize).
Table 1 Collective versus individual perspectives
Key dimension Collective perspective Individual perspective
Knowledge
goals
scientists
Rewards
Table 2 Questions for [AU: developing?]an individual-centered HR strategy [AU:
Table layout OK?]
Identify core workers
Identify core workers’
attitudes
nature biotechnology volume 30 number 7 july 2012 3
an academic publication. The more connected
a scientist feels to a project and its implications,
the more motivated he or she is likely to be.
Managers should reduce the number of
formal meetings with structured agendas,
keep scientists away from bureaucratic tasks
and leave knowledge workers free to fulfill
their responsibilities as they see fit, with
minimal direction from their supervisors.
It is also important to maintain an academic
standard of working[AU: It’s not clear how
an academic standard of working would
differ from a corporate one -- do you mean
that the style of work or work environment
should be academic?]; social exchanges and
collaborations with universities should be
encouraged.
Establish trust. The creation of familiar
ties between managers and knowledge
workers is a fundamental aspect of HR
management[AU: In general, or in this type
of company?]. Informal communication,
effective behaviors[AU: as meant by ‘affective
behaviors’? Or do you mean something like
‘behaviors that are [positive/constructive/
etc] in affect’?] and professionalism are
crucial, as they enable managers and scientists
to learn about each other and their work, thus
providing the foundation for collaboration.
In short, managers should create a working
relationship that is both personal and
professional—one that is built on trust—with
each of their employees6. [AU: OK?]
Value each scientist uniquely. To effectively
manage knowledge workers, managers must
reward, recognize and coach each of them indi-
vidually. Answering a few key questions about
core workers’ roles and attitudes (Ta bl e 2 ) will
increase the manager’s ability to customize an
approach to each knowledge worker.
Conclusions
The effective management of knowledge-
intensive workers is essential to any biotech
company’s success. Accordingly, management
teams must continuously evolve, shaping
a culture that improves the company’s
ability to motivate its scientists. Ultimately,
outstanding results are driven by the
manager’s ability to equip knowledge workers
with the tools and environment they need to
perform at their best. The manager should
think of scientists as brilliant painters, each
with a different set of colors, and then work
to provide the appropriate organizational
canvas.[AU: OK?]
COMPETING FINANCIAL INTERESTS
The author declares no competing financial interests.
The Landmarks of Tomorrow
1959).
Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage.
17
Bioentrepreneur
Hum. Resour.
Manage. 48
Hum. Resour. Manage. 33
Proc. Acad. Manage. 1
AU: Please check this reference carefully; we
weren’t able to locate the article to verify publication
information.]
