Global/Multicultural
References Work Place Case
Sunday, September 18, 1994
Why the damaging delay? Because, according to one executive, the company's scientists were simply unable to present the concept cogently to the rest of the company.
The problem of this company, which declined to be identified, is common. Communication between a corporation and its scientists is often abysmal and the reason is that science and business are really two cultures. In training, aptitude, psychology, inclination, language and thinking, scientists have special tendencies and approaches. For their part, managers often do not have technical backgrounds; their expertise stems from marketing sales or finance.
How deep is this cultural gulf ? Consider the way language is used.
On the one hand, business people are expected to argue their point. of view, to be persuasive and to take sides. But scientists seldom use language rhetorically. Their commitment is to the scientific method, with its emphasis critical thinking, its assumption that everything must be tested and its belief that facts speak for themselves. Given this grounding, the notion of selling ideas troubles scientists; it seems manipulative and unscientific.
This cultural gap is indeed great but that doesn't make bridging it any less crucial. Without good communication between a company's scientists and its executives, research and development may go for naught. Just ask the Johnny-come-lately mousse maker.
Current workplace trends make this task even more important. As companies downsize and decentralize, the use of teams is growing. This means that scientists are being teamed up with folks from manufacturing, sales, marketing and finance. In this increasingly mixed environment, good communication is critical to success.
The answer? Training. Corporations must teach their scientists to communicate with nonscientists and scientists must learn that selling is part of their job. "Ideas have no momentum of their own and must be 'sold' if they are to become a reality," observes the International Research Institute, an association for R.& D. professionals, in its newsletter.
Willing companies can easily find resources for this task. The I.R.I., for example, offers its members a course on selling ideas. And my company has taught these skills to scientists at many corporations, including Hewlett-Packard, Kraft Foods, Searle and Sun Microsystems.
Do the courses work? Digital Equipment Corporation thinks so. After training its scientists to deal with "knothole" problems situations in which the scientists must gain the cooperation of nonscientists Digital began to develop new products faster, it says. And the training has also helped the company's interdisciplinary teams to reach better and faster decisions.
These communications courses take various approaches. One successful tack, which we use, is to teach scientists in their own language. Focusing on scientists' needs, prejudices and interests, this course dissects the communications process with the analytical skills scientists wield daily.
As they undertake this effort, companies should, emphasize to their scientists that communications skills can help personal advancement. While technical competency can lead to success early in a scientific career, to rise higher requires more,widely appreciated abilities.
Unsure of the importance of scientist-nonscientist communication? Then answer this question: Of what use is a world-beating new hair product if it simply sits in the files?