Innovative products, and the research and development teams that produce them, are pharma's life blood. So it's no surprise that, according to PE's 2003 Top 50 Pharma, the largest 20 pharma companies alone spent $45.5 billion on R&D.

Few would argue that the key to pipeline success is the researchers whose ideas generate new products. But leaders of the world's most successful pharma, high-tech, and consumer product companies confirm that R&D pros are some of the most challenging to manage.

They are unusual in several respects:

They strongly identify with their scientific discipline. Many R&D employees consider themselves scientists first and corporate workers a distant second.

They may be torn between scientific imperatives and corporate goals. Not all innovative ideas are commercially viable-at least initially-and many of the most promising may be some of the least interesting from a scientific point of view. Developing an alternative formula to enhance an existing drug, for example, may be an important corporate objective, but researchers are unlikely to see that as a scientific breakthrough.

To manage R&D employees effectively, one must understand their unique attitudes and perspectives. To foster that understanding, this article details the key areas in which R&D employees' opinions differ substantially from those of employees across all other job functions as well as the implications of those differences for working with and managing them. The findings are based on the aggregated results of employee opinion surveys conducted by ISR on behalf of its client companies. The areas of greatest contrast relate to supervision, senior management, empowerment, performance appraisals, employment security, work–life balance, and working relationships. (See "Benchmarks.")

Senior Managers Get Poor Marks US national norm data show that most employees have a more favorable view of their immediate supervisor than they do of company senior management. Only 57 percent of employees say they have confidence in decisions made by senior management, and less than half believe top management is doing a good job in such key areas as stating objectives clearly, establishing priorities, making decisions promptly, and providing leadership.

In contrast, when asked about their immediate supervisors, employees in general respond much more favorably. The overwhelming majority believe that their supervisor is receptive and responsive to suggestions for change, is competent in the job's technical aspects, is available when needed, and communicates effectively.

Yet that tendency to rate supervisors more positively than upper management is substantially more pronounced for R&D employees. (See "The View from Below," page 52.) Compared with those in the US national norm, employees in the R&D norm hold significantly less favorable opinions regarding the competence of senior managers and significantly more favorable opinions of supervisors. Experience in working with R&D pros suggests that the higher the senior-level position, the more negative their views toward it-and to the person who holds it.

The reason for that difference seems clear: R&D employees tend to believe that only those with whom they interact daily and who have similar training and experience-their supervisors-can truly understand and appreciate the unique nature of their jobs. They tend to respect R&D supervisors in particular, given that they are often principal investigators (PIs) on important projects and are often considered thought leaders in their field.

R&D employees likely aspire to their PIs' position and identify closely with their values. In fact, many R&D employees may have been drawn to work for their companies precisely for the opportunity to work under the supervision of world-class scientists, a reality noted by Jeff Peris, a 30-year Big Pharma veteran and Wyeth's chief learning officer. That is not to say that R&D employees have an inherent dislike for senior management but that, in general, they value technical expertise over managerial ability.

The implication of those findings is that immediate supervisor input and direction are needed to effectively manage researchers, and that managing through directives from "on high," without local-level support, is likely to be ineffective. What is apt to work better is leveraging the positive PI–employee relationship by including PIs visibly in companywide initiatives and teams.

Supervisors Are Also Suspect Yet, both R&D employees and those in the US national norm are hard on their supervisors. Only 68 percent of employees in both groups agree with the statement, "My supervisor manages people well," clearly allowing room for improvement. For the R&D group, a common complaint is that researchers are often promoted to supervisory positions based on their scientific accomplishments regardless of their people skills, which are often inferior.

That frustration is evident. One R&D employee said, "We need more dynamic leaders, individuals who are technically competent but also adept at dealing with people and inspiring the work force. The organization promotes technically competent people to leadership positions, but some of them have little to no real leadership skills. Sometimes, the appointees don't really want the job other than the pay raise it brings."