Leadership in STEM organizations has many of the same hallmarks (and pitfalls) as leadership in any other organizations. However, there are some special nuances that stem (pardon the pun) from the different mindsets of the folks working there. It’s important to pay attention to them in order to grow a strong group of leaders and to retain talented employees.

Put proficiency over concepts

STEM organizations often focus on the knowledge of skills. They are generally able to hire top trainers/speakers with the latest concepts and approaches, and they are willing to pay a premium for it. This is understandable as they are accustomed to being at the cutting edge in their chosen domain. So, it makes sense to them if you want to hire someone in leadership development to monitor the folks who are trendy and leading in this area. This resonates with STEM leadership and the workforce since they are used to the idea of knowledge being king. And, of course, there is nothing wrong with wanting to link to what is cutting edge in leadership, with one caveat: it bears the risk of wrongly focusing on creating knowledge and expertise instead of on building skills, which is what is really needed in leadership.

Building skills and proficiency doesn’t happen in just one event by a stellar presenter. It takes a sustainable, well-developed plan that applies the learning and brings it to the actual workplace.

Even though it may not be as sexy and exciting, it’s much more valuable to build skills and proficiency that are focused on workplace application. Focus on action plans, sustainment, application, and targeted capabilities.

Focus, focus, focus

When STEM organizations decide to advance their leadership skills, they frequently focus on many capabilities. It often goes like this: after some neglect in the leadership development arena, competency maps are drawn up that are loosely tied to the organization’s strategy. These competency maps lead to assessments that allow us to gain an initial understanding of where we stand in terms of leadership capabilities. This provides us with a gap analysis (and a baseline) where we can form developmental plans to address those gaps. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this—with one catch: in STEM organizations, there is often a focus on knowledge, and it’s easy to develop the belief that gaps can be addressed through conveying information and knowledge on multiple competency areas. Alas, the skill building won’t happen if the development action is kept too broad.

Instead, focus on one or two capabilities, develop targeted action plans for them, and—once the skill is built and you notice that leaders have gained proficiency—then move to the next area.

Create accountability through data

Many STEM organizations are data-driven, and folks are able to give data the right meaning. That’s a definite plus since it allows you to develop and work with qualitative and quantitative measures to ensure the skill building actually happens.

There are many good ways to gain an adequate understanding of whether skill and behavior actually shift. Manager interviews, team interviews, or assessments are some good options. Many STEM leaders don’t require more than the data—because they know it is a good indicator and understand how to change their actions to impact the data.

Make sure there is an assessment of baseline data and that you get your statistics right. (If you come to the point in your leadership development program where you have to argue the details of data variance and validity, it’s game over. Make sure it’s rigorous enough not to get to that point.)

Set up two parallel advancement ladders

In many organizations, STEM leaders, at some point in their career, are confronted with a choice about their progression. One option is to advance in position and salary, go into management, and give up or reduce the expertise-driven work they love. The other option is to stay in their field of expertise and thereby stall their career or choose a slower progression. For many STEM professionals, this is a dilemma since they want both: to advance in their organization and stay deeply connected with their field of work. The solution to this conundrum is to have two equivalent (in status and income) tracks of development.

A great example of a company that I have had several touchpoints with and that has developed those two tracks is Appian. They created parallel ladders with the same rungs on both ladders, thereby giving their STEM staff a real choice.

Don’t forget the Human Elements

Don’t forget that, among all the unique aspects of a STEM workforce, human factors also play a large role. No matter how data-driven or introspective someone is, they still appreciate honest inspiration and motivation by their leaders. For details of what comprises the Human Elements, take a look at a recent article.

Take the Next Step

Let me know what other areas you pay attention to in the development of STEM leaders. Where did I go wrong here? What has worked for you? Let me know…