Qualities of leaders and characteristics of scientific leaders

The scientific community is in urgent need of leading figures. But what is a leader? What are the characteristics of a good leader? What is the difference between scientific leaders and other leaders? There is a misleading situation where the title is equivalent to the title of a leader. I would like to try to think about these issues as a scientist and a management practitioner.

"New York slums test" 

Leaders are people who take everyone forward.

Setting up a person as a leader in a community has a certain reputation and control certain personnel rights, resources and wealth. These factors are enough for him to win a certain position inside and outside the Community, obedience and respect. However, people with leadership status are not necessarily real leaders. The measure of a leader is not the size of his/her power, position, the amount of resources he/she controls, or the team he leads. These are just different aspects of the leader's status, and whether he is a real leader in a team depends on whether he plays a role as a leader-leading the team to success, and seek benefits for their team.

Some people say that passing a similar "New York slums test" is a real leader. Put you in a group of homeless beggars in New York, and no one knows you. If you can not be beaten or driven away within a few days, prove your strength in all aspects, and become the first in the group, "the Helper", even if you have the ability, you are definitely a leader. Although this is a joke, it means that if a person arrives in a completely unfamiliar environment, he does not rely on his rank, degree, past achievements and status, but on his true leader quality, in a short period of time, the leader can be regarded as a real leader who wins the respect, confidence, and support of everyone.

There is also a misunderstanding that leaders are managers. What is the difference between the President and the manager? Leaders need foresight and ideas, and express their blueprints to everyone to grasp the development direction. Manager, he needs to understand the blueprint, develop a work plan for implementing the blue chart, and set a deadline to ensure the smooth implementation of each goal. Leaders have an invisible and huge influence in spirit and team culture, such as encouraging innovation and communication, while managers are more visible, such as those who urge the work and promote teamwork. These two types of people do not have a clear watershed, but they play different roles in different ways in a team. Let's take a look at two pieces of advertisement: "finding a visionary and inspiring basketball coach leads the team to reverse the predicament and make it a success ". In the other section, "Find a result-oriented product manager who can complete tasks on time and within the budget ". What is the difference between leaders and managers.

As a real leader, Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, has had a classic induction of what a leader is. In his view, a leader should have foresight and foresight, share his views with his team, be energetic and be able to infect the passion of the entire team, and dare to try challenging tasks, make difficult but meaningful decisions.

Someone once made such a survey. Ask 2615 employees from different companies to select the words that best portray a leader from several adjectives, so as to generate the main characteristics of a popular leader. Interestingly, the highest value for leadership is the foresight and integrity of employees ). This is followed by competence, forward-looking, and inspiring.

It can be seen that people of different classes have different definitions of "leaders" due to different values and interests.

In my personal opinion, despite the wide variety of fields, almost all outstanding leaders have three basic features: foresight, personal charm, and courage.

Remote View 

Vision ). This is the soul of a person as a leader.

A visionary, first imagining what the future should be like, looking at the present from the future, and then formulating basic strategies, as well as short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans, to realize the future. This is very difficult. You need to think carefully and be able to see what people cannot see. Make a comprehensive analysis and judgment on the existing complex situations, and then identify the general direction. For example, in those years, Deng Xiaoping recognized that China must move towards the world, achieve modernization, and formulate two basic strategies for Reform and Development. Now let's look back at how far-sighted he is.

In the next 30 years, what are the impacts of environment, energy, and health on China's social and economic development? Where should education and science and technology go? Leaders from all walks of life need foresight.

The story of Larry Page and Sergey Brin creating Google is a classic example of foresight. When I was a graduate student at Stanford University, these two people each did something that seems to change people's way of life. Page connects personal computers (PCs) horizontally to increase the information processing speed of computers in a geometric manner. Blin has a hobby of collecting websites. The two "geeks" of these two good friends are combined to create a new concept of "Search Engine. They see the technological advantages of such search engines compared with similar products. At the same time, they also believe that search engines will be indispensable in their future lives. Our lives will become more and more complex and rich. People's minds should be used for creative thinking, solving problems, rather than always looking for things. Therefore, they firmly believe that the gold content and commercial potential of search engines will stop their doctoral studies and persistently start Google's career. Today you are sitting in front of the computer, can you still endure the days without Google?

In the biological field, a person's life track can almost perfectly interpret "foresight", that is, Seymour benzer, a professor at the Caltech institute that has died ). His foresight is rare in academia. Benzel's doctoral thesis is about physics, but when he was a doctor, he was influenced by what's life, a famous book by the physicist schörörör, identifying life sciences as the leader and Growth Point of the scientific community in the future. Therefore, during his doctoral studies, he began to think deeply about the inherent laws of biological phenomena and became interested. After his graduation, he began to study molecular biology under the influence of Delbruck and made significant discoveries through the study of genetic mutation, it proves that genes are molecular entities that can be detected by experimental means, rather than theoretical speculation.

When he was at the peak of his molecular biology, he made another "absurd" decision-to move away from molecular biology and to neurobehavior that didn't exist yet. He first proposed to use a simple animal model to study the genetic basis of behavior through genetic means. He is called the father of neurobehavior. He started the earliest and groundbreaking Behavior Research on fruit fly in his laboratory and achieved fruitful results, such as the first gene per that regulates the clock rhythm and dunce, a gene related to learning and memory. Now, neurobehavior has become one of the most vital fields in neuroscience.

It can be seen that benzol is always at the forefront of the times and a real scientific leader.

Brave 

Courage ). This is the vitality of leaders.

Many people are not without foresight. They have a strong ability to judge, organize, and execute. However, they lack courage, dare not take risks, and are not brave enough. Everything suffers and suffers, computation, and fear of losing immediate benefits. This kind of person can be a adviser or a valid executive and manager in a mature unit, but cannot be a leader.

Those who are well-known have the courage to build a new environment and take it to another level, which is even more valuable. Courage should be differentiated from reckless. True courage is a concentrated expression of maturity and wisdom. Louis gersdina, the savior of IBM. When IBM was on the verge of bankruptcy, he was asked to turn around. He has been an Enterprise Supervisor for many years and has achieved remarkable results. However, I do not know anything about the software and computer industry. Before taking office, he made a survey and thought that only 20% of the potential performance saved IBM. For this reason, he held a family meeting. All of his adult children are opposed, saying that you are a successful person, 65 years old, and the past history is only a record of success. Why should you be at the end of your career, take this risk. However, Guo Shina is the one who can turn the storm, the so-called fire brigade leader (crisis manager ). The more critical the crisis is, the more talented he will be. Finally, after careful consideration, he decided to fight hard. History proves that he has succeeded, and IBM is still writing about its Shenghua. Today, it is difficult for us to fully understand where his courage came from. I want to constantly take risks, challenge myself, and become impossible in small probability events. I have vividly explained his leader spirit.

There is also a widely spread story about scientific courage in biology. Roderick macinnon of Rockefeller University (Roderick macinnon)Is the first person to make the membrane protein structure. However, he is neither a molecular structure nor a protein biochemical specialty, but an expert in the biphysics of ionic channels. In his early years, he first studied medicine, and was not interested. He switched to science, and worked as a postdoctoral fellow at Chris Miller's laboratory. He made great achievements in the biological physics of ionic channels. Later I worked as an assistant professor at Harvard and published many excellent articles.

Just as his bio-physics career was like a day in the sky, macinon discovered that to really understand the function of ion channels, the channel structure had to be developed. But he does not know protein purification, nor does he know how to make molecular structures. There is only one exciting idea. At this moment, he met the principal of Rockefeller University, bolecitic, willing to fund his study. As a result, he resigned from Harvard and told the lab: "I am no longer doing ion-channel biphysics now, giving up many opportunities to publish natural and scientific papers. I am going to start from scratch and create the molecular structure of the ionic channel. Who would like to go with me ?" Only two people are willing to follow him.

After several years, I started from scratch and learned from the beginning. Finally, I made the crystal structure of potassium channel. After the Nobel Prize, macinon said this: "I 'd rather fail than try (parsing the molecular structure of ion channels ). Most people do not like change, but I like it. For me, change is a challenge. It is conducive to innovation and makes life more interesting ".

What a wonderful story!

Personal Charm 

Charisma is a catalyst for a leader's success.

There are some people who have the ability to think and have the courage to do so, but cannot eventually become a successful leader. What is lacking is exactly this. An outstanding idea, an ambitious goal. If the core strength of a leader cannot be used to make it the idea and goal of every member of the entire team, and if it cannot inspire everyone to work together, how to implement it?

He can take the lead and say that he can do it. Zhou Enlai can remember the name of your family after many years and set an example to demonstrate their personal charm. The loyalty that is often mentioned in Chinese martial arts novels is an important component in the charm of leaders. Song Jiang became the first in the one hundred and eight s because of his loyalty. Personal appeal also has some other factors, such as fairness and justice, integrity and reliability, seeking truth from facts, listening to approval suggestions modestly, responsibility, care, affinity, encouragement, and so on.

Take Jack Welch as an example. Yes, he did. He is a management genius. In his hand, GE has completed the transformation from production-dominated to service-dominated. He advocated a series of innovative operations for business and enterprise management: 10% dismissal, 1% error (six sigma), online shopping, globalization, and so on. But what's more prominent is his drum power and appeal. He believes that a leader is more important than developing a strategy. Only leaders who can inspire and lead a group of passionate people can achieve great success. He started General Electric University and attended classes to train a new generation of leaders. Speaking in the Forum, he is brilliant and exciting. His personal charm enables him to persuade many people and push forward many things, making Ge gradually become a very systematic, complete, talented, and fruitful place.

Steve kuffler, a pioneer in the field of neuroscience, first proposed the concept of neurobiology, he first turned this field into an independent discipline and thought that it could be done through various means, to study the structure, function, growth and development of the nervous system, aging diseases, normal and abnormal behavior controlled by the brain, and so on. He established his first neurobiology system at Harvard. Hubel and wiessel were the first young professors he brought to Harvard and won the Nobel Prize. He promoted the establishment of the American Institute of Neurology, which is now one of the largest academic groups and has more than 30 thousand members. However, these achievements are not achieved by a single person. With its extraordinary appeal and appeal, he has driven a group of outstanding neuroscientists and created a culture, this culture is still profoundly affecting the development of Harvard University and even the entire field of neuroscience. Although he died young and did not win the Nobel Prize, his scientific philosophy and personal charm were constantly carried forward, affecting several generations of students and followers.

Scientific Leader 

These are the three most important things of outstanding leaders. What are the special points of being a scientific leader? I think there are four aspects.

First, scientists do not have to have a large team. In general, the capabilities of business leaders are related to the size of the company. The requirements of large companies for the CEO division are obviously much higher than those of small companies. Unlike the business world, science does not have the so-called market share concept and does not require a large amount of human, material, and capital accumulation. It can influence the world with a small team. Distinguished Scientists do not necessarily have a very powerful or very high political position, but generally they have a great academic influence and play a decisive role in the scientific community. Scientific leaders do not have to have a large team, but their work has played a pioneering role. The best lab is not necessarily the most expensive for research. Watson and Crick make the DNA double helix structure, is an epoch of work. At that time, they only had two people. Martin chalfie of Columbia University won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of green fluorescent protein, but his laboratory is not big, and there are only a dozen people.

Second, there can be planning for science, but it is generally impossible to specify a specific goal. This is not the same as doing a project for an enterprise. It cannot be said that we will turn to profit within three years, or that the output value will double. Another example is provided. Kennedy said in 1961 that we had to land on the moon within ten years, and in less than ten years the Americans had landed on the moon. However, this is not a scientific issue, but a technical project that relies on the foresight, courage, and astonishing encouragement of leaders and the concerted efforts of a huge team. It is highly technical, but not scientific.

The unknowns and uncertainties of science determine that science cannot be defined and predicted simply like economic development or engineering progress. Therefore, the contributions of scientific leaders are also uncertain. Scientific research achievements or impact factors cannot be used to judge the contributions of scientific leaders. It cannot be said that we have to solve the problem in our minds within a few years, or a doctoral thesis will be able to figure out what learning and memory are like. Therefore, science is generally not a specific task that can be defined, but through a lot of exploration, experimentation, failure, correction, hypothesis and proof, through long-term unremitting efforts.

Third, average leaders do not need strong creativity, while scientific leaders must have extraordinary creativity. This is the essential decision of scientific work. We must follow certain rules and break through the conventional rules to drive the entire field to continuously generate new ideas, new concepts, and new technologies. Scientific leaders have an invisible but far-reaching influence through their new ideas and spirits. As mentioned above, Steve coeffler did not receive the Nobel Prize until his death, but he was innovative and inspired by others. He has been a pioneer in several fields of neuroscience and has developed the backbone of several generations of neuroscience. He is a leader in the field of science and has made great contributions. Even some Nobel Prize winners cannot be right-handed.

Finally, the pursuit of truth is one of the important differences between scientists and general leaders for the benefit of a group. In general, leaders tend to seek well-being for a group. For example, a politician, as a leader, is concerned with the difficulties and problems the community is facing. The scientific leader leads a team to pursue the rules of the objective world and the truth. The premise of a scientific leader is to be a real scientist. Pursuing Truth is one of the fundamental values of scientists. It should also be the consistent starting point of a scientific leader. (End)