Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 May 8.
Published in final edited form as: J Health Adm Educ. 2012 Spring;29(2):135–154.

Identifying and Developing Leadership Competencies in Health Research Organizations: A Pilot Study

Pamela L Davidson 1, Ricardo Azziz 2, James Morrison 3, Janet Rocha 4, Jonathan Braun 5
PMCID: PMC5940450  NIHMSID: NIHMS722155  PMID: 29749995

Abstract

We investigated leadership competencies for developing senior and emerging leaders and the perceived effectiveness of leadership development programs in Health Research Organizations (HROs). A pilot study was conducted to interview HRO executives in Southern California. Respondents represented different organizational contexts to ensure a diverse overview of strategic issues, competencies, and development needs. We analyzed qualitative and quantitative data using an innovative framework for analyzing HRO leadership development. The National Center for Healthcare Leadership ‘Health Leadership Competency Model’ was used as the foundation of our competency research. Top strategic issues included economic downturn and external funding, the influence of governmental policies and regulations, operating in global markets, and forming strategic alliances. High priority NCHL leadership competencies required to successfully lead an HRO include talent development, collaboration, strategic orientation, and team leadership. Senior executives need financial skills and scientific achievement; emerging leaders need technical/scientific competence, information seeking, and a strong work ethic. About half of the respondents reported having no leadership development program (LDP). Almost all reported their organization encourages mentoring, but less than one-third reported an active formalized mentoring program. We conclude that uncertainties and challenges related to healthcare reform and the continued budget deficits will require HRO restructuring to contain costs, remove barriers to innovation, and show value-add in accelerating discovery to improve clinical care, patient outcomes, and community health. Successful leaders will need to become more strategic, entrepreneurial, and resourceful in developing research alliances, executing research operations, and continually improving performance at all levels of the HRO.

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to identify the strategic leadership competencies for developing current and future enterprise leaders in Health Research Organizations (HROs). Leadership and talent development is a mission critical undertaking that will influence organizational performance and sustainability (Griffith, 2000; Wallick, 2002; Calhoun, et al., 2008), yet too few HROs understand and plan programs to directly address their leadership development needs. Our research focuses on the large research consortia funded by the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards (CTSA, 2011), fully implemented in 2011 with 60 CTSA institutions across the country consolidated into regional networks organized to transform the local, regional, and national environment to increase the efficiency and speed of clinical and translational science. In partnership with biotechnology, nanotechnology, genomics, and pharmaceuticals, these CTSA institutions represent an emerging multibillion dollar industry. The underlying engines that drive these institutions are interdisciplinary investigator teams who can transform scientific discoveries made in the laboratory into treatments and strategies for delivering more effective and efficient clinical care.

Although competency models have been proposed to train investigators in clinical and translational science research methodology, identifying competencies required to lead and manage large scale CTSA institutions and similar HROs has been largely ignored. Similar to other professionals in the medical sciences who are promoted due to clinical expertise, the CTSA leaders are promoted due to their scientific achievement with little or no formal education and development in leadership and management. The exceptions are the large successful Fortune 500 biotech and pharma firms in the commercial sector, such as Amgen, that offer a sophisticated and well-articulated competency model, a variety of training and development programs, and a career center for developing internal talent (Amgen, 2010). However, the Amgen competency model, similar to most Fortune 500 commercial sector competency models, are not publicly available. The 3M Corporation is one exception (Corporate Leadership Council, 2000). The competency framework and the process used to revise the 2000 version is publicly available and provides a sophisticated and well-articulated competency model that most if not all academic based HROs are lacking. In general, the absence of a leadership competency model and tailored leadership development activities limit the ability of academic and commercial HROs to recruit and develop high-potential candidates for future leadership positions.

Although numerous health leadership competency models are available, the competency model needs to be industry, organization, and role specific, aligned with the organization’s strategic goals and priorities, and recognize behaviors that will be required of successful future leaders (Ross, Wenzel, & Mitlyng, 2002; NCHL, 2011). For example, a CTSA enterprise such as the University of California Los Angeles, Clinical and Translational Science Institute (UCLA CTSI) involves forming alliances and integrating with four regional institutional partners, several medical centers, a wide range of community partners, and includes investigators from medicine and all the health professions schools, as well as other applied sciences, such as engineering and management. Additionally, CTSAs form partnerships with multinational firms and governments to provide the scientific expertise to develop and trial preventive and therapeutic interventions to promote health and manage disease. Given the nature and complexity of these organizations, any leadership competency model must be designed to fit the unique characteristics of the industry and enterprise if it is to be effective.

To investigate the leadership development needs of HROs and more specifically our UCLA CTSI, we undertook an innovative pilot study to examine the: (1) strategic external and internal organizational challenges and opportunities facing HROs today, (2) high priority leadership competencies for both senior and emerging research leaders, (3) the extent and quality of existing leadership development activities, and (4) mentoring programs. What follows is a brief literature review related to the four elements of this research.

Literature Review

STRATEGIC ISSUES FACING HROs

The strategic concerns of the clinical research enterprises across the nation have been characterized as encumbered by steep costs, slow results, high failure rates, lack of funding, regulatory burdens, fragmented infrastructure, incompatible databases, and a shortage of qualified investigators and willing participants (Collins, 2011, Sung, et al., 2003). Other strategic concerns compounded these challenges, such as high public expectations, financial conflicts of interest, scientific misconduct that threatens to erode public trust, incompatible cultural norms between academe and industry, obstacles to recruiting and retaining physician scientists, and the need to transform the academic award system and culture to encourage collaboration and team science (Cohen & Siegel, 2005). These strategic concerns ensuing from the health sector restructuring have implications for identifying and developing the competencies required to successfully lead and manage HROs in the coming decade (Grigsby, et al., 2004) and the direction and design of leadership development programs and activities to improve organizational and team performance.

LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES

A leadership competency model can be linked to the organization’s current strategic direction, organizational capabilities, values, and ultimately to key result areas (Intagliata, Ulrich, & Smallwood, 2000). Additionally, the competency model may be used to specify the high priority competencies and levels of development within each competency along the career trajectory at each stage: early-, mid-, and advanced career (Calhoun, et al., 2002). This enables junior researchers and emerging leaders to more clearly understand the leadership development roadmap leading to a successful career and a high performing, sustainable, high impact HRO.

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Since few published studies have collected systematic information on the availability and application of leadership development programs (LDPs) in HRO settings (Morahan, et al., 1998), this study investigates the use of internal and external LDPs. Although many leading organizations today recognize the need for LDPs to create and build human and social capital, and to ensure competitive advantage worth investing in (Intagliata, Ulrich, & Smallwood, 2000), leadership development programs have been largely neglected in scientific training (Morahan. et al., 1998; Forde, 2005). Even when emerging leaders are promoted due to their scientific achievement, little attention has been paid to providing internal or external LDPs. Most agree the transition from scientific/technical expert to leader and manager of people, projects, and resources is difficult, and while some make the transition, many in industry would like to improve the odds of success (Jensen & Dougherty, 2004).

MENTORING

A final element of our research, mentoring, has been defined as an interpersonal exchange between a senior experienced colleague and a less experienced junior colleague or protege (Russell & Adams, 1997). In the medical sciences context, mentoring is viewed as a core duty of medical school and other health professions faculty and is believed to have an important influence on career success including research productivity, publications, and funded grants (Keyser, et al., 2008). However, findings from a systematic review revealed less than 50% of medical students and in other fields less than 20% of faculty members reported having a mentor, suggesting that mentorship is often undervalued by academic institutions (Sambunjak, Straus, & Marusic, 2006). When it comes to mentoring in non-academic or commercial HROs, our research yielded no studies in the literature.

Methods

PILOT STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Since our CTSA operates in Los Angeles County and collaborates regionally, we constructed a sampling frame of HROs operating in Southern California. The sampling frame was composed of 55 medium to large sized academic and commercial research centers, organizations, and institutes. This non-probability purposive sample was a non-representative subset of the HRO population in Southern California constructed to interview high level executives. Three pools of potential participants were included in the sampling frame: (1) leaders of academic research centers known to investigators and subsequent recommendations from them generating a snowball sample subset, (2) research leaders (e.g. VP of Research or Science Officer) from the largest commercial Biotechnology firms in Southern California as identified by the Los Angeles and San Diego Business Journals, and (3) web search to identify leaders of other consortia/collaboratives, and independent non-for-profit research institutions not included in (1) or (2).

We contacted the 55 HRO leaders by email and invited them to participate in the interview. This was followed by a telephone call to obtain consent and schedule the interview and from this we secured twenty-one interviews: 10 were from academic organizations/institutes, 4 were commercial firms, 3 were medical center based, and 4 were not-for-profit institutes. The overall response rate was 38.2%. Results from a bias analysis indicate the respondents were more likely to be based at academic institutions (not commercial).

DATA COLLECTION

Given the dearth of empirical research on the leadership development needs in HROs, qualitative methods were used to better understand the phenomenon about which little is yet known (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) and to yield rich information not obtainable through statistical sampling techniques (Hoepfl, 1997). We designed a mixed method semi-structured interview questionnaire covering the 4 content areas. All of the interviews were conducted by one researcher and lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. Where possible the interviews were conducted and recorded in person at the interviewee’s office and then transcribed.

QUESTIONNAIRE CONTENT AND CODING METHODS

Strategic Issues

Strategic issues are identified by analyzing the external threats and opportunities in the environment as well as internal strengths and weakness in the organization (Kaplan & Norris, 2008). After providing an introductory statement, the interviewer proceeded to query regarding strategic issues, as follows: What do you see as the top 3–5 strategic issues facing your organization today and as you look out over the next several years? (And by strategic, I mean classic SWOT analysis).”

Each of the 21 HRO leaders provided 3–5 open ended responses to address this strategic issues question. The items were categorized into a detailed coding system and the detailed sub-codes were categorized into higher order themes using a consensus process.

Leadership Competencies and the NCHL Model

The second section of the questionnaire focused on leadership competencies, specifically the interviewer queried, “What are the high priority competencies that will be required of you and your senior management team to successfully lead this organization, now and in the future? By competencies, I mean “a set of professional and personal skills, knowledge, values, and traits that guide a leaded s performance, behavior, interactions, and decisions” (Dye & Garman, 2006).

Information was also collected about “….high priority competencies required for emerging leaders, those junior professionals you identify for talent development and succession planning.”

As a foundation for coding the interviewer responses, we adopted the National Center for Healthcare Leadership (NCHL) Health Leadership Competency Model and used the 26 competencies to code the data (NCHL, 2011; Calhoun, et al., 2008). The model, which is widely applicable to early, mid-, and advanced career healthcare administrators, physicians, nurses, and others in health professions careers, is viewed to be widely applicable to health leadership development across the industry spectrum and has not previously been applied to examine competencies in HROs.

Calhoun and colleagues provide a more extensive background on the development of the NCHL competency model that was originally based on work by McClelland, Boyateis, The Hay Group, and others (Calhoun, et al., 2008; Griffith, 2007). The early development of the model included behavioral event interviewing, psychometric analysis, and cross-industry sector bench-marking which makes the model much more sophisticated in its development compared to the more common consensus-based methodologies.

Each HRO leader provided 3–5 open-ended responses for each of the two competency questions posed above. The competencies were coded (1–26) if they reflected the NCHL competencies. Additionally, since our research generated leadership competencies unique to the HRO industry, we coded these items using a separate coding scheme.

Leadership Development Programs

The HRO leaders responded to a series of six questions about LDPs internally offered by their organization and external programs provided by outside vendors:

  1. Over the past 2 years (24 months), has your organization utilized any Internal LDP;

  2. What was the goal(s) of the program?

  3. How effective was the program in achieving these goals [using a Scale 1–10 with “1” not effective and “10” very effective];

  4. Are you satisfied with the return on investment (ROI) from the program;

  5. Are there any high priority program components you would like to see in a future LDP; and

  6. How could the program(s) be improved?

This same series of questions was examined regarding external leadership development programs. The responses for all items were quantified and reported as percentages of total responses.

Mentoring

Additionally, the interviewees responded to the following six questions:

  1. On a scale of 1–10, how important is mentoring to the development of leadership competencies in research organizations? [with “1” being least important and “10” being most important];

  2. Does your organization encourage mentoring;

  3. Does your organization have an active mentoring program designed to foster: (a) Research competencies (e.g. design, methods, grantmanship, research/data management), (b) Leadership/Management competencies, (c) Other: please identify;

  4. Do you personally mentor or coach anyone within your organization;

  5. If yes, what percent of your time is spent on: (a) research mentoring, (b) leadership/management mentoring, or (c) other [Total mentoring time should add to 100%]; and

  6. Did you or do you have a mentor(s) early in your career?

All data collected on the mentoring questions were quantified and reported as percentages.

A Framework for Analyzing Leadership Development

To organize the emerging themes, we categorized the pilot data by expanding a well-known Donabedian (1966,1980) structure, process, outcome framework to investigate the relationship between strategic leadership development and organizational performance in HROs (Davidson, et al., 2000; Davidson, et al., 2002; Davidson, et al., 2005).

Figure 1 provides a framework for analyzing leadership development. External environment considers threats and opportunities, such as, the economic downturn and external funding sources. The HRO core operating system includes organizational structure and operational processes. The strategic human resources (HR) subsystem is concerned with recruiting and retaining top talent and talent development. Outcomes are categorized as individual, team, and organizational performance.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

A Framework for Analyzing Leadership Development

*HRO: Health Research Organization

Two researchers independently processed and coded the qualitative interview data using the framework as a guide for data analysis (Figure 1). Additionally, we used a team approach to strengthen the validity and reliability of the qualitative findings and to minimize subjective interpretation of the results (Goodwin & Goodwin, 1984). All discrepancies in coding were reconciled by the research team and the codes were organized to reflect overall themes emerging from the data.

Results

Table 1 shows the characteristics of HROs and respondents (n=21). HRO leaders in this study reported a budget range from small ($0–10 Million) to large (> $20–$120 Million). One leader of a large institution reported the average annual budget was $925 million, clearly an outlier in this study. As a further indicator of HRO size, the average number of employees was 53 for small HROs, 161 for medium, 415 for large, and 8400 for the very large HRO. Respondents were 95% male, the average time spent leading their current HRO was less than 10 years (ranging from 1 month to 24 years), and the total number of years employed in any HRO averaged 30.5 years (ranging from 4 to 46 years).

Table 1.

Health Research Organization (HRO) and Respondent Characteristics (n=21 Interviews)

Small HRO
(Budget $0–10MM)		 Med HRO
(Budget >
$10–20 MM)		 Large HRO
(Budget >
$20–120MM)		 V. Large HRO
(Budget >
$120MM)		 All HRO
(Mean)
N 9 5 6 1 21
HRO Leaders % M/F 100% 80/20% 100% 100% 95/5%
Avg. Budget(MM) $5.2 $18.1 $71 $925 $71 (Median: $17.5)
Avg. Number of Employees 53 161 415 8400 580 (Median: 85)
Avg. Number of Years in Current Position 11.6 9.4 8.16 2.5 9.6
Avg. Number of Years in HRO 31.5 31.4 29 27 30.5
Open in a new tab

STRATEGIC ISSUES

Table 2 presents the coded and summarized Strategic Issues data (n=162 items coded from the 21 qualitative interviews). Regarding strategic environmental factors (33.3%), three major themes emerged. Economic and Funding issues (5.6%) included responses such as federal and state funding, philanthropy, the state budget crisis, and recession. One leader from a commercial firm considered the option of selling out to “Big Pharma“ because business was becoming increasingly expensive and risky to stand alone. HRO Industry (10.5%) included responses such as global research and challenges in international payments due to differences in health financing mechanisms, organizational partnerships and alliances, and industry competition. One leader recognized the challenges of leveraging industry-academe collaboration in an era when these types of alliances are being increasingly scrutinized,

“….how do we balance the fact that to do good research in an era in which competition for government/NIH funds is getting more challenging, but there is still a lot of industry funding out there? How do you shape it and direct it and put it into a form in which you can maintain the bright line between conflict [of interest]? ”

Table 2.

Strategic Issues reported by HRO Leaders using the Framework to Analyze Leadership Development, Percent Qualitative Responses

Framework (Figure 1) Percentages
Total=100%		 Number of
interviews (n=21)
Number of items
(n=162)
Domains and qualitative themes
Strategic Environment
External Environment 33.3 54
  Economic/Funding 5.6 9
  HRO Industry 10.5 17
  Policies and Regulation 17.3 28
HRO Core Operating System
Structure 16.0 26
  Infrastructure (Space & Buildings) 2.5 4
  IT/Biostatistical resources and capability 1.8 3
  Access to Subject Pools 1.8 3
  Financial 4.3 7
HRO Leadership 5.6 9
  Achievement orientation, strategic thinking, ethical issues, reputation
Core Processes 29.6 48
  Research Operations are cost effective with adequate budget 6.8 11
  Translational 8.0 13
  Innovative 5.6 9
  Interdisciplinary/Inter-institutional research (+challenges and risks of conducting interdisciplinary and interinstitutional research 5.6 9
  Payment complexity 2.5 4
  Getting projects off the ground 1.2 2
Strategic Human Resources (HR) Subsystem
  Recruit and Hire (diverse personnel, the best staff, layoffs) 11.1 18
HR Development 5.6 9
  Mentoring and Guidance 2.5 4
  Research Training 2.5 4
  Balancing teaching and research requirements 0.62 1
Outcomes: Individual, Team, and Organizational Performance
Outcomes 4.3 7
Individual and Team 3.7 6
  Performance (new application for existing knowledge, rewards when innovation worked)
  Competency development 0.6 1
  Organizational Performance -- --
Totals 100% 162
Open in a new tab

A final category which concerned Policy and External Regulation (17.3%) included responses such as FDA rules, guidelines on a case-by-case basis, increasingly more rigid regulatory compliance, complexities of consent forms, and increasing bureaucracy related to healthcare reform.

HRO CORE OPERATING SYSTEM

The ‘HRO Core Operating System’ considers structure and process variables. Structural variables (16.0%) include responses such as infrastructure (2.5%), space and buildings, resources for lab, computing, and core facilities (Table 2). Others mentioned IT/biostatistical capacity (1.8%), and access to human subjects (1.8%). Additionally, the effects of the economic downturn and diminishing funding were perceived as shaping every aspect of the internal structure and operations. For example, HRO leaders lamented the limited financial resources (4.3%) and/or infrastructure to build a large lab or simply needing more infrastructure support for grant preparation and the other non-scientific administrative work. Leadership (5.6%) was mentioned as an organizational strength in the areas of achievement orientation and strategic thinking; inversely, lack of leadership was mentioned as a weakness. Other leadership concerns included HRO reputation and ethics.

Core processes (29.6%) reflect research operations that need to be cost effective with adequate budget (6.8%). One leader observed funding was a threat and weakness in the current system,

“…research funding, operating funds, discretionary funds, funds to maintain the competitive edge… among our faculty and top graduate students. It’s increasingly going to become a survival of the fittest environment…and as funding streams shift and priorities shift, I think maintaining your competitive edge over other similar institutions is going to become critical for not just maintaining but for growing the institution, in my belief, you grow or you shrink, maintaining is not necessarily an option.”

Others emphasized the challenges and risks of conducting translational (8.0%), innovative (5.6%), and interdisciplinary and inter-institutional (5.6%) research. For example, one leader stated,

“….most labs have been functioning as silo scientific operations conducting focused, basic research. And to move from those basic discoveries forward in a way that actually has a chance of being eventually translated requires very large teams, very interactive teams, and frankly very large amounts of funding that are basically unavailable through traditional funding sources.”

These same challenges were echoed in reference to conducting interdisciplinary and inter-institutional research. According to one HRO leader,

“Usually when you get people in the same room they can come to some kind of agreement fairly quickly on something really exciting to make it move into the health sector because people are coming from various perspectives, but then everyone’s so busy and also already so committed in their current programs. The tough issue is how do you get resources to be able to launch that interaction….how do you get monies to allow these types of interactions to get started and to do so without a lot of paperwork and time delays and all this other nonsense.”

STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCES (HR) SUBSYSTEM

Regarding the Strategic Human Resources (HR) subsystem, structural themes categorized as HR/Personnel (11.1%) included the ability to recruit and retain the best staff, the ability to hire diverse personnel, and the threat of lay-offs. As one HRO leader stated,

“…competing for and retaining top talent among the research faculty, post-docs, and grad students to compete for the ever diminishing supply of funds and programs is a critical need.”

Additionally, the HR subsystem includes HR Development (5.6%), such as mentoring and providing guidance to mid-career and junior researchers and training people in research specific competencies such as grant-writing.

OUTCOMES: INDIVIDUAL, TEAM, AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

Outcomes (4.3%) were categorized as Individual and Team Performance (3.7%), including new applications for existing knowledge and rewards when innovation worked. Although not mentioned as a strategic or leadership development issue, our Figure 1 framework shows that Outcomes include the overall performance of the HRO—what Intagliata, Ulrich, and Smallwood (2000) refer to as “key result areas.”

LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES

The interviews generated a list of NCHL competencies and a unique set of non-NCHL competencies required to successfully lead HROs. Figure 2 shows the NCHL competencies mentioned most frequently were: talent development (8.6%), collaboration (6%), strategic orientation (4.7%), and team leadership (4.3%), among a substantial list of other relevant NCHL competencies such as impact and influence, financial skills, achievement orientation, and information seeking. The unique set of HRO specific competencies included technical/scientific competence (4.7%), scientific achievement (4.7%), selflessness (4.3%), people skills (3.9%), and work ethic (3.0%).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

High Priority Competencies required to Lead HROs

Additionally, we compared the high priority competencies suggested for junior vs. senior research leaders to examine the influence of career stage and implications for developing leaders (Figure 3). The left bars of Figure 3 suggest that earlier in one’s career the emphasis is on technical/scientific competence, information seeking, and work ethic. Whereas the right bars of Figure 3 suggest the importance of talent development, collaboration, financial skills, strategic orientation, scientific achievement, and team leadership become increasingly important among the senior ranks.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

High Priority Competencies of Junior versus Senior Research Leaders

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Over half of HRO leaders (n=12) reported not having utilized any LDP within the previous two years, 14% (n=3) reported utilizing an internal LDP, 10% (N=2) had utilized an LDP offered by an outside vendor, and 19% (n=4) reported having used both internal and external LDP in the past two years. When queried about why HRO leaders had not used LDP, the following reasons were mentioned most often: not convinced of value (36%), other priorities, such as research opportunities/expectations (28.5%), and expense (14%). Other reasons included that the LDP had never been mentioned, they were focusing on recruitment not succession, and resistance from staff.

Regarding perceived effectiveness [using a Scale 1–10 with “1” not effective and “10” very effective], the respondents viewed the internal LDP (mean = 7.72) as somewhat more effective than the external programs (mean = 6.25). Similarly, respondents reported more satisfaction with return on investment (ROI) from the internal LDP (mean = 8.18) versus external LDP (mean = 6.83). However, most respondents were unsure of the exact cost of the LDP, and judged it in terms of time taken away from work. When asked about the goals of the LDP, respondents most often reported leadership development (23.3%), management development (20%), grantsmanship and research management (10%). Others mentioned organizational policies and procedures, identifying and working on professional strengths and weaknesses, career advice, business/financial skills, junior leaders as change agents, emerging research opportunities and resources, individual coaching, leadership for women, team player, and public speaking. In terms of future programs, Figure 4 shows desired components of LDP in HROs, including business knowledge (10.7%) and team building (10.7%). Figure 5 summarizes suggestions for improving LDP including making programs more widely available to larger groups (21.7%) and providing better follow-up with participants and their manager (17.4%).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Desired Components in Future Leadership Development Programs suggested by HRO Leaders

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Suggestions for Improving Leadership Development Programs (LDPs)

MENTORING

Respondents rated the importance of mentoring to the development of leadership competencies on a scale of 1–10 (with “1” being least important and “10” being most important). On average, leaders rated the importance of mentoring as 9.23 (ranging from 0 to 10, Median 9.5). The vast majority, 90%, indicated they were currently mentoring people within their organization, and 80% reported they had a mentor earlier in their career. Almost all (95%) reported their organization encourages mentoring. However, less than one-third (30%) reported the organization had an active formalized mentoring program. The average number of “mentees” reported was 12.5 (ranging from 2 to 40, Median 8). When asked to break down their mentoring by percentages of time spent on mentoring, on average 55% reported Research Mentoring, 33.3% reported Leadership/Management, and 11.2% reported Other, such as clinical thought leader, career development, academic development, and integrating life and work.

Conclusions

The purpose of this pilot study was to identify the leadership competencies for developing current and future HRO enterprise leaders. Additionally, we sought to learn more about the current use and perceived value of leadership development programs in HROs for improving individual, team, and organizational performance. We believe talent management and leadership development programs should be designed within the industry and organizational context and in consideration of the unique competencies and roles required to lead and sustain a health research enterprise.

Strategic challenges were consistent with those previously reported in the literature (Collins, 2011; Cohen & Siegel, 2005; Sung, et al., 2003). HROs will become increasingly reliant on industry funding and commercial partnerships to maintain and expand operations, particularly in the wake of continued budget deficits and declining government funding that effect all structural and operational aspects of the research enterprise. Uncertainties and challenges related to healthcare reform and the continued federal and state funding challenges will require HRO restructuring to contain costs, to remove barriers to innovation, and to show value-add in accelerating discovery to improve clinical care delivery, patient outcomes, and ultimately community health.

Within this industry context, HRO leaders now and into the future will need to create a culture that values leadership development and performance improvement. One way to establish and sustain a high performance HRO involves identifying and leveraging a high priority set of leadership competencies aligned with the strategic direction and initiatives of the HRO. Additionally, successful HRO leaders will need to become more strategic, entrepreneurial, and resourceful in developing research alliances, executing research operations, and continually improving performance at all levels of the organization. Examples of expected measurable outcomes of leadership development and performance improvement include increased collaboration, communication, and team effectiveness, improved cycle time, more efficient project management, improved performance of programs and infrastructure, data quality, scientific productivity, and impact on member organizations (Wagner, et al., 2005; Greene, Hart, & Wagner, 2005; HIMSS, 2008.)

Our results show greater than half of the HRO leaders did not utilize a LDP in the past 2 years due to a variety of negative perceptions of the value of leadership development. Furthermore, the interview data collected on perceived return on investment (ROI) of LDP is relatively weak because leaders did not have a strong sense of program cost and had not considered ROI linked to improved organizational performance. However, the leaders did offer suggestions for redesigning leadership development to improve relevance and impact (Figure 5). Similarly, although the vast majority of respondents reported their HROs encouraged mentoring, less than one-third had an active formalized mentoring program. These findings are consistent with prior research that indicates less than adequate numbers of medical students reported having a mentor and dismal mentor-mentee pairings in the other health professions fields. Resources and expertise are needed to address this deficiency in medical school and other health professions education programs, e.g., apply lessons learned from Fortune 500 companies in biotech and pharmaceuticals which have already blazed the trail in talent development and mentoring.

Our pilot results identified the NCHL and HRO industry specific competencies needed to assess and develop senior and emerging leaders. HROs planning for leadership development to improve organizational performance will need to analyze the strategic forces and opportunities in the external environment, as well as HRO internal strengths and weaknesses. Results from this research inform the format, teaching/learning methods, and content of future talent development and succession planning efforts within the broader national CTSA initiative and HRO industry as a whole. However, these findings are limited to HROs in Southern California. Consequently, future research is needed to apply a broader scale survey in a nationally represented sample to address the gaps in leadership development and organizational performance in HROs.

Acknowledgments

The project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences through UCLA CTSI Grant UL1TR000124. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

We used the National Center for Healthcare Leadership (NCHL), Health Leadership Competency Model as a foundation for our competency research.

Preliminary findings from this research was presented by Azziz, R, Davidson, P, Morrison, J, Braun, J, Wang, C, Salusky, I, Norris, K. UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Harbor-LA BioMed, Charles Drew University, Los Angeles, CA. “The UCLA Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CTSI), Leadership in Research Organizations: Determining Competencies (Some preliminary findings).”

Footnotes

Presented at the 2010 Clinical and Translational Research and Education Meeting: ACRT/SCTS Joint Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. CTS Journal, April 2010, Vol 3 (2): A-165, p. S35.

Contributor Information

Dr. Pamela L. Davidson, program area leader, University of California Los Angeles Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Center for Evaluation and HSR, and Associate Professor, Schools of Nursing and Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

Dr. Ricardo Azziz, Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Medicine, President, Georgia Health Sciences University, CEO, Georgia Health Sciences Health System, Augusta, GA.

James Morrison, research associate at the University of California Los Angeles, Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI).

Janet Rocha, research associate at the University of California Los Angeles, Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI).

Dr. Jonathan Braun, professor and department chair, pathology and laboratory medicine, Professor, molecular and medical pharmacology, director, Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, tumor immunology program area, University of California Los Angeles.

References

  1. Amgen. Training and Development. 2010 Retrieved Jun 3, 2010, from http://www.amgen.com/careers/careers_training_development.htm)
  2. Calhoun JG, Davidson PL, Sinioris ME, Vincent ET, Griffith JR. Towards an understanding of competency identification and assessment in health care management. Quality Management in Health Care. 2002;2:14–38. doi: 10.1097/00019514-200211010-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Calhoun JG, Dollett L, Sinioris ME, Wainio JA, Butler PW, Griffith JR, Warden GL. Development of an interprofessional competency model for healthcare leadership. J Healthcare Management. 2008;53(6):375–89. discussion 390-1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Clinical and Translational Science Awards. [Last accessed, May 5, 2011];Translating Discoveries to Medical Practice. 2011 ( CTSAweb.org)
  5. Cohen JJ, Siegel AB. Academic medical centers and medical research. ]AMA. 2005;294:1367–72. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.11.1367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins FS. Reengineering translational science: the time is right. Sci Transl Med. 2011 Jul 6;3(90) doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002747. 2011 90cml7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Corporate Leadership Council. 3Ms leadership competency framework. 2000 Retrieved Oct 23, 2011 from ( http://capsnet.usc.edu/ProfessionalDevelopment/SupportTools/documents/3Ms LeadershipCompetencyFramework.pdf)
  8. Davidson PL, Andersen RM, Hilberman DW, Nakazono TT. A framework for evaluating the impact of health services management education. Journal of Health Administration Education. 2000;18(2):63–110. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Davidson PL, Calhoun JG, Sinioris ME, Griffith JR. A framework for evaluating and continuously improving the NCHL transformational leadership initiative. Quality Management in Health Care. 2002;2(2):3–13. doi: 10.1097/00019514-200211010-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Davidson PL, Griffith JR, Sinioris ME, Carreon DC. Evidence-based leadership development for improving organizational performance. Unpublished Evaluation Report prepared for the National Center for Healthcare Leadership (NCHL); 2005. [Google Scholar]
  11. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. 1966;44:166–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Donabedian A. Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dye CF, Garman AN. Exceptional Leadership: 16 Critical Competencies for Healthcare Executives. Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  14. Forde A. Training scientists as managers. Science Careers from the Journal Science. 2005 Jul 15; Retrieved Jun 3,2010, from http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_is-sues/articles/2005_07_15/noDOI.10761542531660850540.
  15. Goodwin LD, Goodwin WL. Are validity and reliability “relevant” in qualitative research? Evaluation and the Health Professions. 1984;4(7):413–427. doi: 10.1177/016327878400700403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Greene SM, Hart G, Wagner EH. Measuring and improving performance in multicenter research consortia. Journal of the National Cancer. 2005:26–32. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi034. Institute Monographs No: 35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Griffith JR. Championship management for healthcare organizations. J Healthcare Management. 2000;45(1):17–30. discussion 30-1. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Griffith JR. Improving preparation for senior management in healthcare. J. Health Administration Education. 2008;24(1):11–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Grigsby RK, Hefner DS, Souba WW, Kirch DG. The future-oriented department chair. Academic Medicine. 2004;79:571–77. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200406000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Why have a project management methodology in healthcare and how to deliver successful projects. HIMSS Project Management Task Force. 2008 Jan 7; from www.himss.org/.../WhyHaveProjectManage-mentMethodology.pdf.
  21. Hoepfl MC. Choosing Qualitative Research: A Primer for Technology Education Researchers. Journal of Technology Education. 1997;9(1):47–63. [Google Scholar]
  22. Intagliata J, Ulrich D, Smallwood N. Leveraging leadership competencies to produce leadership brand: Creating distinctiveness by focusing on strategy and results. Human Resources Planning. 2000;23:12–23. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jensen DG, Dougherty E. Converting biotech scientists to mangers. Nature Biotechnology. 2004;22:357–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaplan RS, Norton DP, Barrows EA. Developing the strategy: Vision, value gaps, and analysis. Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation 2008 [Google Scholar]
  25. Keyser DJ, Lakoski JM, Lara-Cinisomo S, Schulte DJ, Williams VL, Zellers DF, Pincus HA. Advancing institutional efforts to support research mentorship: A conceptual framework and self-assessment tool. Academic Medicine. 2008;83(3):217–25. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b13e318163700a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Morahan PS, Kasperbauer D, McDade SA, Aschenbrener CA, Triolo PK, Monteleone PL, Counte M, Meyer MJ. Training future leaders of academic medicine: Internal programs at three academic health centers. Academic Medicine. 1998;73:1159–1168. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199811000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. National Center for Healthcare Leadership. The NCHL Health Leadership Competency Model. 2011 May 5; from http://www.nchl.org.
  28. National Center for Healthcare Leadership (NCHL) National healthcare leadership survey 2010: Implementation of leadership best practices. 2011 (Prepublication Copy) [Google Scholar]
  29. Ross A, Wenzel FJ, Mitlyng JW. Leadership for the future: Core competencies in healthcare. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  30. Russell JE, Adams DM. The changing nature of mentoring in organizations: An introduction to the Special Issue on Mentoring in Organizations. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1997;51:1–14. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic medicine: A systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296:1103–15. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sung NS, Crowley WF, Genel M, Salber P, Sandy L, Sherwood LM, Johnson SB, Catanese V, Tilson H, Gete K, Larson EL, Scheinberg D, Reece EA, Slavkin H, Dobs A, Grebb J, Martinez RA, Korn A, Rimoin D. Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA. 2003;289:1278–87. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.10.1278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wagner EH, Greene SM, Hart G, Field TS, Fletcher S, Geiger AM, Herrinton LJ, Horn-brook MC, Johnson CC, Mouchawar J, Rolnick SJ, Stevens VJ, Taplin SH, Tolsma D, Vogt TM. Building a research consortium of large health systems: the Cancer Research Network. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005:3–11. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi032. Institute Monogr No. 35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Wallick WG. Healthcare managers’ roles, competencies, and outputs in organizational performance improvement. J Healthcare Management. 2002;47(6):390–401. discussion 401-2. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES