How to Survive and Thrive in these Turbulent Times
Ed Kordoski
This article was first published in the July/August 1995 issue, 4(7),
p 66-70, of Today's Chemist at Work a publication of ACS.
IN CHEMISTRY DECEMBER 1995/JANUARY 1996.
(Reproduced with permission)
The chemical and allied industries in the past decade have undergone a paradigm
shift that is still having major repercussions throughout the world. The
change has caused upheaval in every major company, notably in terms of staffing
levels, job requirements, and needed skills. The job market for chemical
professionals continues to decline even as the economy and the chemical
industry improve. What caused the shift, and why weren't we prepared to
deal with it? What can each of us do to develop the new set of skills and
abilities required to survive and thrive in this new environment?
Trends from the Globalization Process
To see where we are now and the direction in which we are headed, we must
look back to see where we came from. The paradigm shift occurred in the
mid-1980s, so let's compare and contrast the 1970s through the early 1980s
with the mid-1980s to the present. The U.S. chemical industry of the 1970s
was the world leader in international trade before "globalization"
became a buzzword. But recently, because of increasing competition from
developing nations such as China, the Pacific Rim countries, and the petroleum-rich
Middle Eastern countries, the chemical business has truly become global
in nature. Companies must now carefully plan to whom, from where,
and in what quantities to manufacture and ship products. They decide
in which countries to build plants and do R&D to give them the best
strategic advantage and which country's labor and raw materials to use.
They are focusing on core businesses and ascribing to international quality
(ISO 9000), accounting, and patent standards; and they are forming alliances
with former competitors to compete in the global economy. Globalization
of world markets and the speed with which products and services can travel
have made nearly every country a potential competitor. Companies are changing
from functional and centralized organizations, which were slow to respond,
to decentralized matrix-management or team-oriented organizations that respond
rapidly to their customers' needs. This change has energized and empowered
employees in individual departments to participate in and better understand
the total business.
In line with this change, the business focus is changing from employees
optimizing the function of individual departments, sometimes to the detriment
of other departments or the business as a whole, to optimizing the entire
business. Individuals are more involved, but they are also expected
to be more knowledgeable, to interact more, and to participate in decision
making.
In the safety and health area, earlier times were marked by the establishment
of new legislation and programs, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act,
the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act. It took time to implement federal regula tions and settle legal challenges.
A more interactive and participatory approach is now being taken.
Analytical methods and equipment make it possible to measure components
in environmental discharges in parts per trillion. This capability,
however, to detect at extremely small levels has outpaced our ability to
understand the consequences of those small levels of contaminants. But because
of the ability to detect, some U.S. laws have set strict limits on discharges
of waste into the environment, even at a zero level. At these limits,
zero discharge is impossible because treatment methods do not exist totally
to remove components below the limits of detection and, even if they did,
they may be cost prohibitive. Also at these limits, the laws are measuring
detectability, not risk. However, to meet these stricter limits the chemical
and allied industries are shifting away from treating waste streams that
have been commingled using end-of-the-pipe methods to much more efficient
methods that allow for the treatment, recycling, or minimization of each
individual waste stream.
Chemical processing, especially in batch operations, has moved from the
primarily manual operations of the 1970s to the totally computer-automated
manufacturing plants being built today. These plants have computer networks
that link and control material ordering and logistics, chemical analyses,
process control, quality control, product standardization, and shipment
to customers.
Before the early 1980s, R&D activity was traditionally incremental.
Scientists examined and made small adjustments in process parameters one
at a time until yield or quality increased. In the mid-1980s, with
the help of computers, scientists were able to examine multiple parameters
simultaneously to optimize and balance processes with respect to quality,
yield, waste products, waste treatment, product cost, safety, and other
factors. Much of the painstaking groundwork in basic research is
also being augmented or supplanted by computer programs (e.g., molecular
modeling). The very nature of the R&D activity and focus is changing.
Previously, R&D activity was focused primarily on the discovery of new
science and products such as Teflon, cortisone, magnetic resonance imaging
instruments, and AZT. This discontinuous and erratic process, which might
have led to big, profitable products, required a lot of research capital
and staff and did not always lead to beneficial results. Today R&D is
focused primarily on the application of science and on continuous improvement
of existing products and processes instead of on innovations. However, basic
research must always remain part of the R&D activity mix of any innovative
company. Otherwise, products and even companies will become obsolete.
Finally, we look at the personnel required to staff organizations during
these drastically different times. Organizations in the 1970s and early
1980s required highly focused research specialists who were prized for their
knowledge. Companies frequently hired the best available scientists, even
if their expertise was in a different area, and carefully trained them in
a new specialty area to meet the company's needs. Now organizations
want personnel who are trained in their required specialty and can immediately
begin to produce, but who are also generalists capable of changing as the
company's needs and direction change.
What caused this paradigm, and why weren't chemists prepared to deal with
it? An unexpected event acted as a catalyst--the oil price controls imposed
by the OPEC oil cartel in the mid- to late-1970s. This event (which greatly
affected company profitability, as reflected by stock market values and
money market credit ratings), coupled with the information explosion and
the proliferation of increasingly powerful and affordable computers, accelerated
the creation of the new paradigm. Otherwise this shift, without the synergistic
combination of profitability, accessible information, and/or computer applications,
would have evolved slowly instead of suddenly.
Chemical professionals were not prepared to deal with the new balance, had
they even recognized all the accompanying changes, because they were specialists
and were too focused on their work. They failed to see how the concern for
constantly measured short-term profitability and company valuation driven
by readily available information was affecting our industry, and they weren't
given the tools and training to adapt. Like many of the steel and auto workers
before them, they were suddenly expendable. As managers reduced the workforce
and spun off noncore businesses, they also realized they were saddled with
nonproducing capital assets, primarily buildings and laboratories. These
assets are being written off and charged against profits, as are out placement
services and early retirement programs. This activity has further slowed
the recovery of the chemical and allied industries. However, it has also
led to the establishment of numerous smaller independent businesses and
a growth in consulting businesses.
New Required Skills and Expectations of the Work Force
What new set of skills and abilities must be developed to ensure that chemical
professionals will survive and even thrive in the new era? Based on this
analysis and the continued downsizing and reengineering in the industry,
the skills and abilities necessary for today and the future can be defined.
But, before addressing this issue, it is paramount that today's chemical
professionals recognize two important and often overlooked facts pertaining
to their survival. First, the implied agreement between a company and an
employee, whereby an employee is offered a degree of job security in exchange
for company loyalty and adequate job performance, is an antiquated idea.
Second, the employee is responsible for career development and training
and must not expect the employer to develop plans to prepare the employee
for the future. Within the past decade, belief in either of these ideas
has been shown to be dangerously naive.
Today's chemical professional must be a specialist with a degree in the
traditional areas of science who is also trained in other subjects, notably
computer literacy and interpersonal communication skills. Computers touch
nearly every aspect of a person's job. The younger generation uses computers
and software in the same way that older generation used pencils, paper,
and crayons. Today's professional doesn't write reports and give them to
a secretary, use paper and a calculator to do statistical experimental design
or solve mathematical equations, or carefully draw graphs and charts for
overhead presentations. All these things are done using comput
ers and software in much less time and with more professional results. Computers
have been so heavily integrated into chemical manufacturing and support
areas such as accounting, R&D, QA and QC, engineering, and informa tion
handling, that today's professional must be not only computer functional
but also literate, efficient, and effective.
The change to a whole-business approach with teams of empowered employees
from different backgrounds, levels, education, and training necessitates
a tremendous amount of interaction. This requires team players and facilitators
who can compromise and reach consensus decisions and who have highly developed
interpersonal oral and written communication skills. Previously, most normal
communication was done horizontally with peers or vertically with subordinates
or superiors. Nearly everyone was from the same or an associated discipline
and used the same vocabulary and technical language. Today, most teams are
composed of multidisciplinary members from all levels of the organization
who share no vocabulary or language. All of the team members must be able
to understand the key relationships among markets, customers, and competitors
and to effectively communicate these differences to their teammates in order
to solve problems and take advantage of strategic opportunities. This requirement
is especially true in today's flatter organizations where employees are
more accountable for their actions.
Because organizations are no longer functionally organized and hier archical,
chemical professionals working in teams must elicit help from team members
on the basis of respect, trust, convincing reasoning, leadership skills,
motivation, and inspiration. Employees must be convinced that both they
and the organization will benefit from their actions. Negotiation and consensus
management skills are needed to lead the organization forward. Although
the pendulum has not swung completely in this direction, most organizations
are showing a trend toward this type of behavior. Many conditions are pushing
this trend, including diversity; empowerment; flatter and leaner organizations;
dependence on more technicians and B.S. and M.S. graduates; common shared
standards; and the fact that the health and profitability of the organization
rests in the hands of all employees.
The global customer-focused nature of business, coupled with the shared
international standards of accounting, quality, patents, and environmental
protection and automation standards, requires companies to ascribe to these
standards and employees to understand and be conversant in them. English
is still the international language of business, but employees who not only
understand the whole local business but also can communicate in a foreign
language and understand other cultures are becoming more important.
Another extremely important aspect of both local and global business competition
is quality. Quality, total quality management (TQM), and continuous quality
improvement are nearly treated as an industrial religion complete with its
own language and customs. Quality is not a program with a defined end; it
is a continuous process that reinvents and improves itself. Recently both
the Germans and the Japanese have shown that a focus on quality, and therefore
an understanding of customer requirements, is key. Chemists today must function
in a total quality environment and focus on the customer and the customer's
business environment and culture. They are partners in a strategic alliance
in an ever-tightening global economy. The U.S. government and other sovereign
nations are continuously adding new rules, regulations, and laws governing
safety, health, hygiene, and environmental areas. It is increasingly important
for today's chemical professionals to be aware of these changes as they
affect a particular area or company location, because company officers and
employees are being held legally responsible. Chemists should also have
a working knowledge and understanding of all safety aspects of their jobs
and safety risk assessment methods. Many laws and regulations are promulgated
because of people's understanding or misunderstanding of events or currently
held beliefs. Scientists must be able not only to communicate these concepts
to fellow employees but also to articulate them for their neighbors and
the general public. If they can not, then they and their companies must
be willing to live with decisions based on misunderstanding, as well as
the loss of the public trust.
Remain Flexible and Adapt to Changes in the Work Place
The nature of work for chemists today is drastically different from that
of five to ten years ago, and it is still evolving. The chemical professional
must recognize this fact and adapt to all these pressures and job requirements
and, above all, remain educationally flexible. Today's and tomorrow's problems
can be solved only with the help of scientists. There will be a long-term
need for their skills and abilities, although the job market will be much
more diverse and will provide opportunities in areas outside the traditional
chemical and allied industries.
Chemical professionals still working in industry must continue to learn
new skills through courses given at work, local colleges, or by professional
organizations. Students must seek out courses in the areas mentioned that
will better position them for success in their jobs. Unfortunately, many
schools do not include these types of courses in their degree curricula.
However, it has been recognized that the nature of education is adapting
to these changes. Therefore students must be made aware of the new nature
of business and select the proper course work. Educators must be attuned
to what the job market is demanding and provide those skills to their students.
The change has occurred, and the skill base and supporting systems must
now also be realigned.
Edward W. Kordoski received his B.S. degree in chemistry
from King's College (Wilkes-Barre, PA), a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from
the University of Maryland (College Park), and an M.B.A. from Monmouth College
(Monmouth, NJ). He spent several years with Ciba-Giegy Corp. in process
development, R&D, production, operations research, and manage ment and
was on assignment in Switzerland for two years. He joined the American Chemical
Society's Office of Industry Relations in 1993 and currently is head of
ACS Library Services.
The following material is taken from an article called "The times they
are a-changin' for R & D" by W.P. Rothwell, C.J. Shearer, and G.L.
Taylor that appeared in the June 1995 issue 25 (6), pp 6-12, of CHEMTECH.
Revised roles of the industrial scientist and the industrial manager
Old Paradigm
Scientist
Mainly research: Discover something new
Technical excellence validated by publication
Distinguish oneself as an individual
Apply original concepts
Manager
Manager knows best
Plan, lead, organize, and control
Handle key communication with customers and the head office
Managers have power to commit
Managers are evaluated by superiors
New Paradigm
Scientist
Advance and deliver technology profitability
Technological excellence validated by commercial success
Leverage individual skills through teamwork
Apply original, borrowed, or adapted concepts
Manager
Those closest to work know best
Ensure goals are set; coach people to achieve them
Whoever is most knowledgeable handles key communications
Managers empower staff to make commitments
Managers get 360 evaluation
Training for the 21st century
Many industrial R&D labs are beginning to ask whether we need
as many Ph.D. scientists and engineers as in the past and whether their
training is as relevant as it could be. Clearly, some jobs still require
the skills and training that only a Ph.D. program can provide. But others,
especially in some of the product development areas, require resourceful
problem solvers with broad backgrounds, and these characteristics typically
are not developed in the narrow-disciplined training of many Ph.D. programs.
It has been argued that a broader exposure is needed, even at the expense
of time spent on thesis research. In any case, there is an increased need
for talented individuals who possess excellent communication skills. The
multidisciplinary teamwork required to win in today's shortened cycle
time world places a premium on effective communication.
Southwest Research Institute, an independent contract laboratory in San
Antonio, TX, has no corporate sponsor but has grown at a rate of about 13%
per year for the past 40 years and presently employs about 2500 people.
Whereas some of their contract work could be judged as mundane, some is
very sophisticated and imaginative. By any measure - publications, presentations,
staff elected to professional societies--they can hold their own
in terms of professional quality, and yet the percentage of employees holding
a Ph.D. on their staff is only about 7%.
It is true that our venerable institutions of learning have endured
far longer than our modern-day corporations and that well-educated people
should remain their first priority. Yet where should we draw the line between
traditional areas of study versus current needs? At Shell Chemical Company,
for example, almost all chemists work in one of three areas: analytical,
polymer, or catalyst chemistry. These fields are not the traditional areas
of training, yet chemistry students trained in these areas enter an industrial
environment with a distinct, early advantage. Maybe time will show a shift
in curriculums offered by our universities, just as public and private high
schools have shifted emphasis away from teaching Greek and Latin.