Chemistry in Leadership

A recent conversation with a colleague in chemical education has made me ponder once again the challenge connecting the microscopic, macroscopic, and symbolic worlds in teaching and learning chemistry – the three corners of Johnstone’s Triangle. Someone with chemistry expertise fluidly moves through this space. Am I a big picture thinker? Or am I a detailed-oriented person? I would say both! As a chemist, I must be comfortable operating in both the macro and nano realms and smoothly move between them when needed. I may be biased, but I do think that the best leaders have this ability, and that it is in short supply.

But being comfortable operating across multiple theaters ranging from grand strategy to specific tactics is not enough. The best leaders must also have the communication skills necessary to excite colleagues about a vision or a specific action. Deftly employing the needed language and symbols to convey tasks and ideas is crucial to move projects forward. It’s no longer the philosopher-king but the administrator-manager-leader that rules best.

Given the overlap in skill set, it seems to me that chemists should make good all-round leaders – at least those with a certain bent. The most famous world leader today who was trained as a chemist is German chancellor Angela Merkel – she has a PhD and is a computational chemist, which is also my area of expertise. Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was also trained as a chemist at the undergraduate level. I know a number of other chemists who have gone on to leadership positions in academia; there have been quite a few presidents and provosts who started out as chemistry faculty members. I wonder if chemists have been disproportionately represented in academic leadership; maybe someone should do a study, though that would be leadership in chemistry rather than chemistry in leadership.

A Google search on chemistry leadership brings up a whole range of articles titled “the chemistry of leadership” which point to that effervescent ill-defined linking of chemistry to making good connections a la “we have good chemistry!” Some of the articles are cringeworthy, especially when they try to connect leadership to actual chemistry, neuroscience or biology. Here’s some representative text: “Leadership is more than just a science, more than just an art, and more than a craft. It is based on human chemistry…” And there’s even a whole book making connections between leadership and biochemical molecules titled “Leaders Eat Last”. No, I haven’t read the book, but I found this web article describing it rather cringeworthy.

I do read books and articles on leadership. Some have clever analogies, and I’ve even previously written a blog post connecting management and thermodynamics. I suppose some readers will deem it cringeworthy. The first two paragraphs of this post might have made you cringe. Perhaps cringe-worthiness is in the eye of the beholder. And while chemistry is about connections – chemical bonds – it’s about making and breaking those connections. Chemistry is about changing or exchanging connections.

Returning to the original question: Can having chemical expertise provide one with the tools of being a capable leader in an organization or society? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The human element (cringeworthy pun intended) complicates matters. We cannot easily be reduced to homo economicus or any analogous generalization, and it keeps things messy, complex, and interesting. This past month I gave a couple of talks on my research discussing how I use quantum chemical calculations to cut through the messiness and complexity encountered in origin-of-life research. I have a slide at the end of my talk to emphasize the ultra-narrow slice of my research within a greater whole, and that it will require multiple approaches to tackle such complex questions.