In the fast-paced world of Pharma, clarity is king. When speaking to senior leaders, it’s essential to articulate bold outcomes, paint a picture of a big vision, and outline clear, actionable strategies. These are the elements that drive alignment, unlock resources, and ensure your message resonates with decision-makers.
Yet, for those of us trained as scientists, this type of communication can feel counterintuitive. Science thrives on complexity, precision, and evidence. We’re trained to:
• Appreciate nuance and avoid oversimplification.
• Hesitate to declare outcomes until robust data backs them up.
• Present all the evidence, even when it’s inconclusive, rather than distilling it into a concise message.
In Medical Affairs, this tension between our scientific roots and the expectations of business leaders can create challenges. How do we communicate effectively while maintaining our scientific integrity?
The key is finding balance:
• Frame complexity as opportunity: Highlight challenges but focus on the potential for impact.
• Speak with confidence about the future: Use evidence to craft a compelling narrative about where we’re headed and why it matters.
• Simplify without losing substance: Translate data into actionable insights while respecting the science behind it.
As Medical Affairs professionals, we are the bridge between the science and the business. Our ability to master this type of communication not only strengthens our impact but also ensures that the value of science is fully realized at the highest levels.
What strategies do you use to effectively communicate bold visions and clear strategies to business leaders? I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Scientists are taught to value complexity and humility, but in business, simplicity and confidence is valued. It’s tough to work with a foot in each world.
#OHPsych #OHP #IOPsych #iopsychmemes #psychology #psychologymemes #psychmemes #APpsych (rerun)
--
1wMaybe it would be more helpful to consider Generalizability Theory than CTT; a look to a later article of Cronbach and Shavelson could shed some light on that issue, cf: My Current Thoughts on Coefficient Alpha and Successor Procedures, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404266386,