NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Using Business Development Funnels to Stimulate Increases in Research Funding

Using Business Development Funnels to Stimulate Increases in Research Funding

Presenters: 

  • Saundra Evans, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Research Services and Project Management, North Carolina A&T State University
  • Paul Tuttle, Director of Proposal Development, North Carolina A&T State University

Thanks to our session note-taker, Lucy Deckard!

Key points from the session. We learned: 

  • Universities often expect to see a steady linear growth in research expenditures; however, it’s not realistic to expect continuous linear growth. Instead, RD growth is similar to small business growth: i.e., it follows an S-curve. The business starts and grows quickly as they innovate, incorporate best practices, and improve. Then they stabilize or plateau. At this point, the business will need to find a new way to grow (e.g., a new market or product or strategy), which can then kick off a stage of rapid growth. Otherwise, the business may decline and ultimately fail. Similarly, North Carolina A&T saw their research expenditures grow rapidly as they established an RD office, learned from NORDP and elsewhere, and incorporated best practices. Then the recession hit, and they saw some decline They realized they had maxed out on the old business model ; they need to break out a new one! This was especially important since university leadership had set a goal of $85M in research expenditures (from the current ~$65M) by 2020.
  • NC A&T’s new business model incorporated five strategies: 1) reorganize academic units to better motivate and support research; 2) RD strategic hires; 3) diversify the funding portfolio to include more agencies and foundations, as well as contracts in addition to grants; 4) proactively pursue Federal funding; and 5) Employ business development (funding opportunity) funnels. To implement this new plan, they developed a logic model for how they would reach that $85M goal by creating and maintaining funding funnels at AT&T, following a logic model template provided by Tina Edgerly Campbell in her 2014 NORDP preconference workshop. Then, they distributed the logical model to faculty members so they understood what they were trying to accomplish. They also broke the goal down by college and provided concrete targets year by year – helped get the deans on board.
  • Applying the funnel concept to RD, you look at the what the funding rates are and how much you need to put into the top of the funnel to get the dollars you need at the bottom—how do they get to $85M? If you look at typical success rates for many agencies, they are single-digit or in the low teens. So if you assume 10% funding rate, that means they would have to submit $850M in proposals! Developing funding funnels: They realized they needed to identify core funding opportunities with a higher probability of funding and ensure submission of more competitive proposals. They pursued two main strategies: 1) Take a portfolio approach, identifying recurring funding opportunities with the highest hit rates, anticipating the next cycle, strengthening relationships with the Program Officers and starting working on proposals early (before they are officially announced); 2) identify growth opportunities (e.g., new opportunities and new funders, including foundations and industry,  and work with the new director of Corporate and Foundation Relations. This includes looking at contracts (e.g., DoD IDIQ and industry contracts) in addition to grants. Worked with faculty to make sure they understand expectations for contracts and that they felt confident they could deliver. Also added capacity in the Grants and Contracts department.
  • Helped faculty understand what they can do – worked with them to develop an individualized strategic funding plan (following a Strategic Funding Plan Informational Template provided by from Tina Campbell in her 2014 NORDP preconference workshop). Helps faculty work though what story they want to tell about their careers over the next 20 years (framed as their current situation, emerging or future directions, and professional goals) and then identify a matrix of funding opportunities that will allow them to make it happen. They articulate where they want to end up; for example, “I hope to become one of the go-to researchers in wearable sensors and smart devices in military and civilian environments in the next 15 – 20 years.” Then they get lots of help with finding funders working with their chairs, the RD office, and PIVOT. Before doing this Saundra and Paul talked to deans to gauge their level of commitment. Some chairs use this in their annual evaluation of their faculty. Roll-out of the strategic funding plans and market business development funnel ideas was very low key. Just assistance. Framed as, “we hope this can help you.”
  • Where are they now? Nearly 30 faculty now have individual strategic funding plans. Found that using the carrot approach works best. When faculty see other faculty get funded, and when they get tenure as a result of that success, that motivates them. There has been sharply increased interest and proposal activity. Looking at funding expenditures, NC A&T is on the upswing of the S-curve again, but it’s still early days. They hope to be back to report on more progress in the future.

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?         

  • I had never thought of RD as being similar to a small business, but it makes sense.
  • I also hadn’t heard of the S-curve in the context of RD
  • I thought providing faculty with a formal strategic funding plan to help them explicitly map out their funding strategies in the context of their career goals is a great idea.
  • I also thought that using a logic model to communicate the RD strategy to faculty and deans was a really inspired idea.

What resources did you discover at this presentation? Examples: a website, database or software tool. We’ll link to resources on the blog.          

  1. Gov Net by Deltek – can find who has been funded on various contracts and identify RFPs for contracts as well as identifying RFPs before they are issued.
  2. Similarly, you can use PIVOT to identify funding opportunities before they are officially released by looking for opportunities that are labeled, “pending” rather “confirmed”. Look at the “pendings” and call the PO and ask about the likelihood that will be offered again.
  3. Not sure if these are publicly available, but Tina Edgerly Campbell’s templates for an RD logic model and for an individual strategic funding plan would be great resources if they are available.

What were the most interesting questions asked by audience members, and what were the presenter(s)’ responses?

Will senior faculty buy into the research funding strategic plan? Sometimes not. But often, they are in a position to start going for bigger team grants, and RD can help them with that. In the new College of Health & Human Services, they have been building faculty-driven micro-research clusters (not top-down) , which can help see these larger projects.

How do faculty get credit in team projects if they are a co-PI? NC A&T has changed the IDC share policy and they now provide credit on their record.

Questioner says they have a lot of initial interest from faculty about pursuing funding opportunities identified in advance, but faculty do not always follow-up. How do you deal with faculty who don’t follow up? From audience: She asks the faculty member, “When do you want me to follow up?” Sends email saying “ping”. Or may, say, “I’m just checking in – is there anything I can help you with?” But still have to expect that some faculty will not follow up.

How does this dovetail with other faculty development activities on campus? They tell faculty, “This is to help you better do the research piece. Talk to us.” They give out cards and make sure the faculty understand that their office is very accessible. In this way, the RD assistance is framed as faculty development and support.

What else from this session should NORDP members know?     

It’s interesting to note that the NC A&T RD office has been very careful to frame this as a service so it’s not seen as coercive. They emphasize a customer service culture.

Advertisements

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: How to write a successful NIH Career Development Award (K award)

How to write a successful NIH Career Development Award (K award)

Presenters:           Mark Roltsch, University of Western Florida

Thanks to session our session note-taker, Burr Zimmerman, Urban Venture Group!

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • There are many different kinds of K awards
    • Some schools support K-awards, some don’t:  K awards require the faculty member have 75% protected time for research
    • Medical Schools – they tend to like K-awards. They are viewed as stepping stone to R01s, and five years of training  should get them there.
    • K progression: Start with T32s or institutional K awards, then ‘real K’s’, then R01
      • The R03 award may only be open to folks who have K awards in that institute
      • The R21 is for exploratory, cutting edge; not necessarily good for junior faculty
    • Types of K awards
      • K01 – basic research
      • K08 – clinical research
      • K23 – patient-oriented research
      • K25 – quantitative research
      • K01  – diversity award / minority serving institution
      • K99/R00 – post doc who is transitioning
        • Walk into job interview with 3 years of funding
        • Don’t have to be US citizen, so lots of applicants
  • Selecting a target institute – faculty should:
    • Match topical area with your mentor’s funding source
    • Email program officer, get feedback (not just topical, but also which mechanism – K01, K23, etc.)
    • Carefully read the PA/RFA to identify participating institutes and their specific topics
    • Engage with NIH staff at the conferences your mentor attends
  • Read the PA/RFA
    • Check dollar amount (for MDs, $100k for 75% of time is a paycut – usually the university or school supplements the salary)
    • The review section is what to emphasize in your application
  • What does it take to get funded?
    • Essential: well-funded primary mentor (if he or she hasn’t mentored before, form a mentoring team)
      • Need to emphasize mentoring experience, NIH funding
      • Mentor needs to be co-located. Across the hall ideal. Across town isn’t great. Across the state doesn’t work.
    • The presenter is from University of West Florida; his own institution wouldn’t ever apply for a K-award – can’t get it.
      • But! Some diversity K awards are possible for smaller institutions.
    • Keys to K award success
      • Time to write a compliant, compelling application
      • Good research idea
      • Quality candidate
      • Qualified mentor
      • Well developed training program
    • Biggest K funders are NHLBI, NIMH, NIDDK
      • NIA funding 40% of K-awards
      • NIGMS funds 85% of K08 awards!

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you? 
K awards can have extremely high funding rates (e.g. NIGMS K08s 86% funded), and average over 30% for entire K spectrum. But the criteria mean only a very small cadre of schools have high success rates

Also, R21s may not be a good mechanism for generating data for your first R01 – they are too competitive and are pooled with experienced researchers. R21’s are highly, highly competitive, and if you’re junior faculty, it might not be a great place to compete, as you don’t get early investigator bonus points.

What resources did you discover at this presentation?
The main resource emphasized was NIH Reporter. Might not be a ‘discovery’, but the presenter emphasized how rich and useful the data are.

Also, FOIA requests are a way to get access to successful applications. Build a library by requesting funded applications. NIH does a better job than some other Federal agencies of providing useful information.

What was the most interesting question asked by an audience member, and what was the presenters’ response?

Different institutes review K awards differently. Funding rates can be very different across K mechanisms. K99 toughest (23%); K23 is 57%, K08 can be nearly 90%.

What else from this session should NORDP members know?  
If you can crack the code (meet all the requirements), K-awards are a great resource. If you can find a nearby, well-funded mentor, then you have a chance!

 

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Metrics Selection Across the Research Lifecycle

Metrics Selection Across the Research Lifecycle

Presenters:

Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, PhD Vice President, Global Academic Relations, Elsevier and Senior Adjunct Instructor, School of Professional Studies, Northwestern University

Andrea Michalek, MS Vice President of Research Metrics, Product Management and Managing Director of Plum Analytics, Elsevier

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • Different researchers have different needs; different metrics throughout research process – input metrics, process metrics, output & outcome metrics – want to understand the societal/economic metric.
  • Different levels of metrics  – There will never be a silver bullet metric – can’t be too dependent on a single metric – can’t take a metric from one level and try to apply it at another level.
  • Metrics that update in real time provide a feedback loop.
  • It can take at least 2-5 years from idea to a published peer-reviewed journal article.  Due to the pace of scholarly publishing, it takes another 3-5 years from the time the work is published to get to critical mass of citation counts. Why wait 5-10 years for this? Can measure much more real time data – slide share presentations – who downloaded, who interacted – preprints, etc.
  • Metrics can show who is reading your article – is it government, industry, academia, etc.

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?

Users in different countries select different metrics. Germany is most interested in collaboration metrics. The US is still very traditional with its publications emphasis.

What resources did you discover at this presentation?

SciVal Solutions; PlumX.

What was the most interesting question asked by an audience member, and what was the presenters’ response?

Q:  What about team science/interdisciplinary metrics?

A:  Universities need to expand their thinking of what counts as scholarly output and the metrics associated with them. There are new schemas in thinking about collaboratorship vs. authorship. Not all collaborators make authorship. How do you measure collaborations? Needs to be more research out there on metrics.

Q: What metrics can I use to measure so that it doesn’t take over my life?

A: Many tools available. Depends on what you need most and what will best fit your institutional needs.

 

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Engaging the Arts & Humanities in Extramural and Collaborative Research

Engaging the Arts & Humanities in Extramural and Collaborative Research

Presenters: Kim Patten, Assist. Director, Research Development Services (RDS), University of Arizona
Kim Nicolini, Assoc. for Arts, Humanities, & Social Sciences, RDS, University of Arizona

Thanks to our session note-taker, Melinda Laroco Boehm!

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • Frame your research into “fundable ideas.”
  • Help Social Science and Humanities faculty look beyond thinking about “their books” and “their tenure”. Help them take their comprehensive research ideas and apply for funding in “bite-sized chunks.”
  • When packaging Social Science and Humanities research in terms of extramural funding, “time to write your book” is not a fundable concept. Strategize with the faculty members to find fundable concepts within their books and help in deciphering the real life applications that can come from their research.
  • Start to think about museums as more than just places to go see exhibits. Connect Social Science and Humanities faculty to a broader spectrum, as there is not an entity on campus that could NOT use a museum for their research. Examples may include:
    • Example for Humanities? Meeting with the archivist
    • Example: refugee cities, poetry, children to use art for feelings, then art exhibit
    • Example: public engagement
  • Leverage your campus’ resources to be creative for funding in the Social Sciences and Humanities. Look for atypical sources for funding opportunities, e.g. International support office/study abroad office

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?          

Fun fact: their campus’ first NEA grant assisted by their RDS office was from the College of Medicine.

What resources did you discover at this presentation? Examples: a website, database or software tool. We’ll link to resources on the blog.          

AEHN: Arts Engagement Humanities Network

What was the most interesting question asked by an audience member, and what was the presenter(s)’ response?          

Suggestion from the audience that discussed how to get Arts and Humanities to focus on their proposal getting trajectories: Ask them the gold watch question: “How do you want to be talked about when you retire? What do you want your legacy to be?” They will be able to tell you their path, and you can find funding that translates to what they want their legacy to be.

What else from this session should NORDP members know?        

Keep a spreadsheet of faculty and their areas of research, and take time to find the connections in an effort to form collaborative teams that go for the larger multi|inter|trans-disciplinary proposals.

GENERAL NOTES TAKEN DURING SESSION

  • Interactive session
  • They come from a large institution, so take the information and use accordingly
  • Centralized office: 3200 people
    • 500 faculty in 3 colleges that make up SS and Humanities
    • They have an Associate VP for Research in Arts, Humanities, and Society
    • Extended their seed funding for specific tracks
  • Added staff to support this college, institutions, and museums
    • One person coordinates these colleges (3) in SS and Humanities (new to this position, only 1.5 years old)
  • Fun fact: their first NEA grant RDS assisted with was from the College of Medicine

Early Career Researchers

  • Be creative in partnerships with Humanities folks
  • Frame research into fundable ideas
  • Ask them “what is your focus” and help them discern how funders will see them
    • Make their ideas relevant and exciting
    • Understand how do they craft a research proposal out of arts and humanities
      • Help them look beyond thinking of “their books” and “their tenure”
      • Help them take their work and apply in “bite-sized chunks” and break it up
        • Difficult with social sciences but can be done

Packaging the Humanities

  • “Time to write your book” is not a fundable concept
  • Find fundable parts within their book [sabbaticals and honorifics]
    • Real life applications
    • How will this impact the human population?
  • Multidisciplinary collaborations
  • External partners
  • Keep a spreadsheet and try to find the connections

Museums as places for “seeing”

  • Museums have to be more than just go see exhibits
    • How do you connect them to the broader spectrum?
    • There is not an entity on campus that could NOT use a museum for their research
      • Example for Humanities? Meeting with the archivist
      • Example: refugee cities, poetry, children to use art for feelings, then art exhibit
      • Example: public engagement
    • Cross the museum with faculty with student engagement à equals working together for a à fundable idea!
  • Ideas
    • Family Day and Meet a Scientist
    • Portal to the Public

Challenges

  • Breaking the tradition; it takes time
  • Understanding the traditional model for getting funding does not look the same anymore
  • Make it applicable
  • Translate their needs to fundable ideas
    • “I need light bulbs!” No, you need specific lighting in order to preserve the documents….etc.

Discussion Topic 1: Challenges

  • Independent brainstorm: Begin completing the challenges section (2 min)
    • Grant getting is so rare and overwhelming that when they do go for large grants, it deters them from trying again.
    • Grantsmanship is not being addressed/motivated by their deans and department chairs
    • From audience:
      • How could you work with large amounts of faculty? (Time management)
      • Working with Humanities faculty, funding rates are low and the grants are extremely What techniques are others using to increase the grant competitiveness?
      • Faculty tell RDs the “let me tell you how it works” in humanities
      • Faculty have no professional development in grantsmanship skills; it’s not what they do
      • Funding is not credited for tenure and promotion
        • No institutional incentive
      • “Us vs Them” mentality with humanities and sciences; they do not want to collaborate
    • Talk to one neighbor: unique, similar? (1 min)
    • Report out to group (6 min)

Discussion Topic 1: Solutions

  • Faculty engagement programs
    • Workshops
      • Homework-have them find funding in Pivot
      • Have them send their potential opps ahead of time, and RDS spends a day sitting down with them and their team to strategize (very successful for their university)
        • Successful consortiums have come out of this
      • Institute-focused programs
      • University initiatives
      • Outcomes: Engage faculty in funding; establish collaborative teams; grow research base and campus connectivity
      • Encourage them: get them applying for smaller ones to get the ball rolling and create momentum
      • Get faculty to cross-talk to other disciplines

Campus community interaction

  • Serve on strategic planning committees
  • Hiring committees
  • Internal funding review committees
  • Becoming part of the community

Leverage campus resources

  • International support office/study abroad office
  • Teaching support center
  • Scientists
    • from Arizona: Arts Engagement Humanities Network (AEHN)
  • Limited submissions
  • Foundation
  • Sponsored projects
  • If you show enthusiasm for them, they will become excited.

Discussion Topic 2: Solutions

  • Independent brainstorm: what are solutions that might work on your campus? (2 min)
  • Talk to your other neighbor (2 min)
  • Report to group (6 min)
  • If you show enthusiasm for them, they will become excited.

Discussion Topic 2: Solutions from group | Summary | Q & A

  • Culture of Research Excellence for Faculty Fellowships (competition)
    • Course release
    • Collaborations have arisen just for being in that fellowship
    • More senior faculty (old and crusties)
      • Have not been expected to go for funding
      • Ask them the gold watch question? How do you want to be talked about when you retire/your legacy?
        • They will be able to tell you their path, then you can go from there
        • Get funding that translates to what they want their legacy to be
      • Sponsored Research Fellows Program
        • Open to any discipline
        • They get paired with an internal mentor, they give them funding for an external reviewer, they get a course release, they work to submit a proposal (the cohort works independently but collaborations can come from that as well)
      • Introduced a Logic Model to the Arts and Sciences folks; it is new to them; it forced them to get clear about their idea (The Ohio State: Kristen Ward’s idea)

 

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Bringing NORDP Home: Building a Community of Research Development Professionals

Bringing NORDP Home: Building a Community of Research Development Professionals

Presenters:
Beth LaPensee, Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research, University of Michigan
Jill Jividen, Office of Research, University of Michigan Medical School

Thanks to our session note-taker!

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • The University of Michigan is a large, decentralized research university. Research development functions are housed in some of the university’s 19 schools and colleges rather than in a central office.
  • Beth and Jill’s interest in sharing research development resources and strategies was sparked at a NORDP dinner. They created a group to share best practices and resources, bring exposure to research development resources and efforts, promote interdisciplinary collaboration, foster faculty research, and increase the quantity and quality of proposals submitted. Central university research leadership was not interested in supporting the group, so they switched to a grassroots approach.
  • They brought together a Research Development Core Team of 16 members representing 12 UM units and a variety of job classifications. It was a challenge at times to identify people who were engaging in research development activities, as well as to convince them that what they were doing was actually research development.
  • The Core Team hosted a free half-day “mini-NORDP” conference in spring 2016, attended by 52 people from 33 different units. Evaluations were good, and proved to be a source of ideas for maintaining momentum throughout the year.
  • Since spring 2016, the group has also hosted a workshop on library involvement in research development, created a moderated listserv, and are collecting university-wide resources and contacts. Over 100 people are now part of the e-mail list for research development news and events.

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?

I was a bit surprised that the mini-conferences featured keynote speakers from outside the university. This makes sense, however – as the saying goes, you are never an expert in your own backyard!

What resources did you discover at this presentation?

I liked the idea of looking to conference and event evaluations as a source of ideas for activities for the coming year.

What was the most interesting question asked by an audience member, and what was the presenters’ response?

A question came up about how to involve research administration staff in research development without losing the distinction between the two in the eyes of high-level leadership. Jill Jividen replied that she often presented research administration and research development as two parts of a Venn diagram. The overlapping center section is faculty success.

What else from this session should NORDP members know?

This is a good model for larger universities with decentralized research development functions.

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Better Together – Joining Forces to Maximize Success

Better Together: Joining Forces to Maximize Success

Presenters:
Brent Burns
Peggy Sundermeyer
Kerry Morris
Eileen Murphy

Thanks to our session note-taker!

Key points from the session. We learned:

  • What National Association of Corporate Relations Organization (NACRO) is and how Research Development staff participation with NACRO can benefit the entire institution.
  • What Corporate Relations can add to Research Development
    1. Work together in a holistic model.
    2. Share resources, co-locate, share administrative support
    3. Companies are spending more money in research & development
    4. Federal funding is decreasing
    5. If we work together, this will move the institution forward
  • How to develop strategies and portfolios for faculty
  • How to bring CR staff to the table at institutions of various sizes
  • Effective ways to share faculty research interests.

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?
Resource sharing is not the norm.  Although we criticize departments and the faculty who operate in silos, administrative offices within the same institution are territorial and operate in silos too.

What resources did you discover at this presentation?
NACROnacrocon.org
The Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers brings together U.S. and international academic corporate relations professionals who are dedicated to providing professional development opportunities and sharing best practices that enable members to develop and advance comprehensive, mutually beneficial relationships with industry and establish common language and metrics for peer comparison. Founded in 2007, NACRO has grown to more than 500 individual members.

CASE – www.case.org/
The Council for Advancement and Support of Education is a professional association serving educational institutions and the advancement professionals who work on their behalf in alumni relations, communications, development, marketing and allied areas. CASE helps its members build stronger relationships with their alumni and donors, raise funds for campus projects, produce recruitment materials, market their institutions to prospective students, diversify the profession, and foster public support of education.

Profile databases used by CR and RD offices:
SalesForce
Raisers Edge (used by development offices)
Financial Edge

Interesting questions:

Q. How do we guide faculty as to who will get the IP credit when faculty and corporations collaborate?

A:  Break the barriers between the Technology Transfer/IP office and the faculty.

The IP office does the negotiations for the faculty.  Faculty should not be negotiating the IP because they tend to give away more than they should.  The IP offices are trained attorneys, and can speak on behalf of the faculty member’s research.

Q: There are many entities within our institution that reach out to corporations, and we are all unaware these contacts are being made. It appears (rightly so) that the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing within the same institution. What do your institutions do to communicate across your institutions of the activity being conducted with corporations?

A:  Michigan Tech Corporate Relations creates an engagement summary and provides this to faculty or leadership who plan to contact corporations.

A: Corporate Relations and Research Development offices need to follow a holistic model – co-locate, share resources and administrative support(especially in decentralized institutions.) There is a slide within the presenters slide deck with details on what the holistic model entails.

 

NORDP 2017 Conference Notes: Leadership Without Authority

This post is the first in a series that capture the take-home points from a variety of sessions presented at the NORDP Annual Meeting in Broomfield, Colorado. 

Leadership Without Authority

Presenters:

Shay D. Stautz, Associate Vice President for National Policy, Arizona State University
Brian C. Ten Eyck, Assistant Dean for Research Development, University of Arizona College of Engineering

Notes written by Susan Lodato.

Key points from the session:

  • No scientific definition of “leadership without authority”
  • “If you lead well, you will not need your rank.” (Developing Leaders: A British Army Guide, p. 74)
  • You need people to WANT to work with you to achieve your goal.
  • Leadership without authority is about engagement, credibility, and cooperation.
  • All relationships should be win-wins.

What did you hear at this presentation that surprised you?

There is a secret to leadership without authority: intentionality.

What resources did you discover at this presentation?
Samuel B. Bacharach. The Agenda Mover: When Your Good Idea is Not Enough. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2016.

Charles Duhigg. Smarter Faster Better: The Transformative Power of Real Productivity. New York: Random House, 2016.

David Goleman. Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. New York: Bantam Dell, 2006.

Sylvia Ann Hewlett. Executive Presence: The Missing Link Between Merit and Success. New York: HarperCollins, 2014.

Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Developing Leaders: A British Army Guide. 2014

What was the most interesting question asked by an audience member, and what was the response?

Comment: We must remember that there is a cultural aspect to leadership. Presenter: Absolutely. You need to understand the audience with whom you are about to engage.

Question: You discussed the importance of choosing your team carefully. What if you cannot pick team members? Presenter: Even if the leader is unable to pick his or her team, the leader must establish the norms of the group and determine the rules for interaction and trust-building.

What else from this session should NORDP members know?

Leadership Without Authority is leadership that you exert on your own without the traditional hierarchical support systems of your institution. It is leadership in an area outside of your job description, strengths, background, etc.

Leadership needs to be applied to getting something done. It’s about doing things. Why should people work with you?

  1. You need to ask them.
  2. You need to have a mission – a broader one for your unit or institution.
  3. You need to have credibility. Elements of credibility:
    1. Sound judgment
    2. Presence
    3. Integrity
    4. Competence
    5. Emotional intelligence

The Virtuous LWA Cycle

  1. Establish credibility
  2. Build and nurture alliances on a systematic basis through continuous, systematic professional activities (meeting/working with people outside of your unit)
  3. Establish the public good that you want to accomplish (this public good often comes from these relationships)
  4. Build your team
  5. Deliver!

Leading Teams

  1. Establish psychological safety for teams
  2. All team members speak and contribute