The scientist, the engineer and the marketer. Fact or friction?

The sales police. Conservative. Risk averse. Difficult. Unambitious. Deliberately difficult. Obstructive. Too complicated. Sound familiar?

Unfortunately they're all terms I've heard commercial colleagues use to describe the “technical people and teams” behind some amazing innovations.

Put a group of scientists, engineers, clinicians or other technical specialists in a room with a marketing or other commercial team and, despite everyone ultimately wanting broadly the same thing (more on this later), the conversation can sometimes be surprisingly difficult.

Perceptions work both ways of course, as do the personal labels. Aggressive. Oversimplified. Moving too quickly. Ignoring important caveats. Snake oil. We've all heard and thought it.

So why do technical people and commercial teams sometimes struggle to understand each other and are those perceptions ever deserved?

In my experience the main inhibitors of harmonious co-creation and mutual respect are a genuine difference in personality types, a lack of clarity in priorities and goals, and sometimes a conflicting reward mechanism which may be real or perceived (speed vs sales vs quality for example). The result is a group of people speaking different languages, doing tasks not everyone understands in order to reach a variety of individual goals that feel good instead of a shared one that everyone finds truly motivating.

Scientist: Is it true?

Engineer: Will it work?

Clinician: Is it safe and appropriate?

Regulator: Can we substantiate it?

Marketer: Do consumers care? Why can't we just get on and do it like those folks over there do?

Every one of those is a legitimate question and perspective in isolation, but in most instances they're competing rather than combining for good.

Technical expertise develops through depth, precision and an appreciation of complexity. The more expert you become, the more you understand the caveats, uncertainties and exceptions.

That is enormously valuable.

But organisations also have to make decisions.

They have to communicate complicated ideas simply. They have to understand consumers and customers. They have to make choices with incomplete information. And sometimes they have to move before every uncertainty has been resolved.

That creates an interesting challenge for technical people as our careers develop.

Early in our careers, our value can be heavily determined by what we know. Expertise.

As we become more senior (and arguably now even at more junior levels), what increasingly matters is our ability to make that knowledge useful to other people. To get a point across constructively. I recommend seeing that as a superpower you need to hone. It's a real point of difference.

Can we comfortably explain something complex simply without making it sound too simplistic? After all our perceived value lies in our deep technical knowledge and we want to share it, right? It's not easy and needs practice.

Can we understand what matters to someone who doesn't share our technical background?

Can we distinguish between a caveat that genuinely changes a decision and one that simply demonstrates our expertise?

Can we make a recommendation when the evidence is incomplete?

Can we influence people over whom we have no authority?

And can we understand the commercial and organisational context in which our expertise is being used?

These aren't just “soft skills”. They are the critical capabilities that determine whether expertise remains expertise — or becomes impact. Some of the differences between bright and brilliant.

And I don't think the answer is to make technical people less technical or impactful.

Quite the opposite.

Organisations invest enormous amounts in finding and developing brilliant scientists, engineers, clinicians and other specialists. Their technical depth is precisely what makes them valuable. Some of the brightest people in organisations have extraordinary knowledge but have never really been taught how to maximise its impact. It can sometimes be a bit bullish. We've all seen it.

That represents an enormous amount of untapped value.

The question isn't simply “Why don't technical people have commercial acumen”. Sure, there are absolutely capabilities, techniques and behaviours that technical colleagues need to learn and hone. I've built my career and now a business on it.

Perhaps the bigger question is:

“Do we have the necessary cross functional culture and capabilities to share expertise and know-how effortlessly across functions, disciplines and seniority. And do we have compelling goals and an authentic vision that appeals to all our people? Because that's when the magic happens. Belief, trust, alignment and engagement in a common goal.

This is why one key part of my approach is always to define a goal that motivates each and every one of the team. Build it together and write it down. Functions shouldn't be fighting over goals and outcomes. It's not just cost, speed, scientific robustness, safety, performance, quality or margin. It's probably all of them - combined.

Misaligned and conflicting, with no co-creation:

Marketing: A kick ass campaign the markets like, to beat the competition's latest claim.

Sales: Actionable now. Like this week, to drive volumes.

Medical Affairs: Solid, balanced clinical data from our meta analysis.

Legal: Defensible and risk free.

Aligned, co-created. Clear and compelling to all:

“What: A scientifically insightful and robust marketing campaign, created in an agreed fast turnaround timeframe, based on the results of our thorough clinical meta analysis

Why: To clarify our superiority to consumers given our competitor's new positioning, ensuring as many of them as possible get access to our most effective product , in turn generating revenues to reinvest in our portfolio and drive our business forwards.”

I reckon that would remove some of the friction for starters.

I'd be interested to hear where others have seen the magic of true co-creation happen. What creates disconnect between technical and commercial teams? And what is one of your favourite catalysts of closer collaboration and respect?