Diversity of Thought - a Key Ingredient for Regulatory Success

Diversity. It is a topic currently permeating the media, ranging from countless debates sparked by the "binder full of women" comment in the 2012 presidential debate, Sheryl Sandberg's book encouraging women to "lean in," to the recent Coca Cola "It's beautiful" television commercial aired during the Super Bowl that presented people of various ethnic backgrounds singing "America the Beautiful" in their native languages.^1,2,3 From the media, despite some negative sentiments here and there, it appears America is widely accepting diversity. This includes many corporations (including pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device companies) that have spearheaded initiatives in support of diversity and inclusion, especially with respect to gender and ethnicities, to ensure fair and equal treatment of employees as well as corporate success. As evidence, a simple internet search for "diversity and inclusion" results in innumerable corporate websites presenting diversity policies. However, true diversity goes beyond aspects that are superficially apparent, beyond gender and ethnicity, to the distinct ways in which people inherently think.

Regulatory is a field that is continuously at the forefront of the healthcare product industry, pushing companies and healthcare ahead with new drug approvals and innovations. Halley Bock, author of "Why you need diversity of thought," recommends that organizations evaluate the opportunities for diversity and ensure it is exists for "high-stakes decisions such as an opportunity to evaluate a new market, design a new strategy, launch a product idea, find a solution to a recurring issue or any decision that impacts more than one function all can be earmarked as decisions that would benefit from diverse input."⁴ Case in point, due to the cerebral nature of the regulatory field, to stay at the cutting edge, regulatory must embrace diversity of thought, which encompasses different personalities and thought processes, talents, credentials and disciplines.

Not only embrace diversity of thought, but there is also an abundance of evidence suggesting there is a positive correlation between diversity of thought and overall corporate success.⁵ While researching this topic, I came across a multitude of arguments in support of corporate diversity of thought; provided below are arguments that I, as a regulatory employer and employee, find to be most compelling and relevant to the regulatory field.

Dynamic Regulatory Environments Require a Range and Balance of Personalities

All too often, when we examine the makeup of personalities in departments, the constituents almost appear to be clones of one another. This makes sense as most scientists know, like attracts like, and it is human nature to choose individuals with whom we can relate and feel most comfortable. However, while this is a scientific norm, it may not be the ideal strategy for building a team capable of addressing a dynamic regulatory environment; instead, it may be a recipe for stagnancy. Based on findings from case studies and mathematical modeling, mathematician Scott E. Page has proven that teams consisting of strong diverse individuals generally outperform teams of extraordinary individuals with similar perspectives and therefore, has concluded that "diversity trumps ability."⁶

This is the reason the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator^(R) recently has gained popularity for corporate team-building events. The indicator is composed of a lengthy personality exam that stratifies people into 16 distinct personality types based on perception, judgment, energy orientation and extraverted orientation. Without going too deeply into the details, Myers-Briggs experts essentially assert that consistent with different personality types, individuals bring distinct communication styles and thought processes that can lead to conflict; however, if personalities are balanced appropriately and proactive steps are taken to bridge communication gaps, extremely effective teams may be the result.⁷

For instance, as a classic ENFJ (extraversion, intuition, feeling, judgment), I think in starbursts rather than linearly. In a former regulatory role, I was paired with a purely linear thinker to work on a high visibility project. This combination of oil and water had the potential to be a disastrous partnership; however, we both approached the table with an appreciation for the other's talents and the ability to temper our own shortcomings; this individual helped me to ground my ideas and organize them logically, and I was able to help her consider new possibilities. Together, we proved to be an extremely effective team. Had I been paired with an individual too like myself, we may have persisted in thinking big picture and been unable to put our ideas into action. I share this example to stress that it is paramount to have various personalities on a team, which naturally, may lead to tension, but these challenges may be necessary to reach a higher standard. Susan Woods sums this up nicely, "the substantive body of academic research on the performance of diverse teams documents that homogenous teams get to work more easily and more quickly but when diverse teams learn to work together, the outcomes are superior....The potential for misunderstanding and conflict is heightened, necessitating attention to interpersonal skills, relationship building and culture change. Along with this, however, greater diversity brings increased potential for innovative solution finding and enhanced performance."⁸

In addition to having a range of personalities to challenge and bring out the best in one another, an additional advantage to employing diverse personalities is the ability for balanced groups to adapt to a dynamic environment. Those who work in regulatory understand that the regulatory landscape changes continuously depending on public health needs, various disease states and administration-anecdotally, even a change in the presidential political party has been known to impact the regulatory environment. So how does a regulatory team ensure it is able to bend with the changing times? Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, asserts the following: "The good-to-great leaders understood three simple truths. First, if you begin with 'who,' rather than 'what,' you can more easily adapt to a changing world. If people join the bus primarily because of where it is going, what happens if you get then miles down the road and you need to change direction? You've got a problem."⁹ This suggests that for a regulatory team to be ready to address changing times, employers should focus not only on the technical skills necessary for the task at hand, but arm teams with a range of thinking styles that can take the reins and steer the team in appropriate directions as necessary.

Along the same lines, when interviewing for regulatory positions, prospective employees should be transparent about their thinking styles and help the employer understand how their personality types can help the team. In addition, prospective employees should share how they can partner and work with different personality types.

Regulatory Inspirations Can Come From Non-Regulatory Disciplines

A hallmark of the television show, House, M.D., is the main character played by Hugh Laurie reaching extraordinary medical epiphanies while performing completely non-medical activities such as riding a motorcycle, trying to trap a mouse or playing the piano.¹⁰ The writers of the show may have been on to something as there are numerous reports of certain industries adopting solutions of or learning from analogous situations of completely different industries.¹¹

This begs the question, how can regulatory teams benefit from learnings from non-healthcare industries? Perhaps an individual with a finance background can help a regulatory team quantify the risks and benefits of regulatory strategies and a trained athlete can apply knowledge of game strategies and plays to help build a plan for health authority negotiations. Could a skilled performer (e.g., dancer or orator) apply the stage knowledge that "the show must go on" and, accustomed to improvising, not skip a beat when technical difficulties occur during a regulatory agency presentation? Also, perhaps an individual with a communications background can steer the regulatory team in the appropriate direction in case of a regulatory crisis such as a manufacturing issue, while an artist can help a marketing team determine how to promote creatively with branding colors compliant with promotional regulations. Studies suggest there is a correlation between musical training and increased IQs, spatial-temporal skills and language development.¹² Could these assets be useful in regulatory? Each of these presents a real example I have encountered in my years in regulatory that has opened my eyes to how experience in non-regulatory disciplines can be extremely valuable for regulatory success. As a musician myself, I occasionally have found solutions to leadership issues by watching a conductor direct an orchestra of various instruments to make distinct sounds that come together beautifully as one complete piece.

This is not to say individuals in regulatory do not require technical skills to help a regulatory team succeed. Rather, technical skills (e.g., RAC certification, PharmDs, PhDs, to name a few) serve as the necessary base of the regulatory pyramid upon which to build with additional talents and experiences from other disciplines, with regulatory success existing at the pinnacle. Therefore, once technical and scientific fluency is established, regulatory employers should seek to learn what other skills their employees may be able to offer and create environments and opportunities to harness them. On the topic of organizational success, two authors on the Harvard Business Review (HBR) Blog Network make a case for hiring "outlier" employees and suggest that "if you adjust work conditions appropriately, you can activate people's hidden talents...by bringing out the best in people who think differently, you position your company for greater advantage."¹³

Taking this into consideration, when evaluating existing and potential employees, regulatory employers should keep in mind that outside experiences sometimes can lead to greater regulatory ideas with solutions from different industries. It may be beneficial for regulatory employers to ask questions about what other interests, talents and passions individuals have and brainstorm what learning they can apply from those experiences to their regulatory careers. Analogously, prospective employees should showcase their unique talents and explain how these experiences may influence their regulatory thinking beneficially. In a competitive field with innumerable technically qualified individuals, prospective employees need to demonstrate and illustrate how their abilities stand out and can help a regulatory team succeed.

Common Goal of Patient-Care Can Unite Diversity of Thought

With so many different personalities, thought processes and valuable talents with which to work, regulatory employers may contemplate how to activate them all to work toward a common regulatory goal. Fred Hassan, a former chairman and CEO of Schering-Plough Corporation, touched on this in his book, Reinvent, when he stated, "The best innovation comes from creating a dynamic culture by taking disciplined risks, assembling people with different skills and ideas around a common dream, and curbing individual egos in favor of the collective team."¹⁴ If a common dream is necessary for diversity of thoughts to come together, there are few dreams stronger than the improvement of public health and patient care with the utmost focus on patient safety; this goal is inherent in regulatory departments, particularly those of pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device companies.

While this goal is the cornerstone of regulatory, it may be necessary for employers to periodically remind teams what they are working for through team discussions, team-building events and, potentially, even interactions with the patient advocates and those whom their work is directly affecting. In addition, when considering potential employees, it may be helpful to ask questions regarding ethics and patient care to determine whether the individual's outlook and goals are aligned with those of the regulatory department. Similarly, it may be helpful for prospective employees to illustrate how their thought-processes, abilities and experiences can help further the respective regulatory department in a manner compliant with regulations and in support of patient care.

Diversity is Here to Stay-Embrace it

Scientifically thinking, it is a logical assumption that similar people with similar thoughts and abilities will produce similar results; however, to activate regulatory groups to break through stagnancy and efficacy plateaus, embracing diversity of thought is warranted. Employing a more diverse regulatory team may lead to innovative ideas, richer discussions and creative solutions. Therefore, employers should not be reluctant to consider prospective employees different from themselves and their teams; this diversity may be exactly what they need to move the team forward. Also, interviewees should not be afraid to showcase their unique talents and thought-processes and explain how they can help further regulatory's goals.

As regulatory professionals, let us not shy away from diversity; let us learn from the experiences of the presidential campaign, Sheryl Sandberg's plea for fairness and Coca-Cola's initiative for awareness and how they are attempting to improve our society. Let us take diversity one step further with diversity of thought and arm regulatory departments with diverse teams ready to further public health.

References

1. Cardona M. Romney's empty binder full of women. CNN. CNN website. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/opinion/cardona-binders-women/. Accessed 12 February 2014.
2. Sandberg S. Lean in. Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. 2013.
3. Poniewozik J. "Coca-Cola's "It's beautiful" Super-Bowl Ad." Time. Time Entertainment website. http://entertainment.time.com/2014/02/02/coca-colas-its-beautiful-super-bowl-ad-brings-out-some-ugly-americans/. Accessed 12 February 2014.
4. Bock H. "Why you Need Diversity of Thought." Diversity Executive. Diversity Executive website. http://diversity-executive.com/articles/view/why-you-need-diversity-of-thought/. Accessed 15 January 2014.
5. Woods S. Thinking about diversity of thought. Henderson Woods, LLC. 2008. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=workingpapers. Accessed 18 February 2014.
6. Ibid.
7. MBTI. www.personalitypathways.com/MBTI_intro.html. PersonalityProfiles website. Accessed 15 January 2014.
8. Op cit 5.
9. Collins J. Good to Great. Harper Collins. New York. 2001.
10. House television series. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_%28TV_series%29. Accessed 12 February 2014.
11. "What the healthcare industry can learn from the financial services industry - an exclusive interview with Pitney Bowes Software's Christine Durr." Loyalty 360 website.  http://loyalty360.org/loyalty-today/article/what-the-healthcare-industry-can-learn-from-the-financial-services-industry. Accessed 12 February 2014.
12. Bhanoo S. "Long-Term Benefits of Music Lessons." The New York Times. The New York Times website. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/science/long-term-benefits-of-music-lessons.html?_r=0. Accessed 12 February 2014.
13. Auston RD and Thorkil S. The case for hiring "outlier" employees. HBR Blog Network. http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/the-case-for-hiring-outlier-employees/. Accessed 15 January 2014.
14. Hassan, F. Reinvent; a leader's playbook for serial success. Josey Bass. Hoboken, NJ. 2013. page 83.

About the Author

Moulakshi Roychowdhury, PharmD, JD, is the director of Global Advertising & Labeling, Regulatory Affairs at Forest Laboratories. She has also worked in similar capacities, advising companies on promotional compliance with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, at Biogen Idec, Genzyme Corp. and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. She can be reached at [email protected]

Cite as: Roychowdhury M. "Diversity of Thought--a Key Ingredient for Regulatory Success." Regulatory Focus. February 2014. Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society.