8/12/2019 The Disconnect Between Supply and Demand in Science

1/2

The Disconnect Between Supply and Demand in Science & Engineering

A Reply to Michael S. Teitelbaum

On The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage

Thanks to Michael S. Teitelbaum for this reporting. Its about time someone started bringing dataand science to bear on this question of shortages in S&E. Data tell us a couple of things, on twodifferent levels. First, and most directly, to what extent and in what way is there evidence for oragainst our claims? Second, at a higher level of analysis, to what extent and in what way do thedata suggest that we should revise or refine our claims? Mr. Teitebaum's reporting makes animportant contribution to the first question, and it is sufficiently broad and deep to stimulateedifying commentary and contribution from other sources. Thus, I will address the secondquestion that generally, I believe, is relatively neglected in the discussion about putative S&Eshortages.

The focus of Mr. Teilelbaum's clear and insightful analysis is the relationship between claimed

shortages (e.g., as suggested by test-based measures of S&E competencies or headcounts acrossdifferent countries) and the actual number of jobs or job openings and the salaries they command(presumably reflections of demand). His analysis strongly suggests that claims about S&Eshortages are wrong and that such assumptions are invalid. So, as in science generally, we shouldask whether there is some modification of the claim that pulls the dialog further, that begs for adeeper layer of dialectic? Maybe, maybe not, but I will suggest one.

What if there are latent opportunities for S&E to satisfy needs on the demand side that are notexplicitly about S&E, that is, opportunities that would manifest as supply-side offerings that don'tdeliver S&E, per se, to consumers? What if consumers wanted a product or service that is outsidethe portfolio of a company's current offerings? And what if that need is something that influencesthe experience that customers have (or could have) with the products or services currently offered

by that company? A customer-centric strategy suggests that the company, to the extent possibleand reasonable, should be agnostic with respect to the solutions it provides to its customers. Myassumption in revising the claim about S&E shortages is that S&E can help translate those needsinto new solutions that can be developed by the company, and it can help realize particularofferings that embody those solutions.

My revised claim is that employers don't fully understand what S&E can do beyond what italready is doing in their own company or perhaps in other companies. The shortage then is theunderstanding of employers about the potential of S&E and the potential of particular scientistsand engineers. The latter is especially important because it also requires that employersunderstand that the capabilities scientists and engineers eventually can bring to a company will bedifferent from the details of their training and education or attendant subject matter expertise.

This is an important consideration because the culture and mindset of S&E is more aboutcontinual learning and self-development than it is about momentary mastery of some subjectmatter.

So maybe there currently aren't as many S&E jobs as we assume there should be becauseemployers don't fully understand what they need from S&E and how it corresponds with the moreexplicit demand on which their companies owe their very existence. The implication is that thereare widespread gaps and shortcomings in recruitment, selection, assessment, and training of S&Etalent. How can people without broad experience in S&E be expected to understand the potential

8/12/2019 The Disconnect Between Supply and Demand in Science

2/2

of S&E? This is compounded by the generally accepted problems with human capitaldevelopment in business; for example, guiding employees into their zone of proximaldevelopment and growing leaders from within (or even just retaining high potentialemployees).

Here is where it gets a bit tricky. How do we close the implied gap between S&E supply anddemand? We have something of a chicken-and-egg problem. The solution, I believe, is collectiveintelligence in development of individuals and organizations. In particular, there needs to be acollaborative vision among S&E leaders and business leaders for development of S&E talent. Itshould be noted that S&E leaders will gain from this collaboration as much as business leaders.There is no reason to believe that S&E professionals, by themselves, will understand thedevelopment potential of S&E talent with respect to the needs of business or the markets theyserve. Most S&E professionals are even averse to the notion of selling which, of course,depends critically on understanding demand and communication across cultures.

I believe the most important competency S&E leaders can bring to business is the mindset andexperience of education in doctoral programs (as opposed to undergraduate education). This is amindset of sponsorship : long-term relationships and commitments between superiors andsubordinates in which they are accountable for initiative in taking risks on behalf of each other.Perhaps at best, business can be a kind of post-doctoral training and education that is at least asvaluable and more strategic than what occurs in academe. As in the best doctoral or post-doctoralprograms, superiors learn and develop as much as subordinates. I believe this is the only way tosolve the disconnnect between S&E supply and demand (my conjecture).

Finally, my revised claim begs the question of what sort of evidence can help us falsify, partiallyverify, or further refine this claim. I would be interested to hear what others have to say about thisbecause, to date, my focus has been simply trying to generate a conversation about this claim. Myguess is that one source of evidence would be in case studies of companies that are noted forhaving conducted successful strategic campaigns in open innovation .

!"#$ &' ()**)+, -.'/' 012#)3 45678