Relationship is one of those English words that has many uses. It can describe anything from a marriage to a distant LinkedIn connection. But life sciences strategy experts have learned that, in their working context, a strong relationship means ‘high trust under discretionary conditions’, so it’s worth exploring what that means.
   
One of the exceptional characteristics of our industry is that it employs a high proportion of educated people to do specialised tasks. A corollary of this is that their work is highly discretionary, in the sense that exactly how and when it is done is decided by the person doing it. In contrast to a production line worker, for example, the work of a medical affairs manager or a market access director cannot be controlled by unalterable instructions and pervasive metrics. This means that working relationships have to work in this high-discretion environment.
   
Equally, trust is an ambiguous word in common usage, with connotations of unsubstantiated faith. But in the context of working relationships, strategy experts have learned that trust has a harder, more precise meaning. It is best defined as a strong belief, held equally between two people, that their values are aligned and that neither of their goals can be without the other. In contrast to blind faith, trust works on the assumption that selfishness, or at least self-interested altruism, will ensure cooperation.

So for strategy experts, especially in the life sciences industry, a good relationship isn’t simply a friendly camaraderie with their coworkers.

It is the building of ‘high trust under discretionary conditions’; the strong belief that they will work together cooperatively. Redefining the concept of relationships in this way is the foundation of managing relationships up, down and across the organisation.

Relating upwards – that is, building trust with those above you in the organisation – is essential for strategy experts. From above flow the resources needed to make and execute strategy. These include the tangible – such as money and people – and the intangible, such as authority and legitimacy. A weak upward relationship strategising almost impossible.

Strategy experts achieve trust between themselves and their superiors by first making sure they understand very clearly what those above them want. Then they demonstrate and convince their leaders that they are the necessary to those goals. Neither requirement is straightforward. Leaders’ espoused goals (commercial objectives for example) often hide tacit goals (such as changing company culture). Sometimes, explicit corporate goals are less important to leaders than implicit personal goals, such as their reputation in the company. The strategy experts’ task, therefore, begins with probing and inferring the full richness of their leaders’ goals, spoken and otherwise.

The second requirement for upward trust – convincing leaders that their interests are best served by allowing the strategy expert to operate – is equally skilled and subtle. It has two component parts. The first is to remove fear of failure, which otherwise undermines leaders’ confidence in the strategist. Key to this is to manage the leaders’ feeling of control by, for example keeping them informed and avoiding surprises. The second is to elicit a feeling of confidence. Strategy experts often achieve this by making their strategy process transparent, sometimes illustrating it graphically. This combination of lack of fear and confidence builds trust between a strategy expert and those from whom they take their objectives.

Relating downwards means building trust with those involved in strategy making and execution who are lower down the organisational hierarchy. These are the people who feed essential information into the strategy process and do the work to make the strategy happen. In our industry especially, they usually have no direct reporting line to the strategy expert. Consequently, a weak downward relationship is often more pernicious because it is invisible.

Strategy experts achieve discretionary trust with their direct and indirect subordinates by managing their commitment to the strategy and therefore, indirectly, to the strategists. Many use ideas deriving from psychologist Victor Vroom’s expectancy theory. This recognises that when asked to support the work of the strategy expert, subordinates do a mental calculation involving three variables (see box 1).

To build downward trust, strategy experts try to manage all three variables. First, they manage expectancy by making clear what the strategy requires and raising the individuals’ self-efficacy (the self-belief that they are capable). Sometimes, this requires training. In other cases, storytelling that equates current challenges to past successes is an effective tool. In any case, strategy experts know that the front line only truly commits to what it thinks it can do. Second, they manage instrumentality by emphasising the individuals’ roles in the strategy. Typically, this involves explaining how the individuals and their departments fit into the wider plan. Often, this means illuminating the hidden links between mundane, behind the scenes work and the more glamourous, visible tasks. As we all know, when we feel significant, we act as if we were significant.

Finally, they manage valance by creating emotional connections to the outcomes of the strategy. In our industry, this is the role of mission statements and patient stories. It is also why strategists play down commercial objectives such as share price and ROI, as they are less motivating to most strategy implementers. Especially in an industry that saves, extends and improves lives, caring about the outcome is a powerful connection to the strategy.

Importantly, these three variables are all necessary but none sufficient. Failure to manage either expectancy, instrumentality or valence can lead to weak downward relationships.