I know of a sitting provost who has published a multitude of books in his field and continues to do so, at a blistering pace. I know of an NIH director, who, during his entire successful tenure, maintained a very active lab and research group. I know of a medical school department chair, who is as immersed in signal transduction data (from his own laboratory) as I was as a young post doc.
Successful science administrators are very often active in their research groups, if not the actual lab bench. Why is that? The skills of science administration, at first analysis, while requiring perhaps some understanding of science (and the relevant fields for the job) do not seem to overlap with those of a working scientist.
However, I suspect that maintaining an active research program enhances one’s credibility with the scientists who are being managed. I also think that being active in research may facilitate the “walking around” component of leadership (i.e. informal meetings outside of the director’s office) because conversations can at least start off in the enjoyable domain of science before per chance evolving into more stodgy domains such as space utilization.
About that NIH director: we may have disagreed with his decisions about our lives on campus, but we all grudgingly gave him his dues as a top notch scientist.
Jim
Discoverers and Discoveries 