|
St. Louis Post-Dispatch Martin Van Der Werf column
(St. Louis Post-Dispatch (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Feb. 17--HEAD OF SIGMA-ALDRICH HAS GROWN WITH THE COMPANY: Sigma-Aldrich Corp. is the world's largest supplier of research biochemicals and organic chemicals and test kits. Its headquarters are in midtown, near Harris-Stowe State University. Yet, the company is unknown to many St. Louisans.
The new president and chief executive, Jai Nagarkatti, seemingly fits the mold. Soft-spoken and unassuming, he has never worked anywhere but Sigma-Aldrich.
Born in India but now a U.S. citizen, he began as a scientist, went on to lead the fine chemicals division and joined senior management.
But, slowly, quietly, he has been remaking the company. He led a team that recommended it be split into four divisions. He emphasized Internet sales and poured resources into emerging markets. The company also has begun investing in small startups, licensing technology and acquiring companies involved in gene therapy and stem cell research.
QUESTON: It's unusual for a person to start as a lab scientist and eventually become head of the company.
ANSWER: First of all, I believe it's a strength of Sigma-Aldrich that that can happen.
When you come to this place, you just immediately get overwhelmed with the sheer number of products that the company makes. We make almost 50,000 of the 90,000 products that we sell. . . . I don't think there's any other company in the world that makes that many.
As you start getting engaged in this process, you come in contact with a lot of other people within the organization who are employed in other functions, like quality control or (research and development). You learn how to deal with people of different levels of understanding. I think that is the foundation on which people build their management skills. . . . After all, what is management? Management is common sense.
Q: What is the thinking behind increased spending on startup companies and licensing?
A: You don't want to go and place a huge bet on something that is not proven. But if you license technology, you're placing a small bet. And you're able to spend your resources placing many such small bets and hoping that some of them grow.
Q: This company has been pretty conservative. Your new strategy sounds riskier.
A: We are beginning to take some risk. I would still call it prudent risk. We are not going to go pay an unusually high multiple when we are doing an acquisition, because we think an acquisition should be accretive, or quickly start contributing to the bottom line.
Q: Has the company always been in St. Louis?
A: No. Sigma originated in St. Louis, and Aldrich started in Milwaukee. Sigma did mostly what we would call biochemicals, which were extractions, isolation and purification, and from living organisms like plants and animals. And the Aldrich part of the operation built the molecules from other materials.
Q: When did they come together?
A: 1975.
Q: How does St. Louis stack up as a place to run an international corporation?
A: We are very fortunate that we work in communities where the work ethic of the people is really strong; the commitment to the company is, I think, fantastic. That is, in itself, the biggest hurdle that many of the companies that operate in other parts of the country have to face.
I think we can get products from here to any part of the world within a week to 10 days.
Q: How about airline service?
A: The only hardship is for the people who travel internationally. It used to be it was one quick jump traveling from St. Louis, connecting to Europe.
Q: Does Sigma-Aldrich not call attention to itself because of the nature of its products?
A: We are supporting local community activities, whether it's the Science Center or the Symphony or the Art Museum. Certainly we are not flamboyant.
But one real good test of how well your company is known is when we have some good positions that open up, we don't have to advertise them. We get a lot of people who know about us, and we get these people applying to us.
Q: Are you concerned about the level of science education in this country?
A: I don't think we do enough. If you take a look and see all the advances in science, in the quality of life today, whether it is improving the weaves of cloth or making a fabric stain-resistant or finding some cholesterol-lowering drug, these are all the result of research. We need to emphasize the importance of that work.
If it is the system of education that turns younger kids off of science; that's a concern. And I think, long-term, we have to change that.
Q: Are there cultural differences that compel students in a place such as India to study science in greater numbers than in the United States?
A: I think it has everything to do with competition. In places like India and China, there are so many people that it's really a competition to survive. When (students) go to colleges, they tend to gravitate toward programs based on the best opportunities for them to get employment after they graduate.
On the other hand, if you take a look at countries that are much more advanced, then you can say that the education is much more broad-based. I think there may be tremendous scientists coming out of India or China . . . but if you look at the broad-based knowledge of art, literature, history, etc., (they) would not be at the same level as a kid graduating from a high school here in the U.S.
So there are trade-offs. If you'd like to have a better-rounded, overall knowledge, I think I would say that systems generally here prepare people for that. And I think that then we go to the next level with the (U.S.) kids who choose to go to college and then pursue a science degree, I think I'd say that they're as good or better than any of the counterparts anywhere in the world. Look at the Nobel Prize winners that come out of the U.S. education system every year. They far outnumber any (other) part of the world.
[ Back To TMCnet.com's Homepage ]
|