Early in my career as a principal investigator, I noticed a recurring pattern in my lab. When an experiment failed, trainees often waited for guidance, for permission, or for a decision. At first, this hesitation appeared to be inexperience. Over time, it became clear that it reflected something deeper in how scientific training frames leadership.
Leadership in academia is often treated as something that begins after earning a PhD, completing postdoctoral training, securing a faculty position, or becoming a manager. Until then, trainees are typically framed as learners rather than leaders. This framing misses a central truth:
Research is one of the most leadership-intensive professions, and scientists begin practicing leadership long before anyone formally names it.
Graduate students lead projects. Postdoctoral fellows lead collaborations. Trainees make decisions under uncertainty, coordinate people and resources, and shape the direction and quality of scientific work every day. When leadership is defined only by formal roles, its development is delayed precisely when it matters most.
In my lab, it has become clear that training strong scientists and training strong leaders cannot be separated. The same habits that drive good research, including ownership, judgment, initiative, and integrity, are leadership skills. Making these skills explicit helps trainees recognize that leadership is not something to wait for in the future, but something practiced in the present.
Leadership Does Not Require a Title
Many trainees assume leadership begins later. In reality, leadership begins when someone takes ownership of a project and decides how to move it forward. Leadership shows up in how a trainee frames a research question, responds when an experiment fails, or decides what to prioritize next. It is expressed through initiative and responsibility rather than authority. Trainees who see themselves as leaders tend to engage more deeply with their work because they are no longer waiting for direction; they are helping to create it.
In my lab, this framing is made explicit. Each trainee is the driver of their own project, while also serving as a passenger on others’ projects. This emphasizes both responsibility and collaboration: Trainees are expected to advance their own work while contributing meaningfully to the progress of others. I work with my trainees not only to advance projects but also to reflect on how to steer them when the path is unclear and course correction is needed.
Self-Leadership Comes First
Before anyone can lead others, they must learn to lead themselves. In research, self-leadership appears in how trainees manage their time, respond to setbacks, and follow through on commitments when no one is watching.
This is not about perfection or working longer hours. It is about developing judgment, knowing when to push forward, when to pause, and how to recover constructively from failure. Over time, the habits trainees develop through self-leadership shape how others perceive their leadership and how much responsibility they are trusted with.
Leadership Often Appears in Quiet Moments
Not all leadership opportunities are obvious. Many arise during moments of ambiguity: when a project stalls, expectations are unclear, or a group lacks direction. These moments are easy to overlook, particularly for trainees who do not yet see themselves as leaders. Stepping up does not require authority or visibility. It can mean reframing a problem, proposing a plan, or helping a team regain momentum. Leadership often begins in these small, quiet gaps when someone chooses to act rather than wait.
In our lab, trainees take turns leading group meetings throughout the semester. Whoever leads determines the structure of the meeting. Trainees also rotate in leading lab events, including our annual lab retreat. This embeds leadership training in daily practice and provides trainees with experience in guiding discussions, making decisions, and assuming responsibility for shared progress. These practices are deliberate, not because trainees need more responsibility, but because leadership develops through practice rather than instruction.
Reframing Leadership in Research Training
When leadership is framed as a future role rather than a current practice, trainees miss opportunities to develop skills they are already using. Making leadership explicit helps trainees recognize their responsibility in shaping both their science and their environment.
Leadership in research is not about control, charisma, or hierarchy. It is about ownership, judgment, and the ability to move work and people forward amid uncertainty. Training scientists to lead is not an additional responsibility layered onto research training; it is embedded in the work itself. The earlier this is acknowledged, the better prepared trainees will be not only to succeed in their careers, but to shape the future of science.
#Scientists #Leaders #Earlier
