Leading the people and leading the work: Practical considerations for ethical research

Abstract

Scientific work is demanding and complex, requiring those leading research to be simultaneously innovative and ethical in their work. Along with this, those leading scientific teams need to be able to influence both the work being done and lab members doing the work. Thus, both leadership and management skills are necessary to navigating the organizational, social, and ethical components of the research process in order to do rigorous, ethical, and high-quality scientific work. This paper recommends a number of practices that leaders of research teams should engage in, including management behaviors for “leading the work” and leadership behaviors for “leading the people” that foster excellence and integrity in research labs. Researchers can take an intentional approach to leadership and management to create a robust environment for ethical research. Overall, a researcher’s routine behaviors as leaders of their labs should establish a healthy work environment and promote effective interpersonal interactions among lab members. Further, the lab requires routine procedures and structure to provide adequate oversight of the research. This paper also addresses challenges that may arise when implementing leadership and management practices, along with strategies for overcoming these strategies. Avenues for future research and policy development related to leadership and management in scientific contexts are discussed.

It is uncommon to apply principles of leadership to the work of researchers. However, doing research is complex work that requires coordination, team problem-solving, and innovation. Thus, leadership is essential to doing this work. Further, leadership practices are integral to the quality and ethicality of the research. In this paper, we explore what these leadership practices are and why researchers should adopt them.

Imagine two scenarios involving two different research teams:

Dr. Hansel’s research team studies cognitive aging. Graduate students obtain informed consent and enroll subjects. They do not consistently follow informed consent procedures, and the team just discovered several signed informed consent forms are missing.

Dr. Ezzati’s lab investigates adolescent development. There is intense competition among graduate students to gain Dr. Ezzati’s attention and approval. Though research productivity is high, the researchers handle, store, and analyze data in a sloppy manner.

Directing a research lab is a large responsibility. Investigators are expected to mentor junior researchers, conduct excellent science, and adhere to key principles and rules for responsible, ethical research. To do so, they must create an environment of excellence and integrity in their lab. The leadership and management behaviors necessary to realize this kind of environment are rarely explicitly part of the training of researchers, nor are they commonly recognized as contributing to ethical research.

If Dr. Hansel had his team utilize standard operating procedures and implement a checklist for participant consent and enrollment, the team might minimize inconsistencies and mistakes. Currently, the lab is at risk because they failed to comply with their approved human subjects protocol. Adhering to the principles and rules for informed consent requires Dr. Hansel to manage the execution of informed consent procedures in his lab.

In Dr. Ezzati’s lab, the accuracy and reproducibility of research findings are in jeopardy. The lab needs a set of routine practices for handling data. Furthermore, as the leader of the group, Dr. Ezzati should set the tone not only for data integrity but also for positive team dynamics to support good research. Creating a culture of data integrity and teamwork requires Dr. Ezzati to lead the way by modeling best practices and by setting and communicating expectations.

Most likely, Drs. Hansel and Ezzati only have the best intentions. They are sincerely trying to do honest research. However, they are busy researchers. In addition to directing a lab, Dr. Hansel juggles clinical responsibilities and Dr. Ezzati teaching. Yet, they can do better to support excellent, ethical research and, further, ensure their students and mentees learn best practices under their guidance.

In short, when researchers become the leaders of research labs, they go from doing the research as graduate students or postdoctoral researchers to leading and managing it. They are ultimately accountable for the research that occurs under their supervision. However, it is rare to discuss what it takes to navigate this responsibility. Conversations about ethical research and responsible conduct should include how researchers can take an intentional approach to leadership and management to create a robust environment for ethical research.

Ethical research requires maximizing the protection of human subjects, ensuring the quality, trustworthiness, and rigor of research, and following the rules and regulations established by professional fields, institutions, and funding agencies (DuBois & Antes, 2017). Research misconduct is often discussed in tandem with ethical research. Research misconduct is “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. It does not include honest errors or differences of opinion,” (Office of Research Integrity, 2020). Responsible research goes well beyond avoiding research misconduct, to include the day-to-day behaviors of researchers that advance, or fail to advance, sound science, protection of participants, the training of junior investigators, and ultimately trust of the public in the scientific enterprise (Antes, 2018; Nature, 2019). The purpose of this paper is to explicate the leadership and management behaviors on the part of researchers that support ethical research and mitigate chances for research misconduct to occur.

Framework for Leadership and Management

A person can be a good leader, but not a good manager. Conversely, a person can be a good manager, but not a good leader. With a proper amount of training, practice, and commitment, a person can be good at both (Lacerenza, Reyes, Marlow, Joseph, & Salas, 2017). Despite the vast literature on leadership and management, there has been some debate on how best to distinguish the two constructs (Day, 2014; Yukl, 2013). A behavioral-based approach to understanding leadership focuses on leadership as a function of the behaviors in which an individual engages (DeRue, Nahrgang, Wellman, & Humphrey, 2011; Gottfredson & Aguinis, 2017). This approach is important for studying leadership, as observable behaviors can be directly examined, and for developing leadership, as people can be trained to enact such behaviors (Lacerenza et al., 2017; Yukl, 2012).

Early behavioral leadership research investigated leaders’ influence on followers in the workplace (Gottfredson & Aguinis, 2017; Stogdill, 1950; Yukl, 2012). Followers are those individuals who identify the leader as someone who provides the primary guidance and direction about the work being done (Yukl, 2013). This research examining leader-follower interactions differentiated consideration behaviors that demonstrate concern for the well-being of followers, and initiating structure behaviors that provide expectations to followers and organize work for followers to accomplish (Schriesheim & Bird, 1979). Overall, this leadership behavior research provides a broad framework for understanding the difference and relationship between leadership and management behaviors.

The consideration dimension encompasses leadership behaviors that involve employees well-being, expressions of support, and displays of warmth and approachability (Burke et al., 2006; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Lambert, Tepper, Carr, Holt, & Barelka, 2012). Aside from the benefit of productivity, leader consideration is associated with higher levels of trust in leadership and affective commitment by followers (Lambert et al., 2012). These relationship-building and support behaviors are more squarely aligned with “leadership.” In contrast, the initiating structure dimension includes behaviors more characteristic of “management.” Structuring behaviors include clarification of task responsibilities for followers, providing direction, and letting followers know what is expected of them (Burke et al., 2006; Fleishman, 1973; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

Attempting to balance both consideration and initiating structure dimensions can be complex. This balancing act requires leaders to assess the need for certain behaviors given a context, problem, or follower and engage followers using an appropriate combination of leadership-and management-oriented behaviors (Gottfredson & Aguinis, 2017). Although some scholars tend to consider leadership and management behaviors as distinct, any high-functioning workplace requires both the social, people-oriented behaviors that yield trust and effective relationships and the structural, organizational mechanisms that allow people to work together to accomplish goals (Northouse, 2015). In practice, leaders and managers may need to engage in both consideration and initiating structure behaviors. Whether performed by a leader, manager, one person, or several persons, both sets of behaviors must be performed in a team to be productive and achieve goals.

Scientific research teams are no exception. They routinely must work collectively to achieve goals, and researchers directing labs are called upon to exercise both types of behaviors (Antes, Mart, & DuBois, 2016; Robledo, Peterson, & Mumford, 2012). Thus, this framework offers a way to classify leadership (i.e., people-oriented behaviors) and management (i.e., work-oriented behaviors) activities important for researchers to perform in order to foster high-quality, ethical research. It provides a way for researchers to examine their own leadership and management practices and identify areas of strength and opportunities for growth. The combination of these behaviors sets the trajectory for conducting ethical, responsible research. However, these behaviors may not come naturally to those directing research labs because they are not typically emphasized during scholarly training. Therefore, intentional, concerted effort may be required on the part of lab leaders to effectively integrate these behaviors into scientific settings.

Leadership and Management in Scientific Work

Scientific work is demanding, complex, and often involves uncertainty. Those pursuing scientific endeavors are charged with being innovative in their discoveries while simultaneously doing so in an ethical manner. Research requires the coordination and collaboration of individuals with a variety of expertise, necessitating some degree of social interaction (Robledo et al., 2012). Moreover, given the dynamic, project-focused nature of scientific work, those leading scientific teams often need to switch between leadership-oriented and management-oriented behaviors. This largely depends on the phase of project work that needs to be completed next and by whom. Put differently, leaders of scientific teams need to exercise influence on both the work being done and the group doing the work.

While limited research exists on leadership and management in the context of scientific research, we know that leaders of research teams must engage in an array of behaviors (Mumford, Gibson, Giorgini, & Mecca, 2014; Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Specifically, these behaviors range from being more project management-focused (e.g., project planning, coordinating expertise for project work) to being more people-focused (e.g., building relationships, stimulating productive interactions) (Howell & Boies, 2004; Mumford & Licuanan, 2004; Mumford, Mulhearn, Watts, Steele, & McIntosh, 2017). Both project-focused and people-focused behaviors are strongly, positively related to team performance (Andrews & Farris, 1967; Barnowe, 1975; Ceri-Booms, Curşeu, & Oerlemans, 2017; Pratoom, 2018). Engaging in strategic orchestration of technical work is positively associated with team performance (Lin & McDonough III, 2011). Similarly, leaders who empower their followers, help followers derive meaning from their work, and provide encouragement tend to have high-performing teams (Zhang & Bartol, 2010). Leading a scientific team requires social skills, including communication and social perceptiveness, which enable leaders to manage their teams effectively (Mumford et al., 2002; Zaccaro, Gilbert, Thor, & Mumford, 1991).

Leadership and management skills are also essential for doing rigorous, ethical, and high-quality scientific work. In addition to doing science-specific work, researchers are also responsible for engaging in non-scientific activities, such as fostering a positive culture in their lab, hiring and training staff, and establishing and implementing standard operating procedures for their lab (Antes et al., 2016). Consequently, it is these non-scientific activities that can set the trajectory for how research is conducted, thereby contributing directly to the quality and integrity of the research. This is not to say that scientific expertise is trivial. Rather, leadership and management skills are necessary, yet often overlooked and undervalued, components to navigating the organizational, social, and ethical components of the research process (Hurley, 2003; Mumford, Scott, & Gaddis, 2003).

Recent work has aimed to identify specific research lab leadership and management practices that foster rigorous research and regulatory compliance in research labs. Rigorous research is characterized by doing ethical, credible, and reproducible science (DuBois & Antes, 2017; Marcus, 2014). Regulatory compliance is characterized by following research ethics rules, policies, and standards (e.g., human subjects protocols) (DuBois & Antes, 2017). Lab leadership and management practices encompass distinct behaviors that are practical for researchers to implement in a research setting. In an interview study of 52 federally-funded “research exemplars” from diverse fields (e.g., biomedical, behavioral, and physical sciences) with reputations for professionalism and integrity, a set of common practices that the researchers described engaging to foster rigorous research and regulatory compliance were identified through a qualitative analysis (Antes, Kuykendall, & DuBois, 2019a; Antes, Kuykendall, & DuBois, 2019b). The top eight practices ranked by frequency of being discussed by exemplars, included 1) holding regular team meetings, 2) encouraging shared decision-making and ownership of projects, 3) providing guidance to lab members, 4) providing adequate training, 5) fostering positive attitudes about compliance, 6) scrutinizing data carefully, 7) articulating values and expectations clearly, and 8) establishing and following standard lab operating procedures.

In this exemplar study by Antes et al. (Antes et al., 2019a; Antes et al., 2019b), it was also the aim to understand practices that fostered good work relationships. Of note, the importance of good work relationships in the lab to support the team’s ability to do high-quality, responsible scientific work, was an overarching theme. Simply put, a consistent theme that arose across interviews with exemplars was to not lose sight of the “human dimension” of doing research, as this dimension is integral to research excellence (Antes & DuBois, 2018). While not every exemplar engaged in all practices, the set of practices that exemplars identified as a whole offers ideals for leadership and management practices in scientific teams. Importantly, this study yielded practices that generally align with previous consideration and initiating structure leadership frameworks (Bass & Bass, 2009; Yukl, 2008) and with the theoretical model of scientific leadership proposed by Mumford and his colleagues (Mumford, Martin, Elliott, & McIntosh, in press; Robledo et al., 2012). This theoretical model maintains that scientific leadership is comprised of two facets: leading the people and leading the work. While these facets have components that make them characteristically unique, they are interconnected. That is, the approach taken to leading the people reinforces the manner in which researchers lead the work.

Identifying Practical Leadership and Management Practices

Our aim in this paper was to identify a generalizable and comprehensive set of leadership and management practices to guide researchers in diverse fields to lead and manage their labs. We aimed to achieve a balance of comprehensiveness while streamlining the list to the most essential practices. To do this, we evaluated the findings from prior research involving 52 interviews of exemplary investigators that yielded a long list of behaviors that foster rigorous and compliant research (Antes et al., 2019a; Antes et al., 2019b). This simplification process also included referencing extant theoretical and empirical literature describing pertinent leadership and management behaviors (Robledo et al., 2012; Vessey, Barrett, Mumford, Johnson, & Litwiller, 2014; Yukl & Lepsinger, 2005) and comparing our condensed set of practices to the theoretical model of leadership behaviors in science mentioned above. One team member (TM) led the review of practices and literature with iterative discussion with the team. Collectively, the authors have 20 years of experience studying factors that contribute to responsible and ethical research. Further, all authors are industrial-organizational psychologists who specialize in leadership, workplace ethics, and scientific integrity. The experience of one author (AA) co-directing a remediation program for researchers who have had failures in research compliance or research integrity also guided decisions about the condensed set of essential practices (DuBois, Chibnall, Tait, & Vander Wal, 2018).

This process yielded a list of practical and significant leadership practices and a list of practical, essential management practices that researchers should adopt for leading the people and leading the work in their lab. We present these lists in two tables. Each table has two columns: the left column provides the overarching practice, and the right column presents example behaviors that represent how the practices could be enacted by researchers in real-world settings. Researchers can reference these curated lists of practices and corresponding behaviors to guide effective lab leadership and management. It should be noted that these are not exhaustive lists of practices that a leader might engage in; rather, these are essential practices.

Leading the People

Leading the people in a researcher’s lab helps yield ethical research by facilitating open communication among lab members and the lead researcher, enhancing the capacity to resolve issues before they become more severe, and enhancing the commitment of lab members to doing good work as a team (Antes et al., 2019b). There is also an ethical dimension to leading people in a research team: people should be treated fairly and with respect (DuBois & Antes, 2017). Table 1 lists seven leadership practices that researchers should intentionally strive toward when attempting to establish a healthy work environment and promote positive interpersonal interactions among lab members.

Table 1.

Leading the People

List of Practices	Example Behaviors
Build relationships	• Express appreciation to lab members for their contributions • Communicate to lab members with transparency and respect • Avoid making demeaning comments when experiencing negative emotions (e.g., frustration, stress, anger) • Show personal interest in lab members (e.g., ask about their career goals and interests) • Provide encouragement when a lab member struggles
Encourage lab member engagement	• Invite lab members to provide feedback on how the lab operates • Involve lab members in key lab decisions when possible (e.g., when selecting new members to join the lab) • Give lab members credit for their contributions to projects
Create a team atmosphere	• Communicate the expectation that lab members interact collegially and as a team • Bring lab members together for activities that allow people to get to know each other better
Address conflict	• Help lab members resolve concerns about team dynamics • Welcome lab members to voice their concerns
Celebrate wins	• Tell lab members when they have done good work • Encourage lab members to celebrate successes
Provide routine feedback	• Provide positive feedback in a timely manner • Provide constructive feedback when work or behavior does not meet expectations
Individualize interactions	• Assign tasks to lab members based on knowledge and skill level • Adjust interactions with each lab member depending on their skill and knowledge levels, and their needs • Assign project work to align with lab member interests when possible

Some researchers may overlook, undervalue, or be reluctant to adopt certain practices for a variety of reasons. For example, researchers are typically highly achievement-oriented and concerned about productivity. While this is a strength in many ways, an overemphasis on tasks and accomplishment can make taking time to celebrate wins or interact socially seem like a waste of time. On the contrary, celebrating milestones and successes is one way to express appreciation for the hard work of lab members, making them feel valued for their contributions (Spreitzer, Porath, & Gibson, 2012). This appreciation is motivating for lab members, inspires them to continue to work hard, and ultimately serves to foster productivity and retention of talented lab members (Paterson, Luthans, & Jeung, 2014). Furthermore, we contend that finding ways to communicate that contributions of team members are valued and take occasional moments to recognize progress is particularly critical in research settings, because research—due to the complex nature of the work—often involves setbacks.

Another practice that researchers may not feel is an important responsibility is helping lab members address interpersonal conflicts. We anticipate researchers may be of the mindset that it is the responsibility of the individual lab members to address their own conflicts. This self-initiated approach to conflict resolution is ideal. However, the researcher’s role might be to ask feuding lab members to have a discussion among themselves and to report back their resolution of the conflict. If resolution is not reached, then the researcher may need to intervene and mediate. The key idea is that failure to address conflict in a timely manner is likely to exacerbate tensions in the lab. Researchers should communicate the expectation that tensions will be resolved and that they will be available to assist if necessary. Researchers need not spend a lot of time refereeing, but judiciously interjecting when interpersonal conflicts arise can prevent conflict from undermining the research, the engagement and productivity of lab members, and the atmosphere and culture of the lab.

Another notable consideration regarding the proposed leadership practices is that they suggest offering lab members the opportunity to voice their feedback and participate in decision-making to foster engagement and psychological safety (Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006). This approach contrasts with a hierarchical approach to leading a lab that involves limited latitude to speak up (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010) or a laissez-faire approach to leading a lab that is very hands-off (Bass & Bass, 1985). These hierarchical or laissez-faire approaches to leadership can arise from personalities that make researchers gravitate toward the approach, or from adopting the style researchers observed in the lab where they received their training. Evidence suggests individuals are more likely to be productive and effective when in a psychologically safe environment where they feel valued, supported, and respected (Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007; Javed, Naqvi, Khan, Arjoon, & Tayyeb, 2019). A lab leader who intentionally strives for engagement and participation, and involves lab members to have some control over their work environment, can cultivate safety and respect, nurturing a team environment that fosters better research and team success.

Indeed, it is a key challenge of leadership to recognize what behaviors are needed, when, and in what combination (Northouse, 2015). These people- and relationship-oriented practices serve a pragmatic and strategic purpose even though they require some forethought and time to employ. Consciously engaging in these behaviors can build a foundation for leading research teams successfully to do scientific work. Further, we recognize that researchers should seek to establish leadership practices in a fashion that is consistent with their work styles and personalities; there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. However, some researchers may need to challenge themselves to step outside their comfort zone and try new practices (Antes & DuBois, 2018).

As illustrated by Dr. Hansel’s lab in the opening example, lab members are often the ones doing the day-to-day research work, executing research protocols, or regularly making in-the-moment decisions that can impact the quality of research or compliance with human subjects protocols. Issues are also likely to arise throughout the research process that require coordination and communication between lead researchers and their lab members. The way in which researchers interact with and respond to their research team can have a direct impact on how these situations are navigated. If handled well, issues are likely to remain minor and relatively easy to resolve. However, if handled poorly and with hostility by the researcher, issues may fester over time and become difficult, if not impossible to correct. In Dr. Hansel’s lab, if relationships in the team are positive, the informed consent problem can be tackled much more quickly and effectively.

It is helpful to imagine the consequences of not engaging in these leadership practices. Violating research regulations and rules can get researchers into considerable trouble. Penalties for these violations can take the form of getting fined, having a research lab shut down, having funding withdrawn, or getting terminated. In a study of 39 researchers who were referred to and completed a remediation training because of a violation attributed to themselves or a lab member, it was found that the majority of violations were due to factors other than intentional unethical behavior (DuBois, Chibnall, Tait, & Vander Wal, 2017). In terms of unsatisfactory leadership practices, 36% of researchers’ lapses were due to relationship problems (e.g., aggressive communication, political tensions) and 26% of lapses were due to poor communication (e.g., failing to hold regular meetings) (DuBois, Chibnall, Tait, & Vander Wal, 2016). These findings suggest that many research violations could have been prevented if the researchers had been more proactive in adopting leadership practices.

Leading the Work

The six practices and corresponding behavioral examples for directing the work done by lab members are shown in Table 2. These practices relate to orchestrating the numerous tasks and procedures that need to be executed, ensure that lab members are equipped to perform these tasks well, and explicitly communicate expectations of lab members. Engaging in these task-oriented practices helps ensure that nothing is overlooked or forgotten when lab members execute study protocols. Given the number of moving parts in the research process, these practices are essential.

Table 2.

Leading the work

List of Practices	Example Behaviors
Hold effective meetings	• Hold regular weekly meetings with lab members as a team • Establish routine one-on-one meetings • Create and use a written meeting agenda • Document key decisions by taking meeting notes
Establish rigorous research habits	• Express that maintaining diligence (e.g., detailed documentation) is important • Store all research data in a central location • Discuss data interpretation openly with lab members
Address mistakes	• Respond to mistakes in a supportive manner • Avoid reacting harshly when a lab member admits a serious mistake
Provide oversight	• Review lab members’ work routinely • Regularly be available to lab members
Prioritize compliance and integrity	• Articulate the importance of research ethics rules (e.g., human subjects rules) to lab members • Establish and follow written compliance procedures
Establish operational and training procedures	• Develop a lab manual of expectations, standards, and procedures for the lab • Ensure lab members receive necessary training to perform tasks that require new skills • Ensure lab operating procedures are being followed by lab members

Researchers may be resistant to adopting certain behaviors, such as using a written meeting agenda and using that meeting agenda to structure meeting notes that document key decisions. Engaging in these behaviors helps create accountability and ensures the effective use of meeting time (Rogelberg, 2018). Detailed meeting notes enable researchers to follow up with lab members on particular agenda items to make sure project milestones are on track.

Another behavior researchers may find challenging to adopt is responding to mistakes made by lab members in a manner that is supportive and not abrasive. Reacting harshly to a lab member’s mistake is likely to undermine psychological safety and commitment to the team (Seppala, 2015; Wilkie, 2017). Moreover, lab members may avoid admitting mistakes in the future if they anticipate a punitive reaction. The rigor and integrity of the research require people feel comfortable speaking up about problems and mistakes (Antes et al., 2019a). Of course, serious or persistent mistakes on the part of lab members require corrective feedback. However, we recommend when researchers find mistakes frustrating, taking time to calm down and provide constructive feedback fosters a more fruitful response. This approach cultivates learning from the mistake and should enhance future performance, while increasing the likelihood that lab members remain open to sharing mistakes in the future.

As we see in the opening example with Dr. Ezzati’s lab, a set of uniform procedures and expectations about the importance of following work-focused practices are needed to foster data integrity. In contrast to leadership practices that develop and maintain workplace relationships, which can be engaged in a more tailored and variable fashion, management practices that structure and organize work processes are less optional. That is, leaders of research teams should regularly engage all of these management practices to be confident that everything that needs to be done throughout the research process is accomplished. The specific application of the practices might vary by the type of research being done and the size of the lab, but in general, they are all important to foster research ethics.

Researchers who fail to engage in these work-oriented practices may be subject to pitfalls that lead to research violations. In the study of 39 researchers who took part in remediation training for research violations, approximately 56% of the researchers’ lapses were attributable to not prioritizing compliance and 28% to not adequately training staff (DuBois et al., 2016). By establishing operating procedures that foster compliance and equipping staff with the knowledge, skills, and motivation needed to carry out the research with rigor, researchers should be able to help safeguard against protocol and compliance violations.

Fortunately, it is possible to prevent lapses in research from occurring and actively cultivate a work environment that fosters research excellence and integrity. The lists of lab leadership and management practices are direct and actionable. Moreover, these two sets of practices are interconnected and influence one another. For instance, establishing weekly lab meetings, a management-oriented practice, could create the context for providing routine feedback to lab members, a leadership-oriented practice. Taking the time to learn about these practices and think through how to integrate them into everyday work life, along with strategies for managing personal limitations, has a promising effect on the way researchers run their labs and achieve research goals with integrity and rigor (DuBois et al., 2017). For example, if a researcher knows that they are not particularly detail-oriented, they can hire someone who is and have that individual help with practices that require detail orientation. By hiring someone with complementary traits or skills, researchers can successfully accomplish the array of leadership and management practices.

Challenges to Effective Leadership and Management in Science

There are several practical challenges to implementation of the practices we have proposed. First, a degree of self-awareness is required to evaluate and identify potential gaps in one’s existing practices. If gaps are identified, a willingness to change is necessary. Some researchers may be reluctant to examine, or change, existing lab practices, especially if their existing practices are long-established (Sabherwal, Hirschheim, & Goles, 2001). Relatedly, researchers typically become researchers because they have a passion for discovery and solving a pressing social, health, or technological problem. They do not become researchers because of a passion for the managerial or administrative tasks of the job. Thus, they may not derive a sense of personal satisfaction from these aspects of their work. This makes it less likely for leadership and management practices to be prioritized, and potentially less likely for them to come naturally to researchers (Raelin & Coghlan, 2006).

Second, the evaluation and promotion of researchers does not directly reward effective leadership and management, instead productivity in publications and grant awards are common metrics. Thus, researchers may not prioritize these behaviors, particularly if they are not recognized as contributing to productivity. Indeed, some practices—like developing standard operating procedures—can take more upfront time to establish, but the downstream payoff is worthwhile.

Third, research involves a great deal of turnover, especially when labs rely primarily on students as research team members. Students advance after graduate school and move on to other opportunities. It can be an advantage to obtain new people regularly—they come with fresh ideas and enthusiasm—but it also means that research labs lose knowledge of lab operations, including the team’s expectations and norms (Droege & Hoobler, 2003).

Fourth, a perennial challenge of leadership in general is that different people may need different approaches to management and leadership (Dansereau et al., 1995). Some people, for example, require a great deal of structure and direction to be effective, while others thrive under a more hands-off leadership style. It is challenging, particularly for inexperienced leaders, to learn to identify the needs of different people on their team and adapt their style accordingly.

Fifth, in addition to not necessarily being the key interests or innate talents of researchers, researchers receive relatively limited, and often no, training in leadership and management (Raelin & Coghlan, 2006). We should note here, however, that research applies an apprentice model, where researchers learn the trade as a trainee under the guidance of a mentor, advisor, or a more advanced researcher. Thus, if a researcher trained with a mentor who engaged in these practices, for example, they held effective weekly meetings, they are likely to adopt these same practices. However, they are also likely to adopt bad practices of mentors or be unaware that some practices that they do not engage in are important practices (House & Aditya, 1997).

A final challenge includes the demands and the multi-faceted nature of work in academic research. Most academics juggle multiple roles, such as clinician, teacher, and administrator. Therefore, behaviors that are not of interest to researchers, not rewarded or evaluated, and not trained are less likely to be performed. Moreover, this work is demanding and stressful, and researchers can be stretched quite thin (Vullinghs, De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Boon, 2018).

Strategies for Effective Leadership and Management in Science

Several strategies can help investigators implement the practices we propose. First and foremost, the best time to begin implementing these recommended practices is early in one’s career. Being intentional about adopting practices early provides a foundation for success as a lab grows. We encourage researchers to use the two lists of leadership and management practices to identify areas for potential enhancements to their lab leadership and management. Importantly, deliberately assessing the behaviors that one currently employs, behaviors often adopted relatively unconsciously, provides a basis to identify those behaviors that do and do not serve one’s goals.

For mid-career or senior researchers looking to make a change, or adopt a new practice, and junior researchers alike, we cannot overstate the importance of prioritizing this goal. It is never too late to make improvements. Given many of the barriers noted in the section above, it is essential to make a personal commitment to adopting new behaviors, and then set goals, establish an action plan, and evaluate progress towards reaching the goal. Whether it is improving a lab’s approach to data management or running team meetings, researchers must approach these practices using the same strategic reasoning and commitment they apply to their science.

For researchers of any career-stage, we recommend being conscious of what you can learn from researchers around you, particularly those with reputations for being great lab directors or outstanding mentors. These individuals are often willing to share their insights and advice. Asking for guidance is essential to adopting effective leadership and management practices in one’s own lab, especially for adapting the recommendations to meet one’s unique needs. Overall, we encourage researchers to consider the collection of mentors, advisers, and colleagues around them—whether more senior, a peer, or even more junior—whom can be sought for guidance and insights.

To the extent that researchers can automate, systematize, or routinize practices in their labs that support the recommended behaviors, this tends to be a recipe for successfully adopting and maintaining leadership and management practices over time. For example, to foster regular communication in the lab, establish weekly meetings to build in communication by design. Create a lab manual or handbook that contains the information about the lab; this ensures that newcomers receive standards, practices, and expectations. Establish procedures for automated data backup. Develop intentional, structured approaches to training (e.g., design a brief training manual or protocol) to ensure lab members receive the training they need before executing tasks in the lab.

Researchers should ask for feedback from lab members on life in the lab and strive to notice cues or signals that something may be amiss. Perhaps there is interpersonal discord in the lab, or someone consistently fails to meet expectations. When busy, researchers might tend to ignore subtle signs of trouble. In the long run, judiciously tackling these issues saves time. Further, it can be advantageous to invite lab staff, students, or other trainees to help make changes, such as creating new manuals or establishing new procedures. They learn skills from helping to implement good practices in the lab.

Finally, leadership and management behaviors take time and energy, and many of them require interpersonal finesse. Thus, in addition to making a personal commitment to ensuring best practices are followed in one’s lab, it is necessary to find time for self-care and wellness. It is difficult to guide and direct a ship without first attending to one’s own well-being (Antes & DuBois, 2018).

Future Research

While we have curated an evidence-informed list of leadership and management practices, additional research is needed on how frequently researchers perform specific leadership and management practices, and the barriers and facilitators of best practices. Research in this domain would shed light on which practices are lacking among the research community and which practices are most essential for cultivating ethical research, along with factors that support or undermine these practices. Further, investigating the minimum threshold of leadership and management practices would provide insight on what practices researchers should prioritize in their labs. Along related lines, future research should explore how certain leadership and management practices should be prioritized in various circumstances. Are certain practices, or approaches to a given practice, more valuable at different points in a researcher’s career? Are certain practices more important depending on the size of the lab or specific type of research being conducted?

Broadly speaking, future research should also assess the extent to which formal ethics education facilitates uptake of certain leadership and management practices. Incorporating the leadership and management practices in ethics education may provide trainees with an awareness of, and lead them to adopt, these practices that lend themselves well to ethical, rigorous research. Perhaps framing training in terms of leadership and management practices that contribute to success is more attractive to trainees than framing training in terms of how to do responsible research.

Additionally, a better understanding of the outcomes of leadership with respect to followers is needed. Future work could examine the relationship between leadership and management practices of the primary researcher and the effects on lab members. Do trainees adopt these practices once they transition to being an independent researcher? Are trainees more successful and ethical as a result? Similarly, what are the effects of more senior lab members engaging in these leadership and management practices? While it is the researcher’s responsibility to lay the groundwork and establish the practices for doing ethical research, these practices do not need to be, and should not be, exclusively limited to the lead researcher.

Policy and Practice

In light of the aforementioned leadership and management practices, and the challenges and strategies for implementing the practices, the question remains as to what educational and policy changes are warranted. Are institutions providing adequate leadership and management education for new researchers starting their labs? If not, should this be a responsibility of the institution? Doing so would support ethical, high-quality research at the institution. Along related lines, university leadership should re-evaluate how researchers are evaluated for promotion and tenure decisions. Namely, are researchers rewarded for engaging in leadership and management practices in their labs?

In terms of researcher education and training, consideration should be given to how different disciplines (e.g., social sciences vs. physical sciences) may require the application, or emphasis, of different practices. For example, bench scientists likely operate under a different set of rules and norms than social scientists. Therefore, in implementing the prescribed leadership and management practices, disciplinary differences are worth bearing in mind. Similarly, certain leadership and management practices may have greater utility depending on the type of institution. That is, research-focused institutions with grant-funded researchers may require a different combination of leadership and management behaviors than teaching-focused, less research-oriented institutions with researchers funded by institution dollars.

In sum, directing a research lab comes with a great deal of influence and responsibility. Doing rigorous, quality research is an ethical imperative for researchers. That is, researchers need to maintain productivity, conduct ethical and rigorous research, and remain compliant with research policies, all while leading and managing members of their research team. Juggling all these tasks is no small feat and requires researchers to be cognizant in taking actionable steps to accomplish them successfully. The prescribed list of practical leadership and management practices can guide researchers as they strive toward attaining their research goals.

Public Significance Statement.

Researchers are called upon to do excellent research with the utmost integrity. To do so, those who lead research teams must create, through their leadership and management practices, a work environment for research excellence and integrity. This paper provides two actionable checklists for researchers who aim to adopt best practices in their labs for “leading the people” and “leading the work.”