Co-Leaders (in Science), Where Art Thou?
Andreas Bergthaler
Professor of Molecular Immunology at the Medical University of Vienna
Co-leadership (or shared leadership) refers to organisations with more than one equal leader. This management style was already practised by the consuls in ancient Rome (David Sally, California Review Management 2002). More contemporary examples of successful co-leads are Bill Gates and Paul Allen in the early years of Microsoft, Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google, Alphabet), or Warren Buffet and late Charlie Munger (Berkshire Hathaway). And yet, they remain a rare species compared to classical hierarchical models with one designated leader on the top.
In science, one cornerstone is collaborative research, with researchers contributing their specific expertise to various aspects of a project. Surprisingly or not, though, formal co-leadership seems even rarer at the helm of a laboratory than it is in the world of business. Why is that? Could science in general benefit from it? Should institutions even encourage it?
In an ideal world, co-leaders will complement each other`s strengths and create synergies not found in single-person leaderships. They would intrinsically lead by example when it comes to team spirit and collaborations. Yet, successful co-leadership in science (and beyond) has to overcome numerous challenges to adopt this as a sustainable model for running an organisation. Foremost, it requires two individuals who trust each other and share core values and the same overall goals. Don Ledingham refers to this as True North, just as hikers may take different paths but rely on their compass pointing at the same goal (link -> a nice paper about co-leadership).
Secondly, co-leaders of academic research labs need to master the logistical challenges that come with two captains on board. This includes efforts to keep the decision-making process lean as there would be no one with the ultimate decision power, but rather a shared process among equals. Excellent communication strategies -between the co-leads, within the lab and with external stakeholders- are one obvious key for long-term success of such endeavours.
Thirdly, academic co-leads face traditional career structures and recognition, which in most cases emphasize individual achievements when it comes to publications, discoveries, grants, awards and career advancements. To this end, co-leads need heaps of team work ethos, humility and trust in each other. Institutions could provide enabling structures and adapt incentive programs and career tracks.
Lastly, co-leading a lab inevitably comes down to the involved personality dynamics. This includes individual working and communication styles, the need for personal gratification and recognition, as well as other personal traits and preferences. As a consequence, finding one's potential co-leading match, requires in-depth knowledge of each other way beyond scientific and intellectual skills. Something that could not simply be ruled top-down.
?
I have been fortunate to do my doctoral studies at the Institute of Experimental Immunology at the University of Zurich and ETH Zürich. This special place was co-led by two exceptional scientists, Hans Hengartner and Nobel Laureate Rolf Zinkernagel, for almost 30 years!
Hans is a biochemist who worked at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) (the birthplace of molecular biology, founded by the Austrian Max Perutz in 1962) in Cambridge and at the Basel Institute for Immunology (back then probably the most important place for immunology research in the world) from 1975 to 1980. Afterwards, Hans joined the University of Zurich, and rose through the ranks as associate professor in 1989, and full professor at both the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich in 1994.
Rolf is a medical doctor, who did research at the University of Lausanne - UNIL 1970-1973, followed by a seminal postdoctoral stay at the The Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra. Serendipity there made him work with a trained veterinarian, Peter Doherty, to discover the mechanism of how T cells recognize infected cells in 1974. 22 years later, this would get them the Nobel Prize in Physiology of Medicine 1996. Rolf, who I know as a very humble person, would later describe the successful recipe for the award as 50% fortune, 49,5% hard work, and 0,5% ideas (link). After Australia, Rolf worked as professor at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, before he joined the University of Zurich as associated professor in 1979 and full professor in 1992.
And there, together and jointly with Hans, Rolf would eventually establish the Institute of Experimental Immunology (or, short, ExpImm), which would become a center of excellence in studying fundamental questions of antiviral immunology. Remarkably, these two Swiss scientists with different backgrounds – biochemistry vs. human medicine- managed to co-lead the ExpImm for almost 30 years before they retired in 2008. What an achievement, both scientifically but also on a personal level!
领英推荐
Co-leadership models depend crucially on the involved persons, and it is understood that this blueprint cannot possibly fit every scientist nor every environment. Yet, I do believe that science would benefit from having more of such co-led laboratories, and I will provide a glimpse into my own experience.
From the eyes of a young doctoral student, Hans and Rolf filled somewhat distinct roles but were 100% aligned when it came to scientific core values and how one should go about designing and interpreting results ("True North"). One of them had a focus on B cell immunology and antibodies, the other one rather on T cells. One had a more molecular inquisitive mindset, whilst the other one believed in the power of animal models and patients (in vivo veritas). One appeared to pull and bring together a lot of administrative strings and invaluable networking behind the scenes, whilst the other one acted more as the outside face of the lab presenting to audiences of large scientific conferences. I can only speculate that not all distributions of responsibilities were smooth from the start, and that both Hans and Rolf may have had moments where they needed to defeat their own egos and take a step back for the greater good.
Importantly, Hans and Rolf cared deeply about the careful recruitment of potential new team members, and it was remarkable how much they tried to keep a low hierarchy. You were obliged to address them by their first name (and got called out if you still happened to call them "Professor" as this was/is custom in the German-speaking world). More than once they priced the research assistants as the pillars of the lab, who deserve all the respect no matter how highly you may think of yourself as a stellar scientist. Hans and Rolf would take their time to attend and give critical-constructive feedback at weekly lab meetings. And, they honored lab traditions such as the makeshift Apéro celebrations in the narrow institute hallway to revel birthdays of team members and other events noteworthy for the lab. Nowadays, there are much fancier terms for modern management, new work and what not, but these fine two scientists simply embodied daily what it takes to foster and enjoy a successful organisation.
As a junior lab member, this offered a situation somewhat similar to a family with two parents. You were aware that there were two experienced persons who care about you, your (scientific) upbringing and your work. They may come with different interests and perspectives, but ultimately these would complement each other. As a consequence, team members would discuss somewhat different aspects of topics with one of them at times. And yet, you knew that if you talked to one it was as if you talked to both of them as they were closely aligned running the lab. This setup took some time for newbies to get fully ingrained (at least for me), as not each internal process was obvious and written down as SOP. Still, I felt that such a co-leading structure worked really well -at least in this particular case of the ExpImm. Best evidence for that is likely the terrific output in terms of scientific publications as well as the large number of international scientists who were mentored by them and went on to become independent leaders in their own niche. Above all, my gut feeling suggests that the co-lead arrangement between Hans and Rolf made their work not only better but also more joyful than if they had been each on their own steep trajectory.
I will not go into more anectdotes to highlight the humility of Hans and Rolf, their pronounced sense for a collaborative team atmosphere or their strategic foresightedness. Suffice to say, that this co-leadership culture within a highly competitive lab was impressing and formative to me as an early-career scientist. Over the years it dawned on me that such a model cannot easily be replicated. Nevermind, I do catch myself every now and then watching out for who would be colleague X to co-lead and advance our lab to the next level... ;O)
Thanks for reading. I would be curious if you know of great co-leading examples in science. Michael Bishop and Harold Varmus, Gerty Cori and Carl Cori and Marie Sklodowska Curie and Pierre Curie are already part of history…. but which true co-leads of research labs are you aware of in present times? How could science, how could we learn from them? And which structural change would be needed to promote co-leadership in science (if that was desirable)?
?
Sources for inspiration:
Director & Co-leader Integrated Translational Research, Immunology
1 年Thanks for posting thoughts on our shared experience, Andreas Bergthaler. I do not want to miss my own scientific co-leadership experience with Catherine Regnier, and then with Grazyna Wieczorek, Enrico Ferrero, Nuesslein-Hildesheim Barbara and Richard Siegel. This is an opportunity to build something that is more than the sum of its parts & to learn every day. If given the chance: definitely worth doing!