Jennifer Sarrett on Helping Scientists Become Stronger Leaders and Building Healthier Research Cultures

Jennifer Sarrett is addressing one of academia’s most overlooked challenges: preparing brilliant scientists to become effective leaders. Through her PI Leadership Coaching program and Organizational Culture Design™ framework, she helps principal investigators develop the communication, feedback, and people-management skills often absent from traditional scientific training. By emphasizing trust, transparency, collaboration, accountability, and respect for expertise at every level, Jennifer empowers research leaders to create lab environments where both scientific innovation and team well-being can thrive. Her work challenges long-standing norms in academia, offering a practical path toward healthier, more inclusive, and more productive research cultures built on intentional leadership rather than assumption.

Jennifer, your PI Leadership Coaching program addresses a challenge that many scientists face but few talk about: leading people after years of being trained primarily in research. Why is this transition from scientist to lab leader often more difficult than people expect?
Scientists who are promoted to lead their own lab are recognized for their scientific brilliance. This brilliance is built through education and research experience, which is absolutely necessary for success as a Principal Investigator. But in the sciences, soft skills are often considered unnecessary, if they are considered at all. Why do people need to know how to communicate effectively, check in with their teams, and develop a supportive environment if the work is focused on numbers and detailed processes? Given the rapid pace of science and the need to ensure rigor in practice and timeline, who has time to focus on the skills people managers need, like effective mentoring, leading through collaboration, and recognizing successes?

At the same time, we know that scientists who work in labs frequently feel unsupported or even bullied. Research published in Nature found that inadequate management training is one of the most significant drivers of unhealthy lab culture (Van Noorden, 2018). A separate study of NIH-funded genetic researchers found that scientific training left principal investigators unprepared for leadership and management responsibilities, with researchers describing the learning process as “haphazard and hazardous” — one said directly: “You hope that you don’t ruin someone’s life in the process” (Antes, Mart, & DuBois, 2016). Leadership skills are not just professionally valuable; they are essential for the well-being of entire research teams (University of Minnesota CCAPS, 2024).

This type of lab culture is cyclical: people being promoted to PIs have likely trained under PIs who made poor decisions, struggled to handle or even recognize conflict, and were unable to connect with their teams. It becomes the norm. But it is a status quo that should be questioned.

Through your Organizational Culture Design™ framework, you focus on building healthy lab cultures from the start. What are the key ingredients of a research environment where both people and science can thrive?
Organizational Culture Design™ has six core principles: Trust & Transparency, Expect & Respect Expertise, Collaboration & Constructive Conflict, Embedded Flexibility, Question the Status Quo, and Celebration. While all six are important for a productive and healthy research environment, the first three are most foundational.

When PIs are transparent about their goals, needs, and limitations, they create a culture where others feel comfortable asking for help or support rather than trying to push through and hide errors or challenges. When a project’s timeline, funding, and predicted outcomes are clearly stated up front, team members know what is expected and are less likely to be distracted or led astray by unanswered questions.

When PIs recognize the skills and expertise of their team members, even those with the least experience, they are more likely to foster a collaborative and innovative environment. Every person brings a host of experiences and perspectives that may not be reflected in their academic or professional background but can still be enormously useful to the research team. For example, an undergraduate research assistant working in a genetics lab may offer a fresh perspective on measurement, informed by years spent baking at home.

Finally, innovation and scientific progress require debate and questions. Yet leaders often struggle to respond supportively to critiques of their approaches or ideas, especially from those they manage. New PIs in particular may feel they need to project an air of authority that can actually hinder collaboration. Creating environments that reward teams for working together, sharing ideas, and challenging assumptions builds a deep sense of investment in both the science and the success of the lab.

Many new principal investigators struggle with feedback, conflict management, and setting expectations. Which of these areas tends to create the biggest obstacles, and how do you help leaders address them effectively?
In my experience, feedback is the most difficult for new PIs. When stepping into a lab leadership role for the first time, PIs are both excited to run the show and are often experiencing imposter syndrome. This combination frequently leads new PIs to feel they must assert dominance and expertise, which prevents them from being open to or acting on feedback from their team. Often, feedback is not asked for at all, and if it is offered, it is quickly dismissed. This approach limits the wide range of perspectives and ideas that can create an innovative environment. Receiving and respecting feedback is an act of humility that must be intentionally cultivated; it cannot be assumed to come naturally to new PIs.

To address this, I begin by helping PIs build one small but significant habit: asking a genuine question in each lab meeting and sitting with the answer before responding. That pause and resisting the urge to immediately explain, defend, or redirect is where the real leadership development happens.

One aspect of your coaching emphasizes recognizing expertise at every level of a lab. How can leaders create a culture of trust, collaboration, and accountability without sacrificing scientific rigor or authority?
When a new PI first forms their lab, these values must be established from the start. PIs should hold regular check-ins with their team that specifically invite and engage with team members’ ideas and questions. PIs should also spend time getting to know each team member beyond their résumé to learn what other skills they bring and what working style suits them best. Creating multiple ways of contributing expertise is also critical. Not everyone feels comfortable speaking up in lab meetings, and others need processing time to organize their thoughts and ideas. This is particularly true in research environments, which are known to have high rates of neurodivergence and cultural diversity. Neurodivergent team members and those from diverse cultural backgrounds may communicate and process information differently. Sharing meeting agendas ahead of time and inviting ideas and questions in writing before meetings support those who struggle with speaking in front of others. The PI can then surface these ideas during meetings. An open, written forum, such as a shared document or a channel in Slack or Teams, where people can propose ideas and ask questions between meetings supports those whose best thinking comes after some reflection.

Equally important is how the PI responds to feedback. PIs who ask for ideas and questions but never return to them, or fail to address them, will quickly shut down any effort to build that culture of openness. Team members will not continue to share perspectives if those perspectives are ignored or immediately dismissed.

Accountability is another area that deserves direct attention. Leaders often focus on holding team members accountable for their mistakes and actions, but fail to apply the same standard to themselves. Owning one’s own missteps is essential to building trust. And when holding team members accountable, it must be done with both respect and clarity, accountability without either of those elements erodes the very culture you are trying to build.

If a newly appointed PI could implement just one change today to improve their leadership effectiveness and strengthen their lab culture, what would you recommend and why?
Regular, honest communication; though I want to name upfront that this sounds far simpler than it is. Under the pressure of grant cycles, publication timelines, and the demands of running a lab, consistent communication is often the first thing to slip. That makes it all the more important to build it as a deliberate practice rather than leaving it to chance.

PIs are far more effective when they understand how their teams are thinking about the lab and the projects they are working on. When teams trust that their PI will keep them informed about what is happening and what may happen, there is less energy lost to uncertainty or distrust. Even communicating that there is no answer yet, or that the PI does not know something, matters. It signals to the team that their leader is aware and engaged, and that nothing is being dismissed.

Making sure to communicate in multiple formats, for example, emails, shared documents, platforms like Slack or Teams, team meetings, and one-on-ones, ensures that everyone can access and engage with information in ways that work best for them. This may seem time-consuming, but PIs can build efficient communication practices by first working with their team to determine what actually works. One team may find that in-person meetings and Slack are sufficient. Another may prefer recorded virtual meetings with transcripts and biweekly one-on-ones. Communicating about communication is the most reliable way to build trust and consistency from the start.

Links:

• The Scientist
• Newsletter
• https://www.disruptiveinclusion.com/pi-leadership-coaching