You don’t spend years modelling ocean currents, analysing data from remote sensors, or diving beneath the surface to collect samples in silence, only to find yourself, one day, thrown into the unpredictable world of science leadership.
And yet, for many marine scientists and STEM professionals who’ve moved into leadership, that’s exactly what happens. Somewhere along the line, the metrics and models give way to meetings and management. Conversations become more about motivation than method. The waters get murky.
It’s no wonder, then, that so many scientists quietly feel unprepared for leadership. Not because they aren’t capable, but because their strengths have never really been framed as leadership qualities.
But perhaps it’s time we rethink what good science leadership looks like, especially in marine and environmental research.
The Myth of the “Natural” Leader
Popular culture still leans heavily on a very specific image of leadership: extroverted, charismatic, quick to decide, confident in uncertainty. These traits are often associated with CEOs, politicians, or military commanders.
Scientists, by contrast, are trained to question, to observe, to delay conclusions until the data supports them. They lead with curiosity, not certainty.
This has long been misread as a flaw in leadership potential. In reality, it may be one of the field’s greatest strengths.
Research in behavioural science shows that effective leadership is not about dominating the room; it’s about navigating complexity. It’s about trust, active listening, psychological safety (Google re: Work), and the ability to think systemically.
In fact, a study published in the Harvard Business Review found that leaders who were highly rated in humility and learning orientation tended to foster more innovative and resilient teams. These qualities, often embedded in scientific training, can be far more valuable than a commanding presence.
A Real Example: Jane Lubchenco
One of the most powerful examples of a scientist stepping into science leadership on her own terms is marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco.
As a researcher, she helped shape our understanding of ocean ecosystems. But her real impact came when she stepped into science leadership roles, first as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and later as head of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Lubchenco didn’t fit the classic mould of the “decisive executive.” What made her effective was her ability to bridge worlds, science, policy, and the public, and to stay grounded in evidence and empathy. She brought clarity to chaos not by overconfidence, but by modelling transparency and inviting collaboration.
Her leadership style has often been described as “quietly radical.” In other words: highly scientific.
Her story shows how leadership coaching in science isn’t about changing who you are, it’s about bringing your full self to the table.
Science Leadership That Embraces Complexity
In marine science and many STEM fields, the problems being tackled, climate change, biodiversity loss, and sustainable development, are what behavioural scientists call “wicked problems”.
They don’t have clear solutions. They involve multiple stakeholders, competing priorities, and shifting evidence.
Traditional, top-down leadership models often fall short in these environments. What’s needed instead is what psychologist Karl Weick calls “sensemaking”: the ability to notice subtle signals, connect disparate data points, and guide others through uncertainty without rushing to false certainty.
This is where scientists shine. They know how to hold ambiguity. They are comfortable saying, “We don’t know yet.” They don’t confuse simplicity with clarity.
And in a team setting, this way of thinking can be incredibly grounding, if it’s recognised as leadership.
Another Way Is Possible
Many successful professional examples of science leadership don’t conform to the stereotypical mould of confident, extroverted executives, and they don’t need to.
Take Jane Lubchenco, for example. Throughout her career, she has championed what she called the “social contract for science”, an idea that scientists have a responsibility not only to discover knowledge but to share it widely and use it in the service of society. This required her to step beyond research into uncomfortable territory: public communication, organisational change, and political pressure.
Her success didn’t come from being the loudest voice in the room. It came from staying curious, grounded in evidence, and collaborative in her approach, traits honed through scientific training, not despite it.
She’s not an exception. She’s an example of what can happen when science leadership is shaped by enquiry, not ego, and supported through intentional development such as leadership coaching.
Thinking Like a Scientist Is Leadership
In a time of increasing complexity, climate change, shifting policy, and fragile funding environments, science needs leaders who are thoughtful, evidence-informed, and deeply human. People who can model resilience, invite collaboration, and hold ambiguity without shutting it down.
This is the heart of science leadership today. It’s less about charisma, more about clarity. Less about certainty, more about systems thinking.
This doesn’t mean scientists need to retrain as psychologists. It means recognising that the habits of mind you’ve spent your career developing, systemic thinking, curiosity, and critical reflection, are not just useful in spite of leadership. They are valuable because of it.
An Invitation to Reflect
If you’re a scientist who sometimes feels like you “should” be more decisive, more confident, or more charismatic to be a good leader, pause for a moment.
What if those assumptions are based on outdated models?
What if your way of thinking, careful, curious, reflective, is exactly what’s needed in science leadership today?
At Barefoot Thinking, we work with scientists and STEM professionals to reconnect with their own strengths as leaders, not by asking them to act like someone else, but by helping them lead more fully as themselves.
You don’t need to leave the scientist behind to become a better leader. You just need to see your thinking in a new light.
Would you like to explore this idea further? Learn more about us, or simply take a moment to reflect on what leadership means to you, and how it might look when shaped by a scientist’s mind.
