In almost every research organisation, you’ll hear it said in one form or another:
“I just need to get better with my time management.”
It’s often spoken quietly, almost apologetically, by highly capable scientists who are juggling research, supervision, teaching, grant-writing, committee work, reporting, conferences, and, somewhere in the background, life.
The implicit belief is that if they just tried harder, used the right app, or woke up a bit earlier, things would finally feel manageable.
But many already are highly organised, dedicated, and disciplined.
What they are running up against is not a time management problem.
It’s a leadership development problem.
The structure, expectations, and emotional demands of scientific leadership have changed dramatically. Yet many scientists still feel they are supposed to “figure it out on their own,” and when overwhelm hits, they internalise it as a personal flaw.
It isn’t.
The Landscape of Scientific Work Has Outpaced the Support for It
Today’s scientific leaders operate in an environment shaped by:
- Constant competition for funding
- Administrative and compliance workloads that expand faster than support staffing
- Interdisciplinary collaborations that require coordination across cultures, institutions, and systems
- Heightened expectations for public engagement and societal impact
This isn’t a complaint about progress. Science should be collaborative, visible, and impactful.
But it means that being a scientific leader today involves sensemaking in complexity, working in situations where priorities are not fixed, resources are constrained, and outcomes are uncertain.
In these conditions, no amount of colour-coded calendars will solve the underlying challenge.
The issue is rarely How do I get better with my time management?
The real questions are:
- What is the work that truly requires my leadership?
- What needs shared ownership, not personal responsibility?
- How do we build clarity when the landscape itself is unclear?
These are leadership questions.
And they require development, not personal optimisation.
A Real-World Example: Dame Ottoline Leyser
Consider Dame Ottoline Leyser, Chief Executive of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) and plant biologist.
In interviews and public talks, Leyser emphasises that leadership in science is not about doing more as an individual, but about building contexts in which others can thrive.
She frequently highlights the need to move away from “hero leader” narratives toward collective, distributed leadership, in which responsibility, decisions, and insight are shared.
This is not just philosophically appealing, it is practical. No single scientific leader can hold all priorities, disciplines, and challenges alone.
Leyser’s approach aligns with a growing body of behavioural research showing that high-performance leadership environments depend on:
- Psychological safety (people can speak honestly without fear)
- Clarity of purpose
- Shared decision-making
- Reflective thinking time
What she models is not superior personal organisation.
It is a fundamentally different understanding of what leadership is.
Time became more manageable not because she worked harder, but because the work became shared.
This is the core shift many scientific leaders need help navigating.
Why This Shows Up as “Time Management”
When leaders move from doing the science to leading the science, the nature of time changes:
- Work becomes relational rather than task-based
- Success depends on conversations, alignment, and guidance
- Prioritisation is not about urgency but strategic value
- Uncertainty is constant
This means:
What appears to be a personal time management issue is often actually:
| Surface Problem | Underlying Leadership Issue |
| “I can’t keep on top of everything.” | The role has changed but identity hasn’t caught up. |
| “My days are full of meetings.” | Decision-making and responsibility are too centralised. |
| “I can’t get to the work that matters most.” | Priorities are unclear or in conflict. |
This is exactly where leadership coaching in science becomes powerful, not to “fix” the leader, but to give them structured space to think, reframe, and lead intentionally.
If you’re exploring this shift, our 3-Day Challenge of Science Leadership Course offers a practical, supportive way to begin applying these ideas in real working contexts.
A Strategic Approach for Organisations
For research directors, institute leads, and funding bodies, supporting leadership isn’t just supportive, it’s strategic and needs a coordinated approach.
1. Treat leadership development as core infrastructure, not an optional extra.
This could look like formal coaching, facilitated peer circles, or leadership cohorts.
2. Protect thinking time.
Strategic leadership cannot happen only between Zoom calls.
3. Promote shared ownership.
Not everything needs sign-off from “the most senior scientist in the room.”
4. Make leadership identity part of career progression, not an abrupt promotion cliff.
A Closing Reflection
If you are struggling with your time management as a scientific leader, it is not because you are failing.
It may simply be that you are carrying work that is meant to be shared, without having been given the support to shift how you lead.
And if you are someone shaping research culture, the most meaningful step you can take is to ask:
“How do we develop leadership in a way that reflects the complexity of the work we now ask leaders to do?”
Because when we invest in leadership, we create the conditions where science and scientists can flourish.
If This Resonates…
We work with research leaders who want to lead with clarity, humanity, and purpose.
If you’d like to explore what that could look like in your organisation:
We’d be glad to have a conversation.
If you’d like to explore how we could support leadership development within your team or organisation, you’re welcome to get in touch with us
