В академической среде набирает популярность модель совместного руководства для снижения выгорания исследователей

Why the ‘lone wolf’ principal investigator no longer works in modern academia In merging two research teams, we stepped into an unconventional model of co‑leadership that reshaped our scientific lives. A scientist and a surgical consultant leading together challenged academic norms, dissolved the loneliness of traditional principal investigator (PI) roles, and created a shared patient‑centred vision for translational research. By embedding patients, carers and high‑performance coaching at our core, we built a culture defined not by individual burden, but by collective responsibility, sustainability and genuine collaboration. This is our story. A collaboration born in uncertainty We formed the co-led team against a backdrop of 2020’s paradigm-shifting changes. The aim was to rethink how we worked, led and supported people when traditional academic models felt fragile. At the time, we were both trying to deliver excellent fundamental biology while navigating the complexities of delivering novel therapeutic strategies to patients. But neither of us felt doing this properly was possible alone. Our early conversations revealed that while our disease contexts (soft tissue sarcomas and oesophageal adenocarcinoma) were different, our frustrations were aligned. By working together, we could bring complementary scientific and clinical expertise to bear on cancers defined by unmet clinical need. Collaboration began to feel structural. - Rethinking how researchers can deliver preventive healthcare outreach - Juggling competing priorities in research collaborations - Interdisciplinary research cultures are inclusive, not competitive The result was the Innovation for Translation Research Group (ITRG). We believe translational research demands structures that enable integration between clinical insight and academic enquiry. Five years on, the benefits are visible in academic outputs and a sense of community and shared ownership. Why co-leadership was a deliberate choice Academic leadership is typically structured around individual PIs carrying ultimate responsibility. While collaboration is encouraged, shared authority is not. We were aware of perceived risks: ambiguity, inefficiency and questions of accountability. To us, the potential benefits outweighed the risks. Inefficiency was exactly what we could address with co-leadership. Our model fundamentally shapes how we design research. It makes the most of divergent skill sets to address natural deficiencies. Constant dialogue between clinical insight and experimental strategy strengthens decisions, allowing us to design studies that move from bedside to bench and back again. Our partnership enabled this to develop with greater speed because laboratory approaches are shaped together from the outset. We are equals, both accountable for the decisions and actions of our team. The loneliness of academic leadership Working in academia can be an extremely lonely experience. The transition from postdoctoral researcher to team leader involves moving from being part of a supportive group to leading alone. Even as teams grow, many consequential decisions remain the responsibility of one individual. The weight of these responsibilities can be isolating, stressful and demotivating. Co-leadership models offer a way to mitigate this isolation, creating a shared space for decision-making and mutual support. By providing a trusted peer with whom to discuss challenges, co-leadership reduces the sense that the burden of leadership must be carried alone. How co-leadership changes the research experience As a working mother with young children, co-author Zoë Walters found balancing home and work challenging. Yet co-leadership has led to less stress and more time because leadership is shared. Two perspectives are available, as is someone trusted with whom to shape and test ideas. The process becomes more creative and sustainable, with each strengthening the other’s thinking. This is evident when tackling major tasks such as grant applications. Workload and emotional labour are shared, including doubt, pressure and the need to support others. We call one another out when we could be doing better. For the team, this means access to complementary leadership styles. Co-creating strategy: the importance of patient and public involvement As the team matures, we have recognised limitations. Despite a commitment to translational impact, patients and carers remained absent from strategic discussions. We felt it was paramount to bring patients into our fold to gain insight into what matters most to them. This led to the creation of the strategic oversight team (SOT), which includes patients, carers and a high-performance coach. This team serves as a board of directors who hold us accountable for delivering on our team vision. They work with us from the inception of an idea to a finished application. In one recent grant, the team challenged the initial concept and reflected on whether our questions aligned with the issues of patients living with these diseases. Their insights helped us refine the framing and strengthen the translational focus. They also challenged us to think about how our team structure reflects our vision. In response, we reshaped the internal structure, so projects are organised around central themes. This has created opportunities for senior team members to take ownership of thematic areas, which fosters a supportive environment for emerging leaders to develop. Redefining high performance in science Introducing high-performance coaching was unfamiliar at first. Yet it has resulted in clearer communication, greater psychological safety, a unified vision and a shared language for navigating pressure. Tools for goal setting and motivation have helped us recognise the importance of well-being. People who are well perform better. Our vision allows us to demonstrate connection: commitment to improving the outcomes of patients with solid tumours of unmet clinical need by delivering better treatments, via a combination of clinical, computational and scientific excellence. Together with patient input, this has redefined high performance through sustainability, culture and collective responsibility. Co-leadership is not a universal solution; it requires trust and intentionality. Yet, for us, it has been transformative. It is a model we believe more of us should adopt to make academic life more humane and sustainable for those who choose to stay in it. Zoë S. Walters is a professor in translational epigenomics in the School of Cancer Sciences and is a module lead on the MSc Genomics, and Tim Underwood is professor of gastrointestinal surgery, both in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Southampton. If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.