What makes a 'perfect match' for a supervisor?

When we get the ball rolling in academia, we often find ourselves just eager for an opportunity. You apply for your bachelor's or master's thesis and hope for the best, fantasising about the day a PI decides to take a chance on you so you can start your professional career as a scientist. Because that is the word that summarises our dreams and hopes at that moment.

The feeling is just as huge, if not bigger, by the time you start your PhD. You have great ideas and even more willingness to learn, so you apply to every project whose hypothesis fits within your expertise, almost as if you were using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Not for a moment during that process do we think about the fit of that PI. We get so drunk on science that we tend to forget that we are up for selection, but so are the potential teams we will work with (or for).

For the duration of the research project, that potential supervisor will likely influence our daily mood, confidence and future plans. This statement may sound a bit overly dramatic, but every study conducted on PhD students agrees on the huge toll the academic career takes on academics' mental health.

Throughout my career, I've had the great opportunity of working under multiple supervisors, each of whom fell into a completely different category. Please join me as I slowly take you through my personal classification of the teaching styles a supervisor can exert towards their students.

Four supervisor alter egos

1) The hands-off supervisor: freedom, in every sense of the word.

Supervisors who fall into this category are generally on the passive end of the control spectrum. When I worked with one hands-off PI, I was given space, autonomy and freedom to explore, which was great from an experimental perspective. This happened really early in my professional career, and the opportunity to try new ideas and make mistakes proved very effective in building my judgement.

But this freedom always comes with a trade-off: without structure, it's surprisingly easy to get lost and fail to meet tight deadlines.

Summary: Having a hands-off supervisor is great if you already have some experience, but not so great if you are at the beginning of the learning curve.

2) The exponential level of micro-managing supervisor

Then we have these other managers, who are never willing to delegate, not even the most negligible task. For me, they wouldn't let me do any assignment without constantly breathing down my neck. At times, they even stepped in and put their hand into a cell-culture flow cabinet because things weren’t lined up the way they liked. Let me clarify this: I was working in a sterile flow cabinet where you need to be very careful with every tiny movement in order for the samples not to get contaminated. And they just put their hands in it.

Before anyone comes for me, there was absolutely nothing wrong with my setup. The real issue was simply that they were left-handed and I was right-handed. Somehow, they were convinced that the organisation of a left-handed person is always superior in a flow cabinet… even for a right-handed person.

Summary: This management system undoubtedly leads to fewer mistakes, and so it can seem that the project is moving faster. But does it really move faster when different team members can't work at the same time? In this setting, teamwork is always underdeveloped, and so is your professional confidence and independence.

3) The “do the job of 2–3 people” supervisor

I’ve also had supervisors who expected one person to deliver the workload of two, maybe even three people. And, honestly, if you are an extreme workaholic, this setting might be perfect for you. You will surely develop a set of skills that will make your CV look like a perfect asset for any group or company. However, this quick professional growth doesn't come for free. It rapidly leaves you drained, lacking the initial scientific enthusiasm, and constantly exhausted.

Summary: This setting can work for you if you are able to set strong boundaries. It might be okay to work some weekends and during longer shifts when the experiments require you to do so, but it shouldn't mean that you are expected to work 24/7 all month long.

4) The perfect match: wisdom and space.

Last, but definitely not least, we have this group of supervisors. They offer great advice, strong scientific guidance, all while giving you enough autonomy to build confidence. When you have this type of PI, you often find yourself being corrected, but not punished. As a consequence, you learn how to ponder and evaluate consequences, without being scared to fail. They are rare and difficult to find, but definitely worth waiting for.

Summary: From my take, this combination is pure gold because it compounds over time: you learn fast and sustainably and develop critical thinking skills, all while learning how to interpret experimental mismatches without perceiving them as a personal failure.

Bottom line

Even if the project looks perfect on paper, remember to always check on the team running it. While the hypothesis and approach might be just perfect, the day-to-day reality behind them is what will mostly shape your scientific personality, and that is ultimately determined by the PI and their research team.

With that in mind, the most useful advice I could give (based on my 8 years of experience in academia) is:

Choose your supervisor like you’d choose a life partner (because, for a while, they basically are).

PS: We're gathering some tips to help you minimise the risk of choosing a supervisor who won't meet your expectations (because we know that advice is great, but practical advice is even better). These recommendations will be up next week, so stay tuned to the blog!