Recap: More than 20 students supervised

TLDR

Due to the size and structure of our research lab (60+ PhD students), supervising students became a core part of my doctoral journey, that shaped both my research and my leadership approach.

3 years for the team, 2 years for me

This is an unofficial motto of our research group. Unlike many other STEM labs, we cannot dive straight into independent research during our first PhD years. Instead, we are tasked to teach courses, manage projects, maintain wet labs, and supervise students. Here, you’re not a lone researcher pursuing your own work - occasionally collaborating with one or two colleagues. Rather, you are part of a bigger team, constantly coordinating topics and tasks with many others. For some researchers, this structure might sound horrible, but it prepares us for the real world: managing time and resources while working effectively in teams. When I started, I was immediately given my first project (a big hydrogen project), tasked with setting up a new experimental apparatus and buying substantial equipment. At the same time, I began teaching a course on membrane separation processes and assumed responsibility for a large wet lab with over 10 active daily users.

I really questioned whether this was the PhD and future I wanted, but in retrospect I am grateful for these challenges.

The only viable path to advancing your own research under these conditions is through student supervision. In Germany, every student must complete a bachelor’s thesis (3 months) and a master’s thesis (6 months). As PhDs, we recruit students to work on topics aligned with our research interests.

Student supervision

Inspired by my own bachelor supervisor, I aspired to be a “servant leader”: Enabling and guiding students rather than micromanaging them. I established weekly progress meetings with each student but remained relatively hands-off otherwise. I wanted students to think independently, make mistakes, and explore solutions before bringing problems to me. Whenever possible, I encouraged them to come to meetings with proposed solutions rather than just problems. Since I typically supervised multiple students simultaneously (usually 4-7), I wanted to prevent isolated, redundant work. I established a student-led group meeting where each week, one student presented their progress and discussed their research. This format not only sharpened their presentation skills but also fostered extensive “cross-pollination,” as many students encountered similar challenges. The benefits of this group structure became even more pronounced as initial students gained experience and new students joined. We created a flywheel effect: senior students became informal co-supervisors, sharing their expertise and guiding newer members through the research process.

Of course, we need to strike a healthy balance here. Students still need help and guidance and for me, finding that balance was not straight-forward, especially since each student is unique, with difference strength and weaknesses. In hindsight, I still wish I had spent even more time with and for some of my students. Luckily, right now I have a second opportunity to improve this process. As I am working with an early-stage PhD student for the University of Virginia, I again try to find this balance between hands-off and always-helpful supervision.

Conclusion

The supervising experience taught me as much as it taught them, and the collaborative structure we built became one of the most rewarding aspects of my doctoral work. I hope more professors and labs adapt a similar, less micro-management structure. This makes PhD students as well as master and bachelor students much more independent and responsible.