From Molecules to Mindsets: Rediscovering Leadership at the Intersection of Vaccine R&D and Business

I work as an Associate Principal Scientist in Vaccine Analytical Research and Development at Merck, a role that places me at the heart of one of the most complex and consequential efforts in modern society: developing and manufacturing life-saving vaccines at scale. My academic training is deeply rooted in science—I hold a doctorate in cancer & cell biology, and my professional identity has long been shaped by experimental rigor, data-driven thinking, and problem-solving within highly structured systems. For much of my career, excellence meant technical mastery: understanding mechanisms, validating assays, interpreting data, and ensuring that scientific decisions were defensible, reproducible, and precise.

Yet, as my responsibilities expanded and my exposure to cross-functional decision-making increased, I began to sense a gap—one that scientific expertise alone could not fill. Drug manufacturing is not just a scientific process; it is a business, an operational system, and, most importantly, a human enterprise. Decisions are shaped not only by data but also by incentives, risk tolerance, organizational culture, and leadership judgment. To better understand this broader context, I decided to pursue an MBA, with the explicit goal of learning the business of drug manufacturing and gaining a more holistic view of how scientific innovation is translated into real-world impact.

What I did not anticipate, however, was how profoundly my understanding of leadership would be reshaped in the process. Before I share my reflections from the Leadership and Teams course in my MBA at the Gies College of Business, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, I sincerely thank Professors Elizabeth Luckman, Kari Keating, Denise L. Loyd, and David Charles for their guidance and insights into the many facets of leadership.

Leadership Beyond Title: A Shift in Perspective

Like many scientists, my early conception of leadership was largely positional. Leaders were those with authority, those who made final decisions, set priorities, or someone who genetic trait and were accountable for outcomes (1). Leadership, in this framing, was something one arrived at after years of technical contribution and organizational progression.

My MBA coursework—particularly a class on Leadership and Teams at Gies college of Business, UIUC—challenged this assumption almost immediately. Rather than presenting leadership as a static role or a collection of best practices, the course framed it as a dynamic, ongoing process: something that breathes in and out through interactions, choices, and self-awareness. Leadership, I began to realize, is not merely about directing others; it is about understanding oneself, navigating complexity, and creating conditions in which others can perform, grow, and contribute meaningfully (2). Leadership should also be human-centric if someone aspires to be a transformative leader (3).

This realization was both humbling and energizing. Despite years of education and experience, I became acutely aware of how much there was still to learn—especially about the human dimensions of work that are often underemphasized in scientific training.

Leadership Self-Awareness: The Starting Point

One of the most impactful concepts introduced in the course was leadership self-awareness (4, 5). In scientific environments, self-awareness is often implicit rather than explicit. We are trained to recognize our cognitive biases in experimental design, to question assumptions, and to validate conclusions. But far less attention is paid to understanding how our personality traits, communication styles, emotional triggers, and values shape our interactions with others.

Through structured reflection, feedback instruments, and peer discussions, I began to examine questions that I had rarely paused to consider:
How do I respond under pressure?
What assumptions do I make about competence, urgency, or commitment?
How do others experience me in moments of disagreement or ambiguity?

What emerged was a clearer understanding that leadership effectiveness is inseparable from self-regulation (4). In high-stakes environments like vaccine R&D, stress, timelines, and regulatory scrutiny are constant. Without self-awareness, it is easy for urgency to override empathy, or for technical confidence to be mistaken for certainty. The course emphasized that leaders who lack self-awareness often unintentionally create friction, silence dissent, or erode trust—even when their intentions are sound (4,5).

This insight reframed leadership not as an outward performance, but as an inward discipline that continuously shapes outward behavior.

Difference of Opinion: Conflict and Negotiation as Leadership Skills

Another transformative area of learning centered on the role of conflict and negotiation. In scientific organizations, disagreement is not only common—it is necessary (6). Differing interpretations of data, competing priorities across functions, and trade-offs between speed, cost, and risk are inherent to drug development and manufacturing.

Historically, I viewed conflict as something to be resolved quickly through logic and evidence. If the data were strong enough, alignment would follow. While this approach works in some contexts, it often overlooks the emotional and relational dimensions of disagreement. The leadership course introduced a more nuanced view: conflict is not a failure of collaboration, but a signal of interdependence.

Effective leaders do not eliminate conflict; they surface it constructively.

Through case discussions and simulations, I began to see how unaddressed conflict can quietly undermine teams—manifesting as passive resistance, disengagement, or decision paralysis. Conversely, when leaders create psychological safety and invite diverse perspectives, conflict becomes a source of better decision-making. Negotiation, in this sense, is not about winning an argument, but about aligning interests, acknowledging constraints, and finding integrative solutions (7).

For someone trained to prioritize correctness (in this case it’s me as a scientist), this was a subtle but important shift. Leadership requires not only being right, but being effective—and effectiveness often depends on how disagreements are navigated, not just how they are resolved.

Conversation Levels: What We Talk About—and What We Avoid

One of the most practically useful frameworks I encountered was the concept of conversation level tiers. At a surface level, most organizational conversations focus on tasks, timelines, and deliverables. These discussions are necessary, but insufficient. Beneath them lie conversations about relationships, trust, and unspoken expectations. Deeper still are conversations about identity, values, and purpose.

In scientific and technical environments, there is often a strong bias toward staying at the task level. This can create efficiency, but it can also limit learning and engagement. The leadership course emphasized that many persistent team challenges—misalignment, low morale, resistance to change—cannot be solved at the task level alone. They require leaders to be willing to engage at deeper conversational tiers.

This idea resonated strongly with my experience. I began to recognize moments when a stalled discussion about “resources” was actually about trust, or when resistance to a decision reflected deeper concerns about voice and recognition. Learning to identify and appropriately engage these deeper layers of conversation is not easy, especially in cultures that prize objectivity and restraint. Yet, it is precisely this skill that differentiates managerial competence from true leadership.

Integrating Science, Business, and Leadership

As my MBA journey continues, I increasingly see leadership as the connective tissue between science and business. Drug manufacturing operates at the intersection of discovery, regulation, supply chains, finance, and public health. Technical excellence is essential, but it is leadership that integrates these domains into coherent action.

My background in drug discovery and development research trained me to think deeply, systematically, and critically. My role at Merck demands precision, accountability, and cross-functional collaboration. My MBA—and particularly my exposure to leadership theory and practice—has added a new dimension: the ability to step back, see the system as a whole, and understand how human behavior shapes outcomes within that system.

True leadership, I have learned, is not static. It evolves as contexts change and as individuals grow. It breathes in through reflection and learning, and breathes out through action and influence. It requires humility to acknowledge what we do not know, courage to engage difficult conversations, and discipline to align intent with impact.

Conclusion: Leadership as a Lifelong Practice

Perhaps the most important realization from this journey is that leadership is not something to be mastered once and for all. It is a lifelong practice—one that demands continuous learning, self-examination, and adaptation. For someone trained in science, this realization is both familiar and challenging. Familiar, because inquiry and iteration are at the heart of scientific progress. Challenging, because leadership asks us to turn that same rigor inward.

As I continue to grow at the intersection of science, business, and leadership, I am increasingly convinced that the future of drug manufacturing—and healthcare more broadly—depends not only on innovation and efficiency, but on leaders who can think systemically, act ethically, and engage others with clarity and respect.

That, ultimately, is the kind of leadership I now aspire to practice.

About the author:

Pankaj Dwivedi is a currently employed with Merck Inc., & Co., Rahway, NJ. He is also pursuing his MBA at Gies College of Business, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. His selected focus areas for MBA are Healthcare Innovation, Design, and Entrepreneurship. Pankaj has a doctorate in cancer & cell Biology from college of medicine, University of Cincinnati and a master’s degree in protein biochemistry from California State University-Long Beach. He is also active freelancer for various journals for the editorial and reviewer related activities.

References

1. Benmira, S., & Agboola, M. (2021). Evolution of leadership theory. BMJ Leader, 5(1), 3-5.
2. Barnard-Bahn, A. (2021, February 4). Promotions aren’t just about your skills-they’re about your relationships. Harvard Business Review. 
3. Bisoux, T. (2024, July 31). Drive transformation with human-centric leadership. AACSB Insights.
4. Neuhaus, M. (2020, November 17). What is self-leadership? Models, theories, and examples. PositivePsychology.com.
5. Eurich, T. (2018, January 4). What self-awareness really is (and how to cultivate it). Harvard Business Review. 
6. Brooks, A.W., & John, L.K. (2018, May-June). The surprising power of questions. Harvard Business Review.
7. Leading Effectively Staff. (2022, April 18). Why you should collaborate through boundaries. Center for Creative leadership.

Image Source: Gemini