BUILDING A PROFESSIONAL CAREER

Bad blood in the laboratory-conflicts and how to avoidor resolve them

J. Fetzer

Published online: 6 September 2007# Springer-Verlag 2007

A research group is not only a collection of scientists. It is amix of personalities. Sometimes the mixture forms into acohesive, collaborative group where everyone helps andsupports each other’s efforts. At other times, the mix mayform into a divisive, even hostile, group that is filled withdistrust, resentment, pettiness, and destructive competition.

Such conflicts are not rare. The American Associationfor the Advancement of Science sponsored an Internetdiscussion group on careers in science: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/tools_resources/forum/home.

One of the more common topics brought up is conflictswith coworkers (both in industry and in an academicresearch group) and with a supervisor.

What things are the causes of these different outcomes?Of course, the variety of individual personalities leads to arange of results, but basic laboratory operations, structure,and attitudes are major factors. These all can be structuredor modified by the laboratory supervisor/research professor/principal investigator (whoever “runs” the laboratory) orthose working within the laboratory.

Leadership should come from the laboratory supervisor.She or he has the power to implement any changes and theauthority over everyone involved to make them workableand followed. The type of laboratory, for example, industryversus academic, defines many of the roles of thesupervisor and of the laboratory workers. In industry, asupervisor is often expected to be “the boss,” resolveconflicts, and make rules. A professor has more of theoption of advising the laboratory’s people on this.

Operational rules are the easiest changes to put in place.These are the ways of doing the tasks in the laboratory,such as calibration of instruments, ordering of supplies andchemicals, and so on. With defined rules, everyone shoulddo things in a more orderly manner and understand whatthe others do. Putting in place a person responsible for aspecific task, such as ordering solvents, helps coordinateefforts.

One of the most common points of contention may seemtrivial, but it often is the start of resentment that festers intobad feelings. This is the maintenance and cleaning ofcommon-use areas and instrumentation.

Shared resources inherently carry a shared responsibilityfor upkeep and maintenance. This often leads to theattitude that “someone else will do what is necessary,because I am too busy to do it.” Either no person does ituntil the neglect becomes critical, for example, an instru-ment no longer performs as needed, or the few who takeon the role feel that they are unfairly being taken advantageof. The supervisor or the group itself must list thesevarious shared resources and come up with a real sharedresponsibility. This can be making each action the responsi-bility of a specific person, with each person having to performan approximately equal amount of cleanup, repair, andmaintenance.

What seems neat and orderly to one person may bemessy to another. If someone is responsible for maintaininga clean hood area, then others who need to use that hoodshould not find it cluttered with samples, chemicals, andother things that should be stored elsewhere. The hoodmust have enough space left free for the required work tobe done. If this is not the case, the person needing that hoodhas to talk to the person responsible for it (and with a levelattitude without histrionics, nagging, and other negativetones-those will not foster a solution that is ongoing). An

Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:1293–1295DOI 10.1007/s00216-007-1556-9

J. Fetzer (*)Fetzpahs Consulting,P.O. Box 942, Pinole, CA 94564, USAe-mail: fetzpahs@hotmail.com

important key in maintaining laboratory harmony is thateach action must be supportive of long-term solutions, notexpedient, short-term ones.

One person may return tools after “completely” finishinga task; another may think they should be returned whenthere no longer is any potential use for them. Since the toolis not in its normal storage place, anyone needing it whilesomeone has left it out on the bench will become frustratedin having to look for it. If it appears to be unused and idlylying around, the searcher probably will be upset that it wasnot returned to its place. The user, however, might thinkthat it is still in use because there was only a temporarypause (of a few minutes or a few hours or a few days?).

Such a dilemma can be solved by a uniform process thatavoids the conflict. For example, in the tool’s normalstorage space, a tag with the user’s name can be left.Searching becomes simpler. The searcher can then tell theuser how long it will be needed and ask when the tool willbe again available.

Avoidance or tact and diplomacy or confrontation or what?When there is an issue in the laboratory that causes you

heartburn or heartache, what should you do? Since mostscientists are introverts, they tend to avoid the conflict. Thisoften results in tolerating the situation and ignoring it. Astime passes, the situation does not change and the personbecomes more and more frustrated. This often ends up withthat tolerance being exhausted and a confrontation betweenthe person and the others perceived as the cause of thesituation.

This approach seldom solves the issue that started it all.Instead, the two sides become antagonists who findnumerous other areas to battle over in many ways. Thismay be in retaliation or just because the clash has souredthe relationships, but the resulting bad blood ruins theworking relationships. This often impacts others in thelaboratory and affects the work done.

How can someone avoid this route to more rancor andtension in the laboratory? Part of the alternative must be forthe person to break out of the comfort of retreat inintroversion. Avoiding the issue only puts off dealing withit. That all too often leads to a worse attitude and situationto deal with. Instead, try several strategies to bring out theissue without confrontation.

If there are several people working together and the issueis jointly caused by everyone, like a messy and clutteredlaboratory or conflicting schedules in using equipment orinstruments, such conflicts often are easy to deal with.Everyone shares in and suffers from the problem. No oneperson owns it, so others need not feel that they are beingsingled out. Even pointing out the problem to another and

asking for ideas to deal with it gets the issue out in the openand more people thinking about it. Suggesting a briefmeeting to organize or schedule resources gets thingsmoving without you seeming to want to run the laboratoryor get your way at the cost of others.

Such approaches may be especially difficult for theyounger scientist, since popular culture’s and society’simages and themes recommend “having attitude,” to bedirect and confrontational, to think of one’s own interestsforemost-even to the exclusion of anyone else’s. These donot work very well in a scientific laboratory. Cooperationand collaboration are required on many tasks and projectsand a reputation of “attitude” will draw no one readily to beyour coworker and collaborator.

You must always remember that your issue’s resolutionin some acceptable fashion is your aim. Ego and status arebetter deferred while your immediate professional aims aremet. Good results will lead to status and recognition afterthat happens-especially if it happens repeatedly on severalprojects. That will make your work goals more attainable.Making your laboratory run more smoothly, guaranteeingresources for your work without creating strife, or elimi-nating petty emotional issues from your workplace can onlyhelp you be innovative and focused on your work.Laboratory work is different from that in most workplacesbecause on top of the normal competitiveness and person-ality clashes, you are forced to share space and resourcesthat are key to each person’s success. That may make anyself-centered solution a long-term liability.

Another area that can disrupt laboratory operations is theoverlap or intrusion of personal matters into the profes-sional location. Interpersonal relationships among co-workers occur often. Unlike those formed in one’s outsidelife, these create tensions and friction if they are ended.Normally, a person can minimize or avoid interactions withsomeone with whom one has been involved. This isdifficult or impossible in the laboratory.

Gossiping or making jokes about coworkers is aminefield most smart scientists will avoid. Hurting any-one’s feelings can lead to less productive workingrelationships. This is especially true in a small organiza-tion or company. Nichole Alvarez, a microbiologist whohas worked for several biotechnology companies, includ-ing both small start-ups and large established pharmaceu-tical companies, advises from her personal experiencesand observations: “There are always people who want togossip or compete or be confrontational. They use this totheir own advantage and may even use your responses totheir comments against you by telling others or yourboss.”

1294 Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:1293–1295

Although a good supervisor should stop such practicesthat harm the working environment once they becomeknown, many either choose not to or are oblivious to thelessened effectiveness of their teams. As a scientist who hascareer interests in mind, when this situation surrounds you,you should do things to lessen it. Remind those who arebehaving badly that gossip they spread is as harmful asgossip from others about them or that their denigrating acoworker makes them seem to be mean-spirited or a smallerperson.

Further reading

1. http://www.the-scientist.com/2007/2/1/26/1/

John Fetzer

is the author or coauthor of over

130 research articles, reviews, and

book chapters. He is a member of

the International Advisory Board

of Analytical and Bioanalytical

Chemistry. He has worked for

over 20 years as an analytical

chemist for the Chevron Corpo-

ration and now runs his own

consulting company, Fetzpahs

Consulting, in Hercules, CA, USA. His book Career management

for chemists-a guide to success in a chemistry career was published

by Springer.

Anal Bioanal Chem (2007) 389:1293–1295 1295