At a workshop last year, Steven Elliot (the name has been changed to protect the idealistic) described his dream vision for running a lab. "I only want conversation in my lab that pertains to the science and experiments," he told colleagues. His peers, there to evaluate and possibly 'join' the hypothetical lab, got up from the lunch table, mumbling a collective "We're out of here!"
Elliot had broken an important rule of personnel management, according to an experienced lab head: treat your employees as people first and workers second. He had already undermined the ability to build mutual trust and respect, conditions that lead a list of management skills a new investigator must acquire quickly, says Lynne Howell, a veteran protein crystallographer at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. After all, not only are your postdocs and students putting their careers in your hands, but yours will be in their hands as well.
"You are only subsequently as good as the people you hire," says Howell. "You are not going to be at the bench any more, so you need to look for intellectually motivated students and postdocs."
Brains for Hire
Because salaries usually represent a lab's largest investment, new investigators should hire carefully. For lab technicians and postdocs, a group leader would do well to plan out what type of people and expertise the lab needs. Will workers need certain technical skills? Will they need good interpersonal and communications skills to work with collaborators? Do they possess strong enough leadership skills to provide stability for smaller groups when the principal investigator is away?
Christina Hull, a microbiologist and new investigator at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, says it took six months to hire her technician, but feels it was worth taking the time to get the right fit. On the other hand, points out Andreas Lüthi, a neurophysiologist at the Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research in Basel, "You cannot wait for the perfect employee, you have to get going."
When faced with her first interview, Hull applied helpful strategies from mentors and a book she read called At the Helm: A Laboratory Navigator by Kathy Barker (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, 2002). First, she learned, always call references. Not only because everyone is loath to put something bad in writing, but because a phone conversation will help gauge if someone will be a good match.
"I was not lazy about calling all references and asking if this person meets my needs," says Hull. Also, she adds, most will tell you if the person is a "real jerk". And she suggests two rounds of interviews to maximize interaction with candidates.
For technical and admin support or undergraduates, set up a probationary period (some institutes have a built-in policy) and give the employee clear criteria for retaining the job. This gives both parties an exit plan if after a few months things aren't working out. Do not shy away from giving a proficiency maths test, says Catherine Baty, who runs a live cell imaging group at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
She learned her lesson when one of the first people she hired could not adjust routine solution recipes for the lab. Geneticist Erik Jorgensen, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, once put an undergraduate applicant on the spot to make a sodium chloride solution. But, he says, the experience was so uncomfortable for both parties that Jorgensen dropped the practice.
Christina Hull (centre): it's worth taking time to pick a team.
He now goes more by gut feeling, choosing students who drop by his office persistently or show initiative by reading the lab's publications. Jorgensen says he wants staff who are "enthusiastic and hungry".
Erica Ollman Saphire, a new investigator at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, looked for a particular character trait — resilience — that she felt was important for protein crystallographers to possess.
But how does one discover such qualities in one or two interviews? Investigators suggest asking probing questions, such as: "Where do you see yourself at the end of your time here? What have you done in the past when an experiment doesn't work out? We're stumped by this experiment: what would you do? Why do you want to work in my lab on this particular project?"
Bill Neaves, president and chief executive officer of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in Kansas City, Missouri, advises interviewers to "spend at least as much time trying to discourage someone from joining your lab" as you spend encouraging them. In other words, spell out the demands of the job and the lab's high standards, to weed out mediocre candidates.
Bill Neaves (right): the people you choose can cope with the demands of the job if you discouraged mediocre candidates.
Also, introduce the candidate to lab members individually. This gives current lab members a chance to observe the candidate's communication skills and register an overall impression. Interpersonal skills should have a high priority — they reflect how the person will work in a team and resolve conflicts. After all, notes Lüthi, you have to imagine working with this person "for three years or longer".
Team Building
Once an investigator has established a group, smooth sailing requires occasional steering from the captain. Leaders of small labs should take special care to foster cohesiveness. Baty set up a multi-lab journal club to give her two lab members the chance to draw from a wider brainstorming pool.
Productivity has to be maintained as well. Adam Mullick, a postdoc at Scripps, never appreciated how much work it takes to be a taskmaster until his adviser put him in charge of four lab technicians to coordinate a three-month, 170-mouse project.
"The burden is on the manager to be incredibly organized," he says. The best strategy for keeping the techs accountable for their share of the project was to give each a defined workload and deadline, he recalls. He finds it helpful to check progress with staff one-to-one on a daily or weekly basis. Giving all lab members semi-formal opportunities to present their work to the group also keeps projects on track.
"Things will always take longer than you expect them to," cautions Howell. "But don't ever show your impatience, and always be enthusiastic about a project — even if it is in a lull."
Saphire reviews lab notebooks and leaves suggestions on sticky notes. Baty, inspired by the training schedule for her first marathon, began writing out lists of where each person's project should be in both the short and the long term. "I thought the coolest thing about running a marathon was how much could be achieved if you planned for it," she says.
Although a group leader can plan a logical map of experiments, inspiring workers can be a more difficult task. Cheerleading and encouragement can be hands-on or hands-off. Saphire tends to shower workers with positive reinforcement and thank-you's for hard work. But Jorgensen expects his smart, enthusiastic hired hands to need little or no active supervision. "They take their cues from me that they should probably work hard. All I ask is that they be excited," he says.
These investigators do not set hours or require weekend shifts, relying instead on results-driven motivation to get the job done. And they suggest that criticism is best given constructively and in private.
When Problems Arise
Sticky personnel situations arise in every lab, but can be particularly stressful for a rookie boss. To minimize unpleasantness, be familiar with institutional and departmental policies. Set clear expectations for all staff, and use formal evaluation procedures as avenues to address problems without confrontation.
If an employee has to be fired, veteran investigators recommend documenting the reasons for, and all interactions leading up to, termination. They also encourage having a third party, such as a senior colleague, witness the firing. This will defuse a tense moment and keep it from turning personal. The witness will then be able to vouch for your handling of the situation.
Also, explore talking through tough personnel issues with a more senior lab head or mentor. "Remember that there are people who have done this before and ask them: 'How do I do this?'," says Howell, who has run her lab for 14 years.
It is also important to remember that personnel management is not just administrative chores and whip-cracking. Lüthi says that directing a group to carry out research goals can be "motivating and really rewarding" in itself. He points out that although managing people is not emphasized in postdoctoral training, it quickly becomes one of the most important aspects of setting up your own lab. "It's about developing a relationship with your collaborators and finding out what they need," he says.