PhysioProf recently posted over at DrugMonkey about his method of encouraging lab communication--everyone emails a weekly update to the lab about their recent progress and upcoming plans.
I like this policy, in part because it reminds me of how, when I was a lab technician, the PI ran lab meetings. He was a more advanced prof, secure in tenure and lab-head duties, and he visited the 8-10 person lab regularly but was not intimately involved in experimental carry-out.
In order to keep communication lines open, he had a wonderful habit of going around the room at the start of lab meeting, saying something like this: "Pete, your project is going great and we agreed you'd have figures for us to talk over by--what'd we say, Friday? Carol, you gave me a draft of your paper yesterday and I will have it back to you by Thursday with comments. Jen, I know you're hitting some complications with experiments; let's sit down together after lab meeting and walk through things." etc, etc.
This was wonderful for three reasons. First, it made everyone--including him--publicly accountable for their progress. He hadn't just said to Carol that he'd have read her manuscript by Thursday--he'd promised it in front of the whole lab. Similarly, it wasn't only Pete who knew he was supposed to be working on figures.
Second, it helped to verify that he and each lab member were on the same page about their projects, eliminating many a crossed wire. ("Oh, you meant this Friday? Ok then.")
Finally, it fostered a sort of sunshine policy on lab management. While the labbies still gossiped about the PI periodically, there was much less opportunity for gripefests. You didn't need to complain to your labmates that you'd given the PI a manuscript but had no idea when he was going to actually read it; you (and everyone else) knew what the PI's stated plan was.
Of course, none of this would have mattered if it weren't that the PI was also outstanding at follow-through. When he said he'd read your paper by Thursday, he generally did so. But I do think his manner of making the whole lab aware of each person's plans was beneficial to lab running. I hope to copy it one day.
15 years ago
4 comments:
I think this is a great policy for all the reasons you stated. And I like the idea of diffusing potential "I have no idea what the PI wants because I haven't met with him/her in a month" complaints.
But I must admit that I'd be a bit annoyed at having to deliver weekly email updates. I dunno...feels a bit like grade school and having to hand in homework assignments.
Mad Hatter, I know what you mean. I think one would have to create the right atmosphere so that it felt like a lab-wide project rather than like homework. But also you're obviously quite senior relative to postdocs and grad students, so it wouldn't necessarily make a lot of sense for you anyhow.
the lab meeting announcements is fucking brilliant. sounds like an awesome PI and an awesome lab.
you won't be surprised to know that when people say they're going to do something in public, they're MUCH more likely to actually do it. so it's a self-reinforcing system of actually delivering. i love it.
if i ever have a lab, i will remember to do that.
my last couple of labs have been way too big to make the email idea practical. i would not want that much email, and i like email.
PI doesn't respond to most email anyway. And I'm at the sort of place where postdocs unsubscribe from mailing lists all the time because they can't figure out how to hit delete.
never gonna happen.
Ms PhD--yeah, I always think of those campaigns that say that the most effective way to quit smoking (or go on a diet, or whatever) is to tell absolutely everyone around you about your plan--so that even the doorman who sees you lighting up will call you on it. That's what makes this strategy so effective.
I think if a lab has gotten so large that weekly emails from everyone would swamp your inbox, then that lab is too large. But I'm a small-medium (8-9 people max) lab proponent....
Post a Comment