In an era of accelerated change, the laboratories that outperform their peers are not necessarily those with the largest budgets or most talent, but those that learn the fastest. According to research by psychologist Ron Friedman, PhD, featured in Harvard Business Review, superteams are defined by their ability to evolve through specific, repeatable behaviors. By surveying over 6,000 professionals across industries such as healthcare and technology, Friedman identified that high-performing teams share three core strengths: efficient management of time and energy, an active commitment to making one another better, and a focus on building new skills over time.
Defining the superteam internal culture
The drive for continuous improvement in a lab often stalls once a reliable protocol is established. However, superteams stay ahead by running nearly 50 percent more experiments than average teams to improve their workflow. These trials range from small process adjustments to testing new service offerings. Leaders of these teams make it safe to try new things; for example, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman encouraged his staff to fail 15 percent of the time to maintain speed and innovation.
Cultivating intellectual humility for lab manager success
A common misconception is that a lab manager must have every answer. Friedman’s data suggests the opposite: superteam leaders are 33 percent more likely to acknowledge when they lack information. This transparency builds trust and creates psychological safety—the strongest predictor of team performance.
When a leader models curiosity by asking thoughtful questions—a trait 56 percent more common in superteam leaders—it signals that learning is a shared journey. This approach is mirrored in reverse-mentorship programs, where junior employees help senior staff navigate new technologies, ensuring the organization remains connected to fresh perspectives.
Prioritizing problem-solving over progress reports
Standard lab meetings often focus on polished updates that hide obstacles. Superteam leaders are 43 percent more likely to steer discussions toward problems that need solving. By asking "What are you stuck on?" managers normalize challenges and signal that asking for help is a mark of engagement rather than weakness.
This reflects the Scrum methodology used by companies like Microsoft, in which daily stand-ups focus on identifying blockers to accelerate collective learning. When lab members feel safe acknowledging a botched assay or a slip-up without embarrassment, the entire team becomes more resilient.
Implementing the superteam model in your laboratory operations
To foster this environment, lab managers must move beyond mere oversight. Superteam leaders are far more likely to roll up their sleeves and contribute to the work itself. Being in the trenches provides a clearer view of emerging challenges and models high standards for the staff.
Furthermore, feedback must feel like support. On superteams, over 90 percent of workers report that their manager provides feedback that motivates improvement without being demoralizing. By framing mistakes as useful data and replacing rigid annual reviews with frequent, informal check-ins, laboratories can reduce turnover and significantly boost performance. Ultimately, leading with meaning—connecting daily tasks to a larger community mission—ensures that the team remains committed to excellence.
This article was created with the assistance of Generative AI and has undergone editorial review before publishing.
