Feedback belongs in the everyday rhythm of lab work, not just in performance reviews or post-mortems. It shapes how people learn, how workflows improve, and how teams communicate when the stakes are high. Yet many scientific workplaces still treat feedback as a formal event rather than an everyday leadership practice.
Scott Hanton, group editorial director at Lab Manager, has spent decades leading scientific teams and teaching the principles of effective feedback. His guidance is rooted in experience across industry, research, and organizational psychology and offers a practical roadmap for labs seeking to build a stronger feedback culture. As he explains, “We really can’t expect people to improve their performance or to develop and grow without giving them feedback.”
Why feedback matters in scientific workplaces
Science advances through iteration—experiments, results, reflection, improvement. People are no different. But while most lab managers invest heavily in process improvements, many overlook how essential human feedback is to motivating teams and reducing friction.
Positive feedback reinforces behaviors that support high-quality work. Constructive feedback helps employees grow, stretch into new responsibilities, and recognize patterns that hold them back. Corrective feedback prevents mistakes, improves safety, and protects the integrity of the lab’s output.
Hanton reminds leaders that feedback is not optional or peripheral. It is the mechanism by which teams learn and stay aligned: “Feedback is going to help us in an enormous number of ways… and the feedback you give is going to help your team in the same enormous number of ways.”
For lab managers responsible for safety, compliance, and mentorship, this is particularly important. A disengaged staff member may overlook small data anomalies, skip a safety step, or struggle silently with a technique they are too nervous to ask about. The risks compound when feedback is rare.
The challenge: Most employees aren’t getting enough feedback
Despite its importance, feedback remains unevenly embedded in many workplaces. Gallup reports that employees who receive meaningful feedback from their manager at least weekly are significantly more likely to be engaged, yet far fewer employees report experiencing that level of ongoing input. Gallup also finds that workers who receive useful feedback are less likely to feel burned out and more likely to be thriving at work.
For a lab, this means technicians and scientists can spend long stretches unsure whether they are documenting work correctly, calibrating instruments properly, or meeting expectations for quality and safety. This gap in guidance is not neutral; it creates uncertainty, slows learning, and allows small performance issues to compound into larger risks.
The solution is not more formal performance reviews. It is building a laboratory culture of feedback where small, specific, in-the-moment conversations happen naturally and frequently.
The mindset shift: Think of feedback as an act of care
Scientific leaders often avoid giving feedback not because they don’t care, but because they do. They worry about uncomfortable reactions, emotional responses, or damaging relationships. But as Hanton points out, the opposite is true: “It is a kindness to point out something that didn’t go right, or could go better in the future, and then give specific instruction about how it could be done better.”
Feedback becomes easier when leaders adopt two beliefs:
- Feedback is a gift. As Hanton puts it, “Any idiot can criticize you, but it takes somebody who cares about you to give you constructive advice on how to make it better next time.”
- Feedback requires trust and safety. Without trust, employees experience feedback as a threat, not support.
A missed step in the lab can carry real consequences, from safety risks to compliance issues and costly rework. In those moments, the absence of feedback is far more dangerous than the discomfort of giving it.
Lab Management Certificate
The Lab Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
Practical strategies lab managers can use
Building a feedback-rich environment doesn’t require a complete cultural overhaul. It requires simple, repeatable behaviors practiced consistently. Hanton offers several actionable approaches:
Focus on specificity
Vague statements do not lead to change. Instead, use direct observations tied to real impact. The Situation–Behavior–Impact (SBI) model is an effective tool:
- “In the lab yesterday…”
- “You interrupted me three times…”
- “I wasn’t able to finish my thought, and you didn’t get my ideas…”
This method keeps feedback objective, anchored, and nonpersonal.
Give five to 17 times more positive feedback
Research varies, but the principle is clear: positive feedback should significantly outweigh constructive or corrective feedback. Hanton notes, “We’re supposed to be giving positive feedback somewhere between five and 17 times as often as we give constructive or corrective feedback.”
This ratio doesn’t mean managers should avoid hard conversations—it means positive reinforcement builds the trust necessary for people to accept constructive guidance.
Deliver feedback promptly
Timeliness is nonnegotiable. “You can’t save it up for the performance review,” Hanton warns. “It must be timely.”
Even a 60-second hallway conversation can prevent misunderstandings that derail weeks of work.
Regulate your emotions before speaking
In situations when tensions may spike, such as during high workloads or when results go awry, emotional regulation is essential. Hanton urges leaders to take a moment: “If the situation made you angry or sad or jealous, you’re going to need to take a minute and get those emotions under control.” A calm tone preserves psychological safety.
Normalize receiving feedback
Teams do not become feedback-rich unless their leaders model receiving feedback gracefully.
Hanton’s suggested response: “Thank you. Here’s what I’m going to do about this.”
When leaders respond without defensiveness, they set the tone for the entire lab.
Building the conditions for great feedback
Feedback thrives in environments built intentionally around trust, respect, and psychological safety. Hanton points to Amy Edmondson’s well-established definition: “A belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.”
To create this, lab managers can:
- Establish team norms for communication
- Reinforce respect in every interaction
- Encourage peer-to-peer feedback
- Celebrate messengers rather than punish them
- Create space in meetings for open questions, alternate viewpoints, and shared problem-solving
Daniel Coyle’s principle—“embrace the messenger”—is especially relevant in labs where safety concerns or quality issues rely on candid reporting.
When employees trust that speaking up is welcome, the lab becomes more adaptive, safer, and more innovative.
Feedback as a leadership practice
The best lab managers view feedback not as a managerial chore but as part of the scientific process: observe, evaluate, adjust, repeat. Small, steady feedback strengthens relationships, enhances performance, and builds confidence across the team.
Hanton summarizes the core responsibility simply: “We need to look for every opportunity to give feedback, because the goal is to help people.”
When feedback becomes part of daily lab life—not something reserved for annual reviews—the culture shifts. People worry less about being judged and more about getting better. Teams communicate more transparently. Leaders become more approachable. And the lab becomes a place where learning is continuous.
