Conflict shows up in every laboratory, not because people intend to create problems, but because individuals approach work, communication, and leadership differently. What one leader sees as clarity may feel rigid to a direct report; what one employee views as independence may look like resistance. When these differences collide, leaders may label the situation as a people problem rather than examine how leadership style and expectations shape the interaction.
Dwayne Henry, instructional lab manager of chemical and biological sciences at Montgomery College, advises lab managers to slow down before assigning blame. His approach reframes conflict as a leadership diagnostic tool: a signal to examine behavior, systems, and context before labeling an individual as the problem.
For lab leaders, the risk is not the conflict itself but how quickly it gets labeled. When differences in approach are treated as personal flaws, leaders can unintentionally reinforce the behaviors they are trying to change.
Start with the hardest question
Henry’s first recommendation turns the focus inward: “The first question that I ask is, ‘Am I contributing to the problem?’”
That question, he says, helps remove defensiveness and opens the door to clarity. Leaders shape tone, expectations, and reactions more than they often realize. How a leader responds in the moment—and how consistently expectations are reinforced over time—can either escalate tension or bring it down.
Henry encourages leaders to go further and look honestly at how their own behavior may be influencing the situation. “I may even find that I am the ‘difficult’ person if I look deeper, and there may be a better outcome if I change my reaction to the situation.”
This self-check is not about blame. It is about recognizing what sits within a leader’s control. Even when leaders cannot change someone else’s behavior, adjusting their own response can change how the situation unfolds.
Take accountability without emotion or excuses
Once leaders acknowledge their role, Henry stresses that accountability must come without emotional reaction or justification. “. . . I recommend [taking] full accountability of your role in the situation while taking emotion and excuses out of it, as much as you possibly can.”
Emotion, he notes, often leads to overreaction, which can escalate conflict rather than resolve it. Excuses, on the other hand, make it easier to validate behavior instead of changing it. “If your behavior is contributing to the conflict, it may not matter whether you think your actions are justified or not, because the conflict may not be resolved.”
Staying level-headed allows leaders to see the situation more clearly, de-escalate tension, and identify what is actually driving the conflict—whether that sits with an individual, a process, or a leadership habit.
Separate people from conditions
After stepping back from their own role, Henry advises leaders to look at the broader context. Conflict often reflects conditions around people, not just the people themselves.
He points to several factors that can easily be mistaken for personality problems:
- Conflicting communication styles that cause frustration
- Previously unresolved negative interactions
- Feelings of a lack of support or clarity in the workplace
- A toxic or high-pressure work environment
“These things, as well as others, help me decide whether or not I am dealing with a difficult person, or a difficult situation between individuals.”
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.
That distinction matters. A difficult situation often resolves when leaders address communication gaps, expectations, or environmental stressors. A genuinely difficult behavior pattern requires a different approach.
“The way I deal with these two situations would be vastly different,” Henry explains.
Balancing firmness with flexibility
So what about situations where the problem really does sit with one person—someone who repeatedly creates friction or shuts down when feedback is offered? Henry argues that balance starts early.
“Establish it from the very beginning, or as soon as possible,” he says. Clear boundaries, direct communication, and well-defined expectations form the foundation. Leaders should also communicate potential consequences early, not as threats but as part of a transparent framework.
“That communication also needs to go both ways, as leaders should be open to hearing and possibly implementing feedback from staff whom they supervise.” This openness builds trust and can surface underlying issues that contribute to resistance.
If resistance continues despite those efforts, flexibility gives way to firmness.
“Let the staff member know that their behavior is disrupting the team, how it’s disrupting the team, and that it will not be tolerated,” explains Henry. “You are not trying to make an example of anyone, but you do want to set the right precedent. The hope is that the first time you handle the situation this way, the employee will learn from that experience and repeat situations will not occur.”
Relationship skills require ongoing practice
Learning how to manage conflict is part of becoming a leader, not a milestone reserved for later in a career. Early-career scientists and managers need opportunities to develop these skills, and experienced leaders are never so seasoned that they stop learning new ways to handle difficult conversations.
Henry points to structured communication and accountability training as valuable tools, including programs focused on difficult conversations and interpersonal dynamics. The key, he notes, lies in repetition. “I would say not to treat these as one-time trainings that you move on from after completion,” he explains.
As laboratories evolve and teams change, so must leadership approaches. Revisiting these skills keeps them sharp and relevant.
Henry also emphasizes the role mentors can play in helping leaders navigate conflict. Talking through a situation with someone who is not directly involved, and without naming names, can provide a more objective perspective.
One habit leaders should adopt immediately
When asked what leaders should do when they return to their labs, Henry returns to the same principle that underpins his approach. “Step outside of the situation first. Look at it from an unbiased outside lens.”
He encourages leaders to ask two simple questions before acting: Am I the difficult person? And how am I contributing to the conflict?
That pause, he argues, can save significant time, strain, and frustration.
“You may save yourself, the other individual, and possibly your whole team…by dealing with the one whose behavior you can change in the situation—yours.”
Handled this way, conflict becomes less about control and more about influence—an approach that strengthens leadership credibility and team trust long after the immediate issue is resolved.
