Laboratory leaders spend a great deal of time planning for operational change. They validate instruments, prepare implementation timelines, assess workflow impact, and calculate staffing needs. What often receives far less attention is the emotional side of disruption. New automation systems, AI tools, reorganizations, and process changes can unsettle teams long before rollout begins, especially when employees start questioning where they fit in the new environment.
During his keynote presentation at the 2026 Lab Manager Leadership Summit, Curtiss McNair Jr.,vice president of operations at PanGIA Biotech, suggested that many organizations underestimate how much fear shapes employee reactions during periods of change.
“People don’t resist change,” McNair said during the presentation. “They resist loss.”
That distinction changes how leaders approach resistance during major transitions. Employees are not always pushing back against the technology itself. Many are reacting to what the change may take away: familiarity, confidence, routine, influence, or the sense of expertise they have built over years in the lab.
The harder part of change: letting go of what feels familiar
The anxiety tied to organizational change usually manifests in day-to-day behavior. Staff may become more skeptical during meetings, less engaged in implementation planning, or increasingly attached to existing processes.
McNair described several forms of loss that commonly fuel resistance:
- Loss of competency
- Loss of control
- Loss of identity
The identity piece can become especially complicated in scientific environments. Technical professionals spend years building expertise around instruments, workflows, methodologies, and problem-solving approaches. Over time, those systems become closely tied to how employees see themselves and the value they bring to the organization.
“When you do something long enough, you become connected to it,” McNair explained during the keynote. “It actually becomes part of your identity.”
That emotional connection helps explain why even beneficial operational changes can trigger strong reactions. A technologist who has mastered a manual workflow may worry that automation will make their experience less valuable. A senior employee may question whether they can still contribute at the same level after a major software transition. Others may quietly wonder whether they will still fit into the organization at all. Those concerns do not disappear simply because leadership explains the business case behind the change.
Why technical explanations alone usually fall short
Laboratory leaders often communicate change through operational language: efficiency gains, faster turnaround times, scalability, quality improvements, or reduced error rates. Those are important conversations, but they do not automatically address the uncertainty employees may already be carrying into the discussion.
McNair described fear during the keynote as “false evidence appearing real,” referring to the tendency for people to imagine worst-case scenarios long before they have enough information to fully understand what is happening.
That uncertainty can spread quickly in environments already operating under pressure. Staffing shortages, productivity expectations, regulatory demands, and heavy workloads leave little room for ambiguity. Once communication gaps appear, employees often start filling them with their own assumptions.
A delayed implementation update suddenly becomes evidence that leadership is hiding something. A new automation platform becomes associated with layoffs before anyone has discussed staffing plans. Small workflow disruptions start feeling larger because employees no longer trust what comes next.
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.
Many leaders move too quickly into problem-solving mode and overlook the fact that employees are still trying to process what the change means for them personally.
Making fear part of the conversation
During the Q&A following his keynote, McNair emphasized the importance of creating space for honest conversations around uncertainty and fear. He suggested leaders move beyond surface-level exercises and encourage teams to discuss concerns openly from “an identity perspective, from a function perspective, and from an organizational perspective.”
That may include concerns around:
- Learning unfamiliar systems
- Losing technical relevance
- Increased oversight through digital tools
- Workflow disruptions
- Role changes tied to automation or AI
- Concerns about job stability
These discussions require more than a generic “open door policy.” Employees are unlikely to speak honestly if they believe leadership is only looking for agreement or quick reassurance. Managers need to create an environment where uncertainty can be acknowledged without immediately being dismissed as resistance.
That does not mean every fear is justified. It does mean those concerns are influencing behavior whether leaders address them or not.
When people can see progress, anxiety starts to ease
One of McNair’s recurring themes throughout the keynote was visibility. Employees respond differently when they can clearly see where the organization is heading and how progress is unfolding along the way.
Interested in lab leadership?
Referencing a concept from Alex Hormozi, one of McNair’s presentation slides noted that “confidence is built through visibility, not persuasion.” Large-scale operational change often fails because employees only see the disruption happening directly in front of them. They cannot yet picture the future workflow, their role within it, or whether the transition is actually succeeding.
McNair encouraged leaders to make progress tangible by:
- Showing measurable improvements early
- Breaking transitions into smaller milestones
- Highlighting early adopters
- Reinforcing capability development
- Visualizing the future state of the lab
Small wins matter because they help replace speculation with evidence. Teams start seeing that the organization is moving somewhere concrete rather than simply reacting to industry trends or executive pressure.
Frequent communication also helps reduce the tendency for employees to catastrophize normal implementation challenges. Most large transitions include delays, confusion, training frustrations, and temporary inefficiencies. When leaders stay visible during those moments, uncertainty becomes easier to manage.
The danger of becoming too comfortable
McNair also warned that successful laboratories are not immune to disruption. In some cases, strong performance can actually delay necessary change because teams become deeply attached to systems that feel familiar and dependable.
His presentation described complacency as “the real threat,” warning that “success today ≠ success tomorrow.”
Operational strain often develops gradually:
- Manual workarounds become standard practice
- Overtime becomes normalized
- Staffing gaps become routine
- Legacy processes remain untouched because they still technically work
- Employees adapt to inefficiencies instead of fixing them
Over time, organizations stop questioning whether the workflow still makes sense because everyone has learned how to survive within it.
McNair illustrated this point with stories from his own experience helping manage extremely high-volume laboratory operations that relied heavily on manual processes. Despite impressive throughput and low reported error rates, the operation had become increasingly difficult to sustain. Staff worked long hours, systems strained under growing demand, and small inefficiencies carried real patient impact at scale.
Eventually, leadership had to confront the reality that familiarity alone was no longer enough reason to preserve the existing model.
Helping teams move forward without ignoring uncertainty
Laboratories will continue facing disruption from automation, AI integration, workforce pressures, evolving regulations, and growing operational demands. Those pressures are unlikely to slow down.
The organizations that navigate those transitions most effectively will not necessarily be the ones with the newest technology or the largest budgets. Often, the differentiator is whether leadership recognizes the emotional side of operational change early enough to address it constructively.
Employees do not need leaders to eliminate uncertainty entirely. They need leaders who communicate consistently, acknowledge concerns honestly, and help teams see a future version of the laboratory where they still have value and purpose.
As McNair stated during his presentation, “Change is inevitable. Fear is temporary. Adaptation is advantage. Your only limit in leading through disruption is not the systems. It's not your VP. It's not your CEO. It's not your COO. It's not any of that. The only limitation is you.”
