Decoding Generations

When I started my professional life, nobody talked about generations. Experience was everything: none, little, some, significant or expert. Now, conversations about generational similarities and differences are integrated into professional and personal life.

There are currently five generations at work today: Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y/Millennials, and Generation Z.

generations

Understanding generations allows people to adapt their behavior according to certain preferences.Take, for example, communication styles. When communicating with someone from the Baby Boomers generation, picking up the phone might be appreciated, while sending an email to a Generation X is the best way to communicate with them. Always keep in mind, however, that generational preferences are generalizations, and knowledge about them does not substitute understanding each employee and colleague on an individual basis.

Another example of the differences between the generations is how they define their aspirations. Traditionalists value home ownership, Baby Boomers want job security, Generation X aspires to achieve work-life balance, Generation Y prefers flexibility and freedom, and Generation Z values security and stability. Understanding each generation’s aspirations allows leaders to tailor their communication style and job aspects to each individual.

 

lotte-small

-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.

 


 

As a former member of the ASCP Resident Council, I volunteered for the opportunity to serve as a beta tester for the ASCP Leadership Institute. To obtain certification, I completed 10 modules which often included a pre-course reading or interactive video assignment along with a pre-recorded webinar, post-test, and post-course evaluation. Some of these courses are also available in-person at live meetings and can include personal coaching live, online, or by phone.

A cursory internet search will reveal a plethora of written and video resources available on the topic of leadership. Additionally, many of us have participated in evaluations or trainings that sought to not only define our personal leadership skills/style but also help us to gain essential self-awareness and skills to better lead or be part of a team. Despite such experiences and even though I’ve held many leadership positions over the years, I still find it difficult to reconcile what it means to be a leader, both in terms of expectations that I hold for myself and those that others hold of me and how to build these expectations to realize a shared objective.

I was intrigued by the title of the module “DeCoding Generations”. This module was especially salient for me since I was a non-traditional medical student after initially studying to be a neuroscientist. I’ve generally been older than my fellow trainees and younger than the majority of my teachers. This generational gap has also been similarly evident within the teams I’ve participated in since I matriculated into medical school.

This module explored the core values of the following “generations”: traditionalists, baby boomers, gen X, gen Y (also known as millennials), and gen Z to help the learner understand what drives members of each group. The course then further defined the aspirations, attitudes toward technology and their careers, and preferred communication media and preferences of members of each generation. This was all with the goal of facilitating interactions, especially as a leader, with members from each generation. For instance, different generations prefer and respond better to different types of communication: in-person, phone, email, video conferencing, text, or a combination of these modalities. That’s where the “decoding” part of the module comes in. As leaders, we need to recognize how best to interact with each team member to acknowledge their core values and foster the most harmonious working relationships while working toward a shared goal.

I’m a very visual learner and intuitive person but not the most eloquent or at ease with verbal communication despite friends remarking that I’m a “social butterfly”. This module helped me evaluate ways to adapt my communication style especially when interacting with others in the two most numerous generations in the workforce: millennials (42%) and baby boomers (29%). I fall in the middle as a gen X’er (23%) and have often found myself confounded by the attitudes and behaviors of millennials and this module helped me to understand their perspective and preferred modes of communication. But what I learned most was to look at not only the differences that impair our interactions but also the similarities we share that can be used to prevent or resolve conflicts and to encourage team creativity and solidarity.

 

Chung

-Betty Chung, DO, MPH, MA recieved a BA from The University of Chicago, MA from Boston University School of Medicine, DO from UMDNJ-School of Osteopathic Medicine (now Rowan-SOM), and MPH from Columbia University and a decade of experience in basic science research. She completed her AP/CP residency at the University of Illinois at Chicago (PGY1-2) and Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (PGY3-4). Her current interests lie in graduate medical education, quality improvement, hematopathology, and molecular genetic pathology.

Team Dynamics

Teams are one of the most discussed work units. We throw “teamwork” and “team ethic” around during job interviews and performance reviews. When we apply for jobs, we highlight our teamwork capabilities on our resumes. Teams are indeed essential to productive work environments because they are the vital learning units in an organization. In other words, when teams learn, the entire organization learns.

But what constitutes a team exactly? Simply put, teams are a group of two or more people that have a shared goal. Not only that, they are committed to the team process and use team language (“we” instead of “I”) when discussing accomplishments and failures. Teams also focus on learning, whether that learning comes from outside information, success, or failure. Finally, teams possess a strong sense of commitment and accountability.

Teams that consistently perform above expectations are called high-performance teams. Everyone wants to be a part of a high-performance team, but how do they happen? These teams consistently have one trait in common: experiencing and working through conflict. Conflict is one of THE best things that can happen to a team, because when handled and resolved well, teams learn, grow, and function better as a unit.

Each person has different preferences for their role on a team. Everyone gravitates toward one these five team roles: Creator, Advancer, Refiner, Executor, and Flexer. The Creator focuses on generating ideas; the Advancer communicates the ideas; the Refiner challenges ideas; the Executor implements the ideas; and the Flexer assumes any of the other four roles based on the needs of the team. High-performing teams have members who are in their preferred role where they can excel and are sustained because those roles give them energy. It is our job as leaders to find jobs, tasks, and team roles where others can flourish. Without energized people, leaders will not be able to create high-performing teams or high-performing organizations.

lotte-small

-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.


 

The team dynamics module gave me a great insight into my tendencies and an understanding on effectively getting the best out of teams.

When I received my assessment results, I learned I am an “advancer.” I tend to focus on execution and I pay attention to team interactions. One weakness of this profile, though, is how it potentially interacts with creators and refiners. If one is unaware of the valuable differences in prospective creators and refiners bring to the table, an advancer may get frustrated working with them in a team.

I came to realize I should be sure to include a refiner on the team, since having only executors or advancers could mean bypassing the analysis piece. I also gained new prospective on how I perceive creators. While in the past I may have discounted them as scattered or unrealistic, I learned this stems from the fact I like concrete ideas. Embracing innovation is essential to advancement and this is where creators excel.

The sections about communication and team roles were enlightening. How creators can easily get bored with discussions that are too concrete, and how executors are uninterested in theoretical discussions. On the flip side of things, creators need to partner with advancers, refiners and executors to bring about innovation. Advancers rely on refiners and refiners can benefit from the enthusiasm and networking of the advancers. I use these important concepts now in meetings and when I try to put teams together for a given project.

Although this may come with time, leadership and team member selection are paramount to foster the trust and respect and to facilitate free expression of ideas and sharing of information.

wareth-small

-Laila Osama Abdel Wareth, MBBCh, FCAP, MRCPC, EMHCA is the Chief of Clinical Pathology for the Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Institute at the Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates.

 

 

Listening With a Purpose

Everyone understands that listening is an essential skill for effective leadership. But many people do not realize that there are multiple ways to listen to someone. No, I am not talking about active and passive listening, where you either do or don’t reflect back what was just said. Honestly, reflective listening can become quite awkward during a long conversation… been there, done that (and not recommended).

The five different listening approaches that this course refers to are either feeling oriented, meaning that people listen to the emotions behind what someone is saying, or information oriented, meaning that they listen for data, arguments, and structure. The two feeling oriented listening approaches are appreciative and empathic which listen for a speaker’s enthusiasm and how to provide support respectively. The information oriented approaches are discerning, comprehensive, and evaluative. Discerning listeners want to gather complete and accurate information, comprehensive listeners organize the information, and evaluative listeners critique the information and make decisions.

The job of the leader (and speaker) is to provide the information and emotion that their listeners respond to well.  The key is, therefore, to provide something for each of the five types of listeners when you are giving your next presentation.

lotte-small

-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.


 

Considering myself to be a “good listener,” I was particularly interested in the “Listening with Purpose” course during the leadership institute program. I was keen to see how the “scientific approach” of the leadership institute would be applied to this particular skill. Before the course, I answered a series of questions; my answers were analysed and I received a personalized listening profile. This profile included statements about my listening tendencies in specific situations. Some were uncannily accurate: “You may mentally argue with speakers as they talk,” for example, is a true description of my frequent mental disposition at meetings and conferences!

In addition to identifying my natural listening approach (the “information-oriented evaluative” style), my profile also indicated how likely I am to use the other listening approaches. Not surprising to me was the observation that I tend not to adopt the more feeling-oriented approaches of appreciative and empathic listening. My attitude has typically been to “cut through the red tape and stick with the facts.”

Beyond the characterization of my natural listening style, my personal profile also provided guidance on how to work with my listening style and identified areas where I could grow as a listener. It was clear that with regards to listening approaches, one size does not fit all. My “good listening” skills need a lot improvement. Miscommunication, with a loss of intended meaning, will occur if I consistently use only my natural listening style without regard for the differing circumstances and situations. This certainly explains some of my struggles with people who try to appeal to my emotions instead of (or in spite of) facts to make decisions.

The course also covered communication, defined as the actual exchange of information. The course highlights the various reasons why people try to communicate: to persuade, to inform, to self-express, or to entertain. I was surprised to learn that over fifty percent of face-to-face communication may be dependent on body language and less than ten percent on the words spoken! One then has to be careful to actually process what is being said rather than just the speaker’s body language, tone, and energy so as not to lose the message.

The most important message I took from the course was the importance of letting people know you are listening to them. This requires situational awareness and understanding the intention of the speaker.  I found especially useful the behavioural indicators that let a speaker know the listener is engaged. I have actually found practical utility and deployed a couple of these: “Demonstrating an open, laidback posture” and “remaining relatively silent, not offering solutions immediately.” The course has shown me a practical way to improve my listening skills.

MK pic

-Dr. Modupe Kuti, MB, MS(Ib), FWACP (Lab Med), has served as an attending pathologist for the past thirteen years for a tertiary hospital in Southwest Nigeria, West Africa.

 

Groupthink and the Abilene Paradox

Everyone makes decisions and everyone makes decisions in groups. But we all have been part of groups that felt anything but productive: the end result was subpar, the process took a lot longer than if you had done it yourself, and the endless arguments and indecision caused you and everyone else on the team a lot of stress.

So how can we ensure that an effective group decision-making process is in place? How can we be certain that the decision we make as a group are the right ones?

Groupthink is when group members’ desire for harmony and unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically consider alternative courses of action. Not considering alternatives can have severe consequences as this additional information could have altered an idea or process to make it more effective. An example of Groupthink is with the company Theranos, where the entire board went along with Holmes’ ideas without looking for alternative solutions. Needless to say, they would have benefitted from those alternative options. Groupthink occurs because members of a group do not feel comfortable sharing their dissenting opinions due to high group cohesiveness, stressful situations, and a feeling that the group will always be successful.

The Abilene Paradox complements the Groupthink concept: with Groupthink it is a few members of a group that do not speak up, while with the Abilene Paradox the majority (or the entire group) remains silent. Furthermore, with Groupthink even the dissenting (and silent) member will usually feel good about the final decision, while with the Abilene Paradox members feel resentment. The reasons the Paradox occurs revolve around fears of separation and reprimand. The results are group projects that never go anywhere or fail, and separation from the group.

The good news is that both situations can be avoided by one main thing: creating an open environment in which dissenting opinions are encouraged, listened to, and incorporated. So next time you are in a group or meeting, pay attention to the number of dissenting opinions stated and how people respond to them. Reflect on how you respond to those opinions and if there is something you can do to increase the openness in your team or department.

lotte-small

-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.


 

In pursuit of efficiency and continuous improvement, the pathologists, residents and technical staff at Makerere University, meet every Wednesday. They are also joined by colleagues from the Mulago National Referral Hospital under the Ministry of Health of Uganda.  The purpose of this meeting is to make decisions that pertain to teaching, operation of the histopathology service, and conducting research.

Since 2003, I have attended several of these meetings. However, the realization and achievement of goals has been poor and nearly zero in some instances. No prior agenda is sent out. During the meetings, counter-productive decisions are made. The generation of ideas, alternatives and creativity has dwindled meeting after meeting. Attendance and contribution to meetings are viewed as a waste of time and effort. This has led to low motivation, and attendance has hit an all-time low.

There is always somebody to blame for the failure in teaching, the inefficient biopsy service and the low research productivity at the end of each year. In the last team building workshop, the Mulago team did not show up despite an earlier commitment and receiving an invitation three weeks to time. In the first workshop, the executive director of Mulago did not show up even when he was scheduled to speak! We have had a share of failed projects and ventures; the FNA clinic and teaching of Cytotechnology have not gone well, establishment of the “pay for service” laboratory is struggling and embedding QA and QC systems in the histopathology laboratory has been a total failure. Lately, we lost the bid to the ASCP Cancer Diagnostics for the Africa telepathology project.

In summary, the department seems to be stuck in thick mud! What is in play here?  It is the groupthink and Abilene paradox; the making of irrational decisions and failure to manage group agreement respectively.  This is an expected natural occurrence in decision making involving groups.

The motivation for being on the ASCP leadership academy is my passion for change through leadership. That is what drives me. I love effective participation and being part of productive teams.

Following the completion of the two courses, I now clearly understand what has been happening in my department. I look back and easily recognize the symptoms of groupthink; the illusion of unanimity, self-censorship, mind guards, and shared stereotypes.

Recognition of the problem is half way to the solution. Techniques to avoid the problem are now known to me. The style of meetings in the department needs to be changed. The chair should avoid being too directive in order to ensure an open climate during discussions.  The chair should also assign a member the role of a critical evaluator and once in a while open up the meetings to important outsiders.

All the decisions to do the above had to be agreed upon by members during the weekly meetings. I now recognize and understand the play of the Abilene paradox here; that some members said “yes” when indeed they meant to say “no.” I look back and recognize action anxiety, fear of separation, real risk, negative fantasy, perceived risk and confusion of risk and certainty.

Looking at the 15 reasons as to why one ends on the road to Abilene, I can surely identify with each of them. This, I am sure, is shared by each of the staff members.

We need to avoid the trip to Abilene by making changes in the conduct of meetings. We should plan before the meetings, invite the right people, clearly state the decisions to be made, plan enough time for discussion, and set a climate of openness. During the meetings, vital questions should be asked. It takes a lot to plan but in the end, the returns are long term and a good on time invested.

What can be done differently now? Sharing the new knowledge learned during the course is the first step. The second step is to put into practice the techniques to avoid the group think and endless trips to Abilene. These must eventually become the new culture of practice and eventually spread across other university departments.

RL

-Robert Lukande is trained as an anatomical pathologist and is currently employed at the College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala Uganda. He is a teacher, research and consultant, and is passionate about changing the lives of others through leadership. He’s the current president of APESCA and is acting chair of the Department of Pathology.

Conflict Resolution and Prevention

When it comes to the herb cilantro, people either love it or they hate it because it tastes like soap. Conflict is much the same way: either you see it as constructive or destructive. In my case, I used to think cilantro tasted like soap and it would ruin any food it came near. When I became a teenager, my taste buds changed. Now I will eat an entire bunch of cilantro on top of a taco or khao tom. Similarly, I used to feel conflict was a destructive force, and now I sometimes even look forward to a conflict (assuming it’s handled effectively) because it is an essential stage of team development.

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) gives you insights into how you prefer to manage conflict, whether that is through:

  • Competing
  • Collaborating
  • Compromising
  • Avoiding
  • Accommodating

Knowing what your go to method is for handling conflict allows you to actively increase your skills in the other conflict modes and applying each mode when the situation requires it. Having more than one or two management skills will allow you to respond to different types of conflict effectively and nip unnecessary conflict in the bud.

 

lotte-small

-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.

———–

Do you know that we have a comfort zone when we are handling conflicts? The Conflict Management course conducted by ASCP’s Leadership Academy offers an assessment of your conflict management style using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). This assessment is eye-opening and helped me gain a better appreciation of my management style.

I scored high on “accommodating skills” on the TKI, meaning that when in conflict, I tend to be reasonable and accommodating with others, creating goodwill in the process. This method is particularly helpful for managers who inherit a new department through restructuring and aim to preserve harmony and avoid disruption to the work process. It is also helpful for building social credits to be use in the future for more important tasks that need larger buy-ins. As companies in the healthcare and diagnostic testing sectors evolve and adapt to the new regulatory and fiscal environment, departments within companies will continue to be restructured to ensure efficiency and relevancy. In my current position as a manager, I find these skills to be immensely useful, particularly as I’m recently given oversight responsibilities of new departments. The skills are helpful to ensure seamless transition while continuing to provide patients with unsurpassed diagnostic insights and innovation.

The course also asks us to look at our blind spots. I find that I tend to spend too little time discussing issues in depth and hashing out personal differences. “Collaborating mode” encourages us to work through issues, think outside the box, and to create a win-win solution. I’m learning to set aside time to proactively reach out to others with varying views and to understand their thoughts and evaluate their viabilities and applications. This gives me an opportunity for integrative solutions to merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem and gain commitment from various stakeholders.

The ASCP Leadership program and the TKI gave me important revelations into my conflict management comfort styles and provided insights into my blind spots. While my favorite conflict behaviors are results of both my personal predispositions and the requirements of my work situations, I try to utilize other management styles based on the specifics of the situation. I have no doubt that the leadership program has augmented my management tool box. Now I have different tools at my disposal, whether it be “kill your enemies with kindness” (accommodating), “two heads are better than one” (collaborating), “Leave well enough alone” (avoiding), “might makes right” (competing), or “split the difference” (compromising), to approach future conflicts.

Chiou-pic-small

-Paul Chiou, MPH, SCT (ASCP) CM is a supervisor of Cytology and FISH at Miraca Life Sciences. Paul is a CAP inspector and an active member of the laboratory community having served on various professional committees over the years.

Metrics, Goals, and Lab Leadership

In an April 2015 publication in Lab Manager, then ASCP President Dr. William Finn discussed the Lab Management University (LMU) program “designed to help pathologists and lab professionals take their laboratory management skills to the next level.” He also cited “gaps” in professional training and experience that revealed a lack of management skills in “pathologists, laboratory professionals, and pathology residents.” Utilizing advanced coursework available to them from LMU, laboratorians of various specialties would stand to benefit from this knowledge and effectively influence more positive outcomes for patients.

Within the last year, I’ve been writing about utilizing data from epidemiology, laboratory studies, and community partnerships in an integrated public health initiative combating mosquito-borne illness on the island of Sint Maarten. It is an ongoing multidisciplinary project I started which reaches various fields of study from immunological seroprevalence, to community health work, to social determinants of health, and team leadership and coordination. What started as a group of six students in the fall of 2016, has flourished into a team of now more than fifteen with partners in local government, local NGOs including the Red Cross, social and broadcast media, and our individualized message of local self-motivated disease prevention has reached well into the thousands.

Citing this experience as a process of a simple medical literacy proposal to an expansive public health initiative, I believe there are some significant advantages that being a laboratory professional can give you. Experiences during my time in clinical laboratories gave me many parallels to study as I became a leader of a dynamic and diverse program. Here is what I consider is a highly-oversimplified model for successful problem-solving, leadership, and ultimately measured success. As a common laboratory metric of efficiency/success—and something I have had experience with before—consider turn-around-time (TAT) as a problem many labs face. Compared to the problem of addressing risk reduction and source control for mosquito-borne illnesses like Zika, I found myself in the same model I had recognized many times before.

Example 1: Outside the Lab

Addressing Zika as a Public Health Concern

Example2: Inside the Lab

Addressing TAT as an Efficiency Metric

 

START: Clearly and Specifically Define the Problem or Need to be Addressed
With the advent of a local outbreak and information from local government regarding the increase of epidemiologic cases, behavioral change for risk reduction was highlighted as a major obstacle in improving public health outcomes. Creating self-sufficiency in the community would not only improve health but create sustainability. As a laboratory potentially signs on new clinics or accounts because of local changes in hospital structures, efficiency is being examined as workflow is slated to increase. Staffing, instrumentation, LIS/LAS, and other tools are being considered to reduce TAT and improve overall patient outcomes and strengthen quality control and quality assurance metrics.
Locate Potential Helpful Partners, Staff, or Tools that Can Assist Your Cause
To gain access to resources otherwise unavailable, it is imperative to collaborate with partners in the Ministry of Health as well as NGOs like the Red Cross. To reach communities most affected by the problem at hand, it is necessary to implement cultural liaisons to act as intercessors preserving the autonomy of individuals while creating a safe environment to communicate an effective public health message. As part of initial assessments to discover a clear problem, vendors may offer instrumentation or technology that would improve the conditions affecting the TAT. It would be highly prudent to reach out to the new accounts or clinical sites to determine if TAT is affected by workflow, personnel, communication, or procedural faults. Assessing the staffs’ skills and competency are also crucial for implementing corrective action.
Implement Initial Intervention, Paying Attention to Results Before/After
In the case of Zika virus education and prevention, initial interventions include utilizing community partners as liaisons to introduce us to targeted audiences/communities. Results should focus on the pre-and-post-survey data collected, referenced in earlier articles regarding engagement, knowledge, and behavior. In the case of TAT efficiency/improvement, initial interventions should include collecting data points regarding how specimen-to-result turnover is affected at every checkpoint while implementing changes as necessary. Data should indicate success in particular measures which improve TAT incrementally.
Take Measures to Make Further Interventions More Successful Along the Way
Educating communities about the risks associated with standing water and the spread of arboviral infections with clear demonstrations/examples of how to enact improvements. Distribution of educational or advertising materials throughout targeted areas will bolster an effective message. When staff or other changes effectively improve the streamlining process, they should be recognized and praised. Moreover, clients should be consulted in both inpatient and outpatient settings to inform procedural change and deter further external compromise of TAT.
Implement Follow-Up Intervention, Paying Attention to Results Before/After
Like before, interventions with Zika virus education include community partner meetings to hold engaging discussions about health promoting behavior. Similar surveys collect data before and after the presentation and are correlated with the previous meeting, however, with the addition of data regarding the effectiveness of secondary measures (i.e. advertising and educational materials). With the implantation of various measures to improve turnaround, assessments of protocol, instrument utility, effective transport, and other previously mentioned aspects would indicate successful outcomes. Combined with the supplemental consultation to steps both inside and outside of the laboratory, an comprehensive conclusion can be established to indicate a permanent solution via these metrics.
Conduct More Comprehensive/Translational Analysis of Intervention Effectiveness
Correlating the primary intervention with follow-up measures can indicate possible opportunities for further improvement. It can also highlight areas of significant success where interventions had the greatest impact. If significant enough, these results should promote the process and further the original cause set forth early on. Continuous metrics which analyze the TAT as a marker for productivity and efficiency before, during, and after interventions can offer insight into effective changes. Extrapolating this data can improve processes across departments and models made from this process can improve TAT and other metrics in a laboratory.
Share Significant Successes and Challenges with Partners/Staff and Share the Success
Based on standards in current literature, community partners benefit significantly from both repeat-visits as well as becoming involved and informed participants for positive change. As laboratories face staff shortages and personnel challenges, sharing the success and making sure the rewards are collectively appreciated can improve workplace dynamics.
Create a New Protocol, SOP, or Publication to Influence a New Standard
As with any successful public health interventions, shared information can lead to future improvements elsewhere. Publications often cite the process of creating a platform and approach to tackling social health concerns and highlights emphasize these positive outcomes. Many productivity projects in clinical settings are difficult, successes should be shared between departments and outside the laboratory. Ultimately, publication might present an ample opportunity for improving standings for overall hospital metrics and larger outcomes.
FINAL: Implement the Same Model Outlined Here for Potential Future Challenges

Obviously, this is a crude and generalized model for how to approach leadership both inside and outside the laboratory, but some of the key aspects of clear goals, interdisciplinary teamwork, resource management, and creativity are paramount. Having my laboratory experience was critical for finding success with my team here with our public health work. Laboratory professionals have strong skills and unique insights for a variety of important fields. Having that experience has truly enabled me to contribute in a meaningful way as I pursue my medical career. As you can clearly see, there are so many useful tools that apply across disciplines. Furthermore, the most important part of managing a project aimed at a positive outcome is answering the simple question: how do I utilize and interpret the data I collect along the way?

And here’s another question: who does data analysis better than us laboratory folks?

Thanks for reading, until next time…

ckanakisheadshot_small

Constantine E. Kanakis MSc, MLS (ASCP)CM graduated from Loyola University Chicago with a BS in Molecular Biology and Bioethics and then Rush University with an MS in Medical Laboratory Science. He is currently a medical student at the American University of the Caribbean and actively involved with local public health.

Everything DiSC Workplace

As part of my work as a leadership coach and consultant, I’ve had the good fortunate to participate in several life- and work-transforming certification programs and courses. Everything DiSC Workplace stands out from the others because of its simple yet transformative power. For me personally it has given me direct insights into how I can adapt my behavior to become more effective with people who behave similar to me and with those who behave differently. Understanding the four different personality types of the Everything DiSC Workplace model allows me to get better results, be more productive as an employee, and it gives insights into my own workplace preferences. As a result of this course, I’ve learned how to tailor my approach to the situation and the people involved. Should I be more direct or soften my language? Should I focus on building rapport or present a lot of data to get my point across? Here at ASCP, Everything DiSC Workplace is one of our fundamental courses that every employee takes.

Everything DiSC Workplace focuses on people’s behavioral patterns and preferences while at work. The model distinguishes between four main styles:

  • D for Dominance
  • i for Influence
  • S for Steadiness
  • C for Conscientiousness

All styles are equally valuable and useful. In fact, all people use all four styles, but everyone has a preference of one or two styles.  Typically speaking, those with a preference for the D style would describe themselves as active and questioning. Those with the i-Style are more active and accepting. The S style relates to people who are accepting but thoughtful, and those with the C Style are thoughtful and questioning.

There are behaviors, motivators, stressors, and priorities associated with each style. Understanding your own preferences and your strengths and growth opportunities is a great foundation for your leadership development.

 

lotte-small

-Lotte Mulder earned her Master’s of Education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2013, where she focused on Leadership and Group Development. She’s currently working toward a PhD in Organizational Leadership. At ASCP, Lotte designs and facilitates the ASCP Leadership Institute, an online leadership certificate program. She has also built ASCP’s first patient ambassador program, called Patient Champions, which leverages patient stories as they relate to the value of the lab.

—-

I thoroughly enjoyed the Everything DiSC Workplace. It was an assessment that I hadn’t done before and I found it to be very accurate in describing my behaviors and attitudes. I have gained quite a few insights about myself, the people I work with, and even the leaders that I report to.

I am a C DiSC style, the conscientious style, the one who likes to take the time to consider all the facts and make an objective decision. Great, right? Well, I don’t always remember to be personable. So, when I look over a project, I can be rather blunt. My input can come across as corrections or criticisms. This is something I need to watch out for as a C. In the past I have tried to explain that there were no bad feelings on my part; no dislike or intention to belittle. Those who were upset by my manner often continued to react in the same way. Now I have learned to never lead with a correction or change, but to stop and consider what someone has done first. If what they have done will work, even if it is not what I would have done, I thank them for taking care of it and doing such a great job. If it won’t work I still thank them first, but I may ask a few leading questions as well. Perhaps we can come up with some improvements together. I seem to have a much better rapport with my coworkers now and they seem to be more willing to add their own suggestions.

As I look around my workplace, I can see the styles that many of my coworkers prefer.

A D-style that I know gets argumentative when I dismiss her ideas without explanation, yet doesn’t allow me time for the full explanation. There have been many disagreements between us. I have learned that if I acknowledge her ideas first and then add a few bullet points, it turns out that we are often actually working towards the same goals.

If I need to sell an idea to everyone, I know an “i” that I can go to. Once she gets excited about it and starts bouncing ideas off everyone, things take off from there. It is an awesome talent. It is also one that doesn’t usually work on me. This is another situation where I have learned to appreciate her ideas first and then, considerately, discuss them in more detail. I want to encourage her spirit but not dampen it if I happen to disagree.

I see the S-styles as the backbone of my lab. As I get all wound up about sudden changes, they take it all in stride. That is my C-style again, wanting to think it through before making the change. The S’s have been through a lot of changes though, and calmly accept most of them. A little appreciation goes a long way with these guys. If they feel compelled to complain about a change, it’s time to listen.

Interestingly, I have also started paying close attention to how my leaders talk to me. I have one who talks to me about big changes, explains the situation, listens to my thoughts, and gives me time to think about it. I don’t necessarily get my way, but when I go into her office ready to fight to prevent a change, I generally come back out supporting it and eager to help. It’s a C thing. Make me feel like I’m a part of what’s happening and I’m fine.

SRobinson-small

-Stacey Robinson, MS, MLS(ASCP)CMSHCM,QCYMCM is a graduate of the Clinical Laboratory Science program at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio and holds a Masters in Science in Biotechnology from Johns Hopkins University. She currently serves as the Vice Chair of the Hematology Exam Committee for ASCP.