ALMA E-News for February 2003
Greetings ALMA Members,
The lab coat is such a common symbol of the laboratory that it is often forgotten that it is an important piece of personal protective equipment that must be used appropriately to be effective. These coats can be made from a variety of materials to serve a particular purpose such as protection from splash/spills, aerosol/dust, fire, electrostatic discharge, pathogens, etc. The most common types used in analytical laboratories are synthetic blend or cotton general purpose coats to protect from chemical contamination on clothing and Nomex® or other fire retardant material for use when performing tests with flammables. In addition to providing the proper coats for each operation, lab managers should also enforce certain safety rules to insure that they are used properly. Coats should be buttoned in order to provide the maximum protection—a loose flapping coat not only fails to protect but can be a danger in itself if it catches items on the bench. Since these coats are meant to collect any stray chemicals from laboratory operations, they should not be worn into common areas such as lunchrooms, restrooms, office areas, etc. where chemical contamination could be spread. Home laundering is also not recommended since it can put family members at risk for exposure or can contaminate other clothing. If you believe that lab coats are worth the expense, make sure that they are used properly to get maximum value for your money.
Managerial expectations play a significant role in determining the performance of the laboratory staff. Numerous studies have shown that, on average, people live up (or down) to the expectations of those in authority. For example, when teachers were told that an average child was gifted, subsequent performance was usually judged to be above average and conversely, when told that the child was slow was judged to be below average. This “self-fulfilling prophesy” also holds for our staffs—performance usually matches our expectations. These expectations are communicated subtly through body language, choice of assignments, off-hand comments, or even the quality of social interaction—conversations with our better performers tend to be longer, friendlier, and more up-beat. Staff members subconsciously perceive these expectations and respond accordingly. Over time, these behavioral responses become more ingrained which reinforces expectations and perpetuates the performance cycle—either positive ornegative. Since we are usually unaware that we are sending these subtle messages, there is no easy way to break the cycle and we have a low success rate in rehabilitating staff who have been poor performers over a number of years. Our best hope is to set high expectations for our new staff members and refrain from rushing to judgment about their abilities when they occasionally fail.
If you have any comments, cost saving suggestions, opinions, etc. let me hear from you .
Wayne