When something goes seriously wrong in a research lab, such as an accusation of data fabrication, an accident, an IACUC investigation, a lab member accused of harassment (I could go on...), one of the most common mistakes that lab leaders make is to get on the defensive and tell team members to stay quiet.
“Don’t talk about this with anyone.”
This. Is. Always. A. Mistake.
Even when you or someone in your group has done something wrong and you don’t want people to find out.
I can practically feel you telling me I’m wrong about this. Hear me out.
Crises are characterized by chaos and uncertainty, which we naturally dislike. This type of environment triggers fear and a strong desire to gain control over what’s happening to alleviate that fear and find a sense of certainty. That instinct to shut down communication comes from a desire to keep things under your control, but often, when attempts to cut off communication lines are made, the opposite occurs. You lose control even more and also risk the reputations of your lab members. Why?
Because telling someone “Don’t talk about this with anyone” immediately erodes trust.
Demands for silence and secrecy say, “I don’t know what to do about this,” or “I’m afraid of being found out”. This damages your team’s confidence in your leadership. And when they’re encouraged not to speak, this heightens their sense of uncertainty and anxiety. A person preoccupied with speculation and questions about what has happened and what might happen is more likely to share their own version of events in the hallways with colleagues outside the lab, other faculty, and even online. They might also repeat what you said… “but don’t tell anyone about this”.
That is unlikely to work. Many people love to spread a ‘good’ rumor, so those they’ve talked with will likely share with others… Then, instead of one clear narrative, you’ve got multiple perspectives and conflicting stories spreading around that are often less accurate and more damaging than the truth. Your lab members might be perceived as trying to address a difficult situation. They might also be perceived as gossipers, difficult to work with, untrustworthy, drama-creators… In trying to make sense of a situation you’ve lost control of, they damage their own reputations too. Nobody wants that.
How does that reputational damage to your lab members occur? Academia teaches us a lot, but it doesn’t teach us how to communicate effectively or how to discuss a difficult situation in a way that ensures we’ll be heard. It’s common for people to discuss serious issues like ethical violations from an emotional perspective, including a mass of details and assumptions about others’ intent, which can cause them to be perceived as reactive and unprofessional, even when their concerns are legitimate. When difficult situations are discussed in the context of one person’s assumptions and emotions, the focus shifts to whether those assumptions are fair and is no longer based in fact but on perception, which makes it easier for others to dismiss what is being said. In an ideal world, this wouldn’t happen. But it does. Especially when there’s a power imbalance at play.
Telling someone they can’t talk about something layers a second crisis on top of the original one. It heightens rather than alleviates negative emotions. This is particularly relevant when a person directly affected by the crisis is being told not to talk about it. The feeling of being silenced by someone you’re supposed to be able to trust layered on top of the initiating event is a recipe for disaster.
Now, with more and more people using social media, there’s an additional risk that someone will share the story online and have it go viral, with speculation and rumors extending way beyond your department and institution. This is something you want to avoid. (What to do if this happens is a topic for another post.)
To gain the sense of control you’re seeking, shift from fear to strategy, and avoid all of the above, you need to start with accountability and responsibility. Yes, it can be hard to do, especially when you have done something wrong or someone else has, and you should have been able to prevent it. But you’re the leader, and it is your job.
Start with transparency:
Your team needs to know they can trust you. Immediate, open discussion is critical for trust. Call a lab meeting and share exactly what has happened, what is being done, what you know, and what you don’t know. Acknowledging the uncertainty builds trust better than evading questions you don’t have an answer for.
Lead with empathy:
You’re stressed, you know your team is stressed. Acknowledge this. Say you know that this is a difficult situation and that you understand the anxiety caused by uncertainty. Acknowledge the psychological and emotional effects. Downplaying the severity and attempting to dismiss the impact of the issue will damage your credibility and reduce your team’s trust in you. They need to know that you are taking things seriously and that you are working with their interests in mind.
(And listen, I’ve known a lot of faculty who don’t take things seriously OR work with their team’s best interest in mind, and if that’s you… I’m not actually going to judge you here. I’m just going to say this: learn to fake it. Put your ego aside and learn to fake it because I promise you it will work out better in the end than it will if you continue to actively show people that you don’t give a shit. If you find this hard, practice it. Showing empathy when you don’t have any for a particular situation or it just doesn’t come naturally is a skill you can develop. Find a character in a movie/TV show who does it well and pretend you’re them. Eventually, you might find you’re not faking it anymore.)
Outright defensiveness and minimizing language will divide the team and make the issue worse.
Establish the narrative:
Once you’ve shared all the facts transparently and acknowledged the difficult situation the team is in, you need to establish two-way communication with the team and develop a single source of truth to prevent rumors and keep control of the narrative. Work together to identify what should and shouldn’t be discussed and why. Let them explain why they’re not comfortable with suggestions and listen to them. Be open to differing opinions. When your team is included in the conversation, you’re more likely to reach a narrative that everyone is aligned with, which will reduce the chances of damaging speculation. It doesn’t guarantee that everyone will stick to the plan, but it’ll be more likely that they will than if you shut down discussion entirely.
The narrative should be entirely based in fact, and you should be clear about what the goals are and why: that we want to mitigate harm, reduce uncertainty, and remain consistent to reduce reputational damage as much as possible. Developing this narrative together, along with building trust through transparency, will help alleviate your team’s panic and emotional responses, which will help them communicate from a non-reactive, strategic mindset. That’s not a talent people just have, it’s a skill that needs to be developed. Ideally, we’d develop these skills before we need them in the moment, but because they’re often not taught, it’s quite common to learn them by unexpectedly having to. (Ask me why I have them.)
Having a single source of truth that the team is aligned with helps control rumors not just by reducing some of the uncertainty and creating a sense of control but also by giving them clear talking points they can reference if the issue comes up in conversation with others. They are less likely to be ‘caught out’ by questions and share speculation instead of facts.
Most importantly, they are less likely to feel panicked than they would if you suggested you wanted to bury the issue or minimize it. A leader who actively confronts an issue instead of taking an “if we ignore it, it might go away” approach gains respect, even if the issue is their fault.
Frame it as a learning opportunity:
Nobody likes making mistakes or getting caught up in difficult situations, but we all know we don’t learn from everything going to plan all the time. Framing the issue and your response to it, both to yourself and to your team, as an opportunity to learn, build resilience, and reinforce the team structure will help everyone approach it strategically and with less of the “this is going to ruin my life” emotional panic.
The takeaway:
In any crisis, silence is NOT control. Trust, transparency, and shared strategy are.
Sources:
Benoit, W.L. (1997) Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication. Public Relations Review, 23, 177-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0
Benoit, William L. Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: Image Repair Theory and Research. 2nd ed., State University of New York Press, 2014.
Coombs, W. T. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Coombs, W. Timothy. “Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT): Refining and Clarifying a Cognitive-Based Theory of Crisis Communication.” In The Handbook of Crisis Communication, edited by W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay, Wiley-Blackwell, 2022
Dowling, G. Creating Corporate Reputations: Identity, Image, and Performance. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Heath, Robert L. “Best Practices in Crisis Communication: Evolution of Practice Through Research.” Journal of Applied Communication Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, 2006, pp. 245-248.
Lorenz, E. N. The Essence of Chaos. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1993.
McPherson, Molly. Indestructible PR Playbook.
LLC, 2025.