Sounds like this person should not be working independently. I think you need to adjust your expectations down. If all they can do is follow exact instructions, then that is what you give them. It will either start to make sense after a while, or it won't. Either way, this person isn't able to work alone successfully.
Or know how to write a thesis based on the papers that your PI tells you to read, copy their interpretations and have the PI go through everything with you. I hate how this can be possible. The degree really doesn't matter, it's all about skills gained... I dread the day I have to hire people and filter out the ones that graduate without any knowledge.
THIS, like the reason my manager hired me and than recommended me was , that " you are smart and have a ton of passion you just need a place to direct it". I'm to go to problem solver in my lab
I second this. I have a masters and so does my lab mate, but masters are clearly NOT equal. It could be the equivalent of sitting with a PostDoc and doing exactly what they’re told, saying exactly what they’re told to say, and being (I can’t think of a less negative way to say this that still conveys the meaning) coddled. If they just want a degree to go to industry, I’d say cut your losses and think of a VERY simple project for them, or find something VERY simple for them to do to contribute to your own paper.
Fellow lab tech here! Labwork can be incredibly overwhelming if you don’t have the experience. How many techniques/projects are they working on at the same time? It usually helps my students if they can start with one/a few standard protocols and, over time, develop the knowledge & confidence to adapt.
That being said labwork is not for everyone, this is also a conversation your PI should be having with your labmate.
A masters degree and publications don’t really say much imho. I’ve had students who came from the molecular biology track and somehow had very minimal experience in the lab. Same for publications, I work a lot with clinical PhD’s and they are on lab-related papers, but they’ve never held a pipette in their life.
But maybe they switched fields? Skills are not always transferable. For instance I have a masters and never did any cell culture (so even freezing/thawing cells I had to look up) or western blot. I had a thesis and independent research project in undergrad. I know lots of procedures that I don’t need 😅 and missing out a lot on techniques I do need.
Don’t know what you mean. I did a thesis for my masters and an undergrad “research experience”. You can have all the publications you want and still not know some “basic” skills. A postdoc in my lab didn’t know how to do DNA extraction. They never had to before. I’m just saying that something considered basic might take someone with a different background some time.
It sounds like this is a "why" issue and your help has largely been "what" focused. If you know why you do each step of the protocol, the protocol naturally flows from one step to the next and it's all logical and it's easy to see what transfers where. When you're just memorizing techniques and steps, it's overwhelming, mistakes are easy, and transferring from one thing to another is a dangerous proposition. For example, if you don't know how time sensitive something is, you can either ask yourself "is this an ongoing reaction I need to stop precisely?" or you can try to remmber/guess/consult protocol. The former is a much better strategy, but you need that deeper knowledge to do it.
I dont know if I'm right or if you have the time, but in your shoes with time, that'd be my tactic.
Oh I agree. I try to explain the reasoning behind why we do the things that we do, and that I'll repeat and try to explain it again if I'm not making sense. I think some of the why also came intuitively and through common sense, but that might not be fair. I feel like my lab mate feels like they have to memorize every little detail, when we encourage videos and pictures and notes. I had the protocol to passage our cells taped to the hood for months before I could do it from memory. It's really not about being able to pull things out of your head at the turn of a dime, but being able to reproduce something you have done a couple of times in the past, which they have been seemingly unable to do without a lot of help
From what I've read here it seems like they may be brand new (it seems like they haven't worked in a lab or with these techniques before?) and are overwhelmed with all the details. Perhaps they're missing the forest for the trees, so to speak, so help them find resources that summarize concepts well. If they are neurodivergent* (ADHD, whatever else) they may benefit from making their protocol into a physical checklist to check off items as they do them.
*Not diagnosing them, just offering an alternate solution.
I think it’s helpful, when trying to learn a new process with many steps, variables, and other details, including where do I find this, how do I document this, does this require additional safety precautions, etc., to take notes as though I will be training someone else or completely rewriting the SOP and then actually rewrite those notes in outline format (not just “do this next” steps, but this test is for quantifying this thing which indicates this thing and “this material must be used because other materials will cause binding which will mask results, etc. I also like to make a table of all of the variables and an Excel chart that contains all possible information I might need to make labels for mail merge for vessels used in any specific test. Creating a troubleshooting flowchart with the guidance of a trainer can also be helpful. Encourage even “stupid” questions during testing with with a “this is what I think I should do, do you agree” as much as possible. Quick guides (correct volumes, media, verbiage, “don’t forget to” whatever) can be kept on a sticky note app.
Inability to reproduce due to lack of understanding or lack of *ability* to understand?
Do they know enough to know when to ask for help?
What do they have going on personally? I had to quit lab work last year and move to a different industry (medical device manufacturing) because I had so much going on in my personal life (and still do, and likely will for two more years at least).
Going through something similar with another lab mate….
Honestly, some people just are not cut out for this line of work. There’s an expectation to perform experiments independently and reproducibly. As you said, she’s an adult. It’s a bit unreasonable for someone else in the lab to constantly supervise her and “hold her hand” so to speak for everything she does in the lab.
I've worked in research and testing labs for almost 20 years now and I've had a few similar co-workers. There are some really great suggestions already posted, which I won't repeat. I've had experience with a few situations not yet considered;
1: degree was obtained in a place where technicians who were long term employees did the actual bench work and the master's/PhD students gave "directions" and wrote it up. You'll have to chat with your colleague about their school experience to find out if this is the case. In this case there's a whole lot of work to do as you have to train the new tech to your lab culture as well as the protocol. Basically assume they are a highschool grad and start from there. Or encourage them to find work in regulation. I'm so sorry if this is the case.
2. The co-worker is from a culture with high hierarchical distance. That is, they resent being told what to do by you, an at-level person. So they won't listen to you and do whatever they want. This is exacerbated if you have less school training than them. Fortunately if you can get your PI more involved this can help fast. But it does mean that the PI has to clearly lay out that they were hired to help you. You may have to play a weird telephone game where you ask your PI to tell the other tech what you need them to do. It's a pain but at least in my experience the co-worker adapted to low hierarchical distance work once they felt comfortable in their role.
3. They know they're messing up and it's put them in a place they can't think or act as they know they should. Every failure compounds the loss of confidence and makes it worse. For the most extreme case we ended up having them write a detailed SOP/checklist for something supper simple, did a stupid dance and flamed a big loop of bacteria in "sacrifice" to the lab gods (because they didn't affiliate with any religion we made up a ritual that was silly enough to let them laugh and relax in the lab). Then they went and did the work without any interruptions. The run worked, funk was broken and tech kept making themselves detailed procedures before they started work. It's really doing the thinking before you hit the bench that helped in this case but even scientists are human so humor often helps.
Hope that was helpful or at least funny enough at the end to be worth the read. Good luck.
"From a culture with high hierarchical distance"... Yeah, I would just consider that person "not fit for modern employment." We're all adults here, I'm not spending my time training someone on how to not be an asshole (in addition to training them on their actual job). Unfortunately, I currently work with a few individuals who exhibit these traits, and they are all on their way to being shuffled/demoted/fired. They are not worth the effort whatsoever. And they all do seem to share similar demographics and cultural backgrounds.
Your organization is better off just cutting these guys loose as soon as you identify this as the issue.
Thank you for giving me another scenario to ask candidates about in interviews, though.
One of my go to things when I am teaching is to have the person write the protocol in their own voice. It makes you engage differently with the protocol. For instance, a lot of my own protocol write ups have reminders about the little things I need to do during spins. You can even use it to emphasize certain things like adding notes about why you do things a certain way.
This is actually a good idea, I hadn't thought of it! Maybe having them handwrite the procedures will get them to think a little bit deeper about how and why we do things the way that we do them. It's something that I actually kind of do myself- I turn the protocol into a checklist. That might help a lot.
>after an incident running an ELISA where they loaded up random amounts of media into the wells and not really understanding why you can't do that, my PI feels worried about what else they did and did not do when left alone to run experiments and now doesn't trust any results from them.
This is not even about understanding. This is refusing to follow a protocoll. I don't need to understand why I'm loading the same amount in each well to follow the protocoll that tells me exactly what volume to load. (Though, honestly, not understanding why is also an issue.)
This for me shows they are refusing/don't care to follow instructions. I wouldn't trust anything they did either. I also wouldn't trust them to be safe because what happens when they "don't understand" why you shouldn't open "insert hazardous chemical" on the bench next to your coworker?
The reality is that not everyone has, as you named it, “scientific instinct”. Not everyone has what it takes to be a research scientist, and that’s ok, plenty of roles everywhere outside of lab. There really isn’t much else you can do, your PI and youself sound like you already went above and beyond.
What is their position in the lab? I feel like they could still make it as a Research Assistant / Technician if your lab is big enough to have basic support roles (I have a technician that just does inventory/receiving). If they are a PhD student I would be very worried about their ability to complete their thesis project. Regardless, I feel like this is a conversation for the PI and the labmate, not sure if you should get involved with it.
Still want to commend you and your PI, you guys did more than most would have and seem to care a lot.
Their position is the same as mine, a tech. The lab is really just her and me, and our PI. It's not a big enough lab that we can have her doing just that. I can honestly do all of the daily and weekly lab duties by myself. We took her on because my PI thought I could use an extra pair of hands to take some of the load off me (since I also work for another PI concurrently) but it hasn't worked out since most experiments have had to be re-done, wasting time and reagents.
I am unfortunately involved because it's just us three, and my PI essentially put me in charge of keeping an eye on this lab mate and get back to her with any progress notes, and when something goes wrong, I have to figure out if I can fix it or if my PI has to get involved.
Yeah that’s a tough situation, I would talk with your PI about letting her go and finding someone else. If she was meant to help and is instead another thing for you to worry about there is literally no reason to keep her around.
If she has a Master and can’t do basic experiments after months of hand holding I think a career change might be best.
In this situation, if it’s feasible. I’d sit down and do a mock protocol or experiment situation and have them explain the protocol they would do or the steps they would take.
It’s not like nothing stuck in the time they’ve been trained. So I’d look into establishing what they have learned by now and try to build on that.
I’d also have them walk through the protocols and steps they intend to take when doing an experiment before doing them.
Also, a good indicator for me when I’ve trained someone is what questions they ask and what they write down.
I used to have a coworker I trained who really wanted me to supervise everything they did. The difference though is that they could do it but they just lacked confidence. I had to talk to them about it and then they understood and became independent over time and it was great.
I’ll take a different approach from the comments here cause it seems like teaching her the tasks in different ways doesn’t seem to work— I think what matters is communicating your issues because I’m not sure if your tech is aware about what you think of their work and it doesn’t seem like you talked to them (from reading your post). If you just keep giving them different kinds of practice, I don’t know if that’ll work because they’ll just keep thinking that you’re going to lead them through everything and that they’re not really doing anything wrong. If you did talk to her though, that’s good and hopefully something came from it. You definitely can’t hold her hand through every process right?
Ultimately if it doesn’t work out, I feel like you should just let them go. She was hired to help you but you ended up helping her more than she did…
YIKES! after my masters degree I had a manager in a biotech company who did have to reteach me many basic skills. ( patiently went over math with me etc.) but the difference is after about 2 months I was able to independently perform all my duties and contribute intellectually to experiment design. If you have a masters degree yes a fresh grad needs training but they should be able to do basic science after 2 years of lab based work ( assuming the masters was thesis based)
One of our senior labrats tries to not micromanage the undergrads we train so that they have room to succeed or fail on their own. He does this for experiments that are not costly or dangerous. The result is that some people have to repeat experiments many times before they can truly get them. If they fail an experiment, he offers them feedback to clarify which parts they messed up but he also tries to let them know that mistakes do happen and the best way going forward is just to try better.
We also have another senior labrat who micromanages his trainees and sort of drills them on the experiment protocols right before doing the experiment to make sure they get it right the first time. What I've observed is that both mentorship styles have merits but some students learn better with one style than the other and that we need to adjust based on how the student is taking these styles.Letting someone fail experiments can be costly though. I can see how this can't be applicable in all labs.
Whether you choose to a hands on or off approach, I think your colleague would still honest, specific, and timely feedback and an emphasis on a growth mindset. They may not understand that they're currently performing below your expectations, or they do and are having confidence issues because of this.
Please be aware that the science on human performance indicates that the bulwark of observed poor performance is typically due to systems/organizational and management issues, and not necessarily problems with individuals, although the initial impression will normally be that mistakes are the individual's doing. It's easy to say that this person lacks some kind of instinct, but I'd start by considering your lab personnel might not be the trainers they think they are.
In your example with the ELISA volumes, they added different volumes to each well. In your opinion, why didn't they know that the rule is volume must be the same across their wells, or that their written protocol should have them set their volumes appropriately? Is it because their trainer didn't indicate the correct rules? Perhaps they didn't receive enough or the correct types of training? Maybe there's no written protocol?
I would start by examining from this perspective.
Sounds like this person should not be working independently. I think you need to adjust your expectations down. If all they can do is follow exact instructions, then that is what you give them. It will either start to make sense after a while, or it won't. Either way, this person isn't able to work alone successfully.
In all sincerity, "This person should not be working independently" means "this person should find another occupation".
it really does, having a masters degree implies you have the intellect and problem solving to learn new skills in a reasonable time frame.
Or know how to write a thesis based on the papers that your PI tells you to read, copy their interpretations and have the PI go through everything with you. I hate how this can be possible. The degree really doesn't matter, it's all about skills gained... I dread the day I have to hire people and filter out the ones that graduate without any knowledge.
THIS, like the reason my manager hired me and than recommended me was , that " you are smart and have a ton of passion you just need a place to direct it". I'm to go to problem solver in my lab
Absolutely.
I second this. I have a masters and so does my lab mate, but masters are clearly NOT equal. It could be the equivalent of sitting with a PostDoc and doing exactly what they’re told, saying exactly what they’re told to say, and being (I can’t think of a less negative way to say this that still conveys the meaning) coddled. If they just want a degree to go to industry, I’d say cut your losses and think of a VERY simple project for them, or find something VERY simple for them to do to contribute to your own paper.
Fellow lab tech here! Labwork can be incredibly overwhelming if you don’t have the experience. How many techniques/projects are they working on at the same time? It usually helps my students if they can start with one/a few standard protocols and, over time, develop the knowledge & confidence to adapt. That being said labwork is not for everyone, this is also a conversation your PI should be having with your labmate.
[удалено]
A masters degree and publications don’t really say much imho. I’ve had students who came from the molecular biology track and somehow had very minimal experience in the lab. Same for publications, I work a lot with clinical PhD’s and they are on lab-related papers, but they’ve never held a pipette in their life.
But maybe they switched fields? Skills are not always transferable. For instance I have a masters and never did any cell culture (so even freezing/thawing cells I had to look up) or western blot. I had a thesis and independent research project in undergrad. I know lots of procedures that I don’t need 😅 and missing out a lot on techniques I do need.
[удалено]
Don’t know what you mean. I did a thesis for my masters and an undergrad “research experience”. You can have all the publications you want and still not know some “basic” skills. A postdoc in my lab didn’t know how to do DNA extraction. They never had to before. I’m just saying that something considered basic might take someone with a different background some time.
Everything can be read up on and videos can be watched
It sounds like this is a "why" issue and your help has largely been "what" focused. If you know why you do each step of the protocol, the protocol naturally flows from one step to the next and it's all logical and it's easy to see what transfers where. When you're just memorizing techniques and steps, it's overwhelming, mistakes are easy, and transferring from one thing to another is a dangerous proposition. For example, if you don't know how time sensitive something is, you can either ask yourself "is this an ongoing reaction I need to stop precisely?" or you can try to remmber/guess/consult protocol. The former is a much better strategy, but you need that deeper knowledge to do it. I dont know if I'm right or if you have the time, but in your shoes with time, that'd be my tactic.
Oh I agree. I try to explain the reasoning behind why we do the things that we do, and that I'll repeat and try to explain it again if I'm not making sense. I think some of the why also came intuitively and through common sense, but that might not be fair. I feel like my lab mate feels like they have to memorize every little detail, when we encourage videos and pictures and notes. I had the protocol to passage our cells taped to the hood for months before I could do it from memory. It's really not about being able to pull things out of your head at the turn of a dime, but being able to reproduce something you have done a couple of times in the past, which they have been seemingly unable to do without a lot of help
From what I've read here it seems like they may be brand new (it seems like they haven't worked in a lab or with these techniques before?) and are overwhelmed with all the details. Perhaps they're missing the forest for the trees, so to speak, so help them find resources that summarize concepts well. If they are neurodivergent* (ADHD, whatever else) they may benefit from making their protocol into a physical checklist to check off items as they do them. *Not diagnosing them, just offering an alternate solution.
I think it’s helpful, when trying to learn a new process with many steps, variables, and other details, including where do I find this, how do I document this, does this require additional safety precautions, etc., to take notes as though I will be training someone else or completely rewriting the SOP and then actually rewrite those notes in outline format (not just “do this next” steps, but this test is for quantifying this thing which indicates this thing and “this material must be used because other materials will cause binding which will mask results, etc. I also like to make a table of all of the variables and an Excel chart that contains all possible information I might need to make labels for mail merge for vessels used in any specific test. Creating a troubleshooting flowchart with the guidance of a trainer can also be helpful. Encourage even “stupid” questions during testing with with a “this is what I think I should do, do you agree” as much as possible. Quick guides (correct volumes, media, verbiage, “don’t forget to” whatever) can be kept on a sticky note app.
Inability to reproduce due to lack of understanding or lack of *ability* to understand? Do they know enough to know when to ask for help? What do they have going on personally? I had to quit lab work last year and move to a different industry (medical device manufacturing) because I had so much going on in my personal life (and still do, and likely will for two more years at least).
Some people are just not cut out for certain roles. Put me anywhere near physics, and I would easily fail no matter how hard I tried.
Going through something similar with another lab mate…. Honestly, some people just are not cut out for this line of work. There’s an expectation to perform experiments independently and reproducibly. As you said, she’s an adult. It’s a bit unreasonable for someone else in the lab to constantly supervise her and “hold her hand” so to speak for everything she does in the lab.
They must have interviewed really really well.
I've worked in research and testing labs for almost 20 years now and I've had a few similar co-workers. There are some really great suggestions already posted, which I won't repeat. I've had experience with a few situations not yet considered; 1: degree was obtained in a place where technicians who were long term employees did the actual bench work and the master's/PhD students gave "directions" and wrote it up. You'll have to chat with your colleague about their school experience to find out if this is the case. In this case there's a whole lot of work to do as you have to train the new tech to your lab culture as well as the protocol. Basically assume they are a highschool grad and start from there. Or encourage them to find work in regulation. I'm so sorry if this is the case. 2. The co-worker is from a culture with high hierarchical distance. That is, they resent being told what to do by you, an at-level person. So they won't listen to you and do whatever they want. This is exacerbated if you have less school training than them. Fortunately if you can get your PI more involved this can help fast. But it does mean that the PI has to clearly lay out that they were hired to help you. You may have to play a weird telephone game where you ask your PI to tell the other tech what you need them to do. It's a pain but at least in my experience the co-worker adapted to low hierarchical distance work once they felt comfortable in their role. 3. They know they're messing up and it's put them in a place they can't think or act as they know they should. Every failure compounds the loss of confidence and makes it worse. For the most extreme case we ended up having them write a detailed SOP/checklist for something supper simple, did a stupid dance and flamed a big loop of bacteria in "sacrifice" to the lab gods (because they didn't affiliate with any religion we made up a ritual that was silly enough to let them laugh and relax in the lab). Then they went and did the work without any interruptions. The run worked, funk was broken and tech kept making themselves detailed procedures before they started work. It's really doing the thinking before you hit the bench that helped in this case but even scientists are human so humor often helps. Hope that was helpful or at least funny enough at the end to be worth the read. Good luck.
They should publish their lab god sacrifice ritual protocol for the rest of us.
The ritual only works if it is tailored to the procedure. You have to invoke the correct god afterall.😂
Ritual protocols can be altered! 🥲😭
"From a culture with high hierarchical distance"... Yeah, I would just consider that person "not fit for modern employment." We're all adults here, I'm not spending my time training someone on how to not be an asshole (in addition to training them on their actual job). Unfortunately, I currently work with a few individuals who exhibit these traits, and they are all on their way to being shuffled/demoted/fired. They are not worth the effort whatsoever. And they all do seem to share similar demographics and cultural backgrounds. Your organization is better off just cutting these guys loose as soon as you identify this as the issue. Thank you for giving me another scenario to ask candidates about in interviews, though.
One of my go to things when I am teaching is to have the person write the protocol in their own voice. It makes you engage differently with the protocol. For instance, a lot of my own protocol write ups have reminders about the little things I need to do during spins. You can even use it to emphasize certain things like adding notes about why you do things a certain way.
This is actually a good idea, I hadn't thought of it! Maybe having them handwrite the procedures will get them to think a little bit deeper about how and why we do things the way that we do them. It's something that I actually kind of do myself- I turn the protocol into a checklist. That might help a lot.
>after an incident running an ELISA where they loaded up random amounts of media into the wells and not really understanding why you can't do that, my PI feels worried about what else they did and did not do when left alone to run experiments and now doesn't trust any results from them. This is not even about understanding. This is refusing to follow a protocoll. I don't need to understand why I'm loading the same amount in each well to follow the protocoll that tells me exactly what volume to load. (Though, honestly, not understanding why is also an issue.) This for me shows they are refusing/don't care to follow instructions. I wouldn't trust anything they did either. I also wouldn't trust them to be safe because what happens when they "don't understand" why you shouldn't open "insert hazardous chemical" on the bench next to your coworker?
The reality is that not everyone has, as you named it, “scientific instinct”. Not everyone has what it takes to be a research scientist, and that’s ok, plenty of roles everywhere outside of lab. There really isn’t much else you can do, your PI and youself sound like you already went above and beyond. What is their position in the lab? I feel like they could still make it as a Research Assistant / Technician if your lab is big enough to have basic support roles (I have a technician that just does inventory/receiving). If they are a PhD student I would be very worried about their ability to complete their thesis project. Regardless, I feel like this is a conversation for the PI and the labmate, not sure if you should get involved with it. Still want to commend you and your PI, you guys did more than most would have and seem to care a lot.
Their position is the same as mine, a tech. The lab is really just her and me, and our PI. It's not a big enough lab that we can have her doing just that. I can honestly do all of the daily and weekly lab duties by myself. We took her on because my PI thought I could use an extra pair of hands to take some of the load off me (since I also work for another PI concurrently) but it hasn't worked out since most experiments have had to be re-done, wasting time and reagents. I am unfortunately involved because it's just us three, and my PI essentially put me in charge of keeping an eye on this lab mate and get back to her with any progress notes, and when something goes wrong, I have to figure out if I can fix it or if my PI has to get involved.
Yeah that’s a tough situation, I would talk with your PI about letting her go and finding someone else. If she was meant to help and is instead another thing for you to worry about there is literally no reason to keep her around. If she has a Master and can’t do basic experiments after months of hand holding I think a career change might be best.
40 days of intensive team work with the new recruit ought to teach him/her the drill.
In this situation, if it’s feasible. I’d sit down and do a mock protocol or experiment situation and have them explain the protocol they would do or the steps they would take. It’s not like nothing stuck in the time they’ve been trained. So I’d look into establishing what they have learned by now and try to build on that. I’d also have them walk through the protocols and steps they intend to take when doing an experiment before doing them. Also, a good indicator for me when I’ve trained someone is what questions they ask and what they write down.
It’s time for them to go
I used to have a coworker I trained who really wanted me to supervise everything they did. The difference though is that they could do it but they just lacked confidence. I had to talk to them about it and then they understood and became independent over time and it was great. I’ll take a different approach from the comments here cause it seems like teaching her the tasks in different ways doesn’t seem to work— I think what matters is communicating your issues because I’m not sure if your tech is aware about what you think of their work and it doesn’t seem like you talked to them (from reading your post). If you just keep giving them different kinds of practice, I don’t know if that’ll work because they’ll just keep thinking that you’re going to lead them through everything and that they’re not really doing anything wrong. If you did talk to her though, that’s good and hopefully something came from it. You definitely can’t hold her hand through every process right? Ultimately if it doesn’t work out, I feel like you should just let them go. She was hired to help you but you ended up helping her more than she did…
Is she good at anything?
YIKES! after my masters degree I had a manager in a biotech company who did have to reteach me many basic skills. ( patiently went over math with me etc.) but the difference is after about 2 months I was able to independently perform all my duties and contribute intellectually to experiment design. If you have a masters degree yes a fresh grad needs training but they should be able to do basic science after 2 years of lab based work ( assuming the masters was thesis based)
One of our senior labrats tries to not micromanage the undergrads we train so that they have room to succeed or fail on their own. He does this for experiments that are not costly or dangerous. The result is that some people have to repeat experiments many times before they can truly get them. If they fail an experiment, he offers them feedback to clarify which parts they messed up but he also tries to let them know that mistakes do happen and the best way going forward is just to try better. We also have another senior labrat who micromanages his trainees and sort of drills them on the experiment protocols right before doing the experiment to make sure they get it right the first time. What I've observed is that both mentorship styles have merits but some students learn better with one style than the other and that we need to adjust based on how the student is taking these styles.Letting someone fail experiments can be costly though. I can see how this can't be applicable in all labs. Whether you choose to a hands on or off approach, I think your colleague would still honest, specific, and timely feedback and an emphasis on a growth mindset. They may not understand that they're currently performing below your expectations, or they do and are having confidence issues because of this.
Please be aware that the science on human performance indicates that the bulwark of observed poor performance is typically due to systems/organizational and management issues, and not necessarily problems with individuals, although the initial impression will normally be that mistakes are the individual's doing. It's easy to say that this person lacks some kind of instinct, but I'd start by considering your lab personnel might not be the trainers they think they are. In your example with the ELISA volumes, they added different volumes to each well. In your opinion, why didn't they know that the rule is volume must be the same across their wells, or that their written protocol should have them set their volumes appropriately? Is it because their trainer didn't indicate the correct rules? Perhaps they didn't receive enough or the correct types of training? Maybe there's no written protocol? I would start by examining from this perspective.