Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Dental Tribune U.S. Edition

Practice Matters DENTAL TRIBUNE | May 20114A By Sally McKenzie, CEO Are you running with the ‘in’ crowd? As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. Understand- ably, it’s common for those with like interests, backgrounds and experi- ences to form friendships and alli- ances. Yet, what may seem like staff camaraderie on the surface can be the root of practice factions, other- wise known as cliques. It’s not uncommon to see divisions between clinical and business staff, between a group of the “favored” employees and the rest of the work- ers or between the longtime person- nel and the new recruits. Regardless of the makeup, staff cliques can be a powerful undertow in your practice manifesting in poor morale, ongoing conflict and increased staff turnover, all of which compromise practice productivity and profitability. Take the case of Liz, Ellen and Tom. They’ve been with the clini- cian since day one. They feel that because of their seniority in the practice they run the show, and that would be how the rest of the team sees it as well. The dentist doesn’t make a change unless those three are on board. Liz, Ellen and Tom lunch togeth- er, have coffee together, socialize together and think nothing of the message of exclusion they send to the other employees, who, by the way, turn over regularly. They justify their failure to include new employees because the chances that the latest recruit will stick around for more than a year are slim to none. Gee, I wonder why. In staff meetings, which are few because Liz, Ellen and Tom pull the dentist aside whenever they feel something needs to be addressed and new employees are seldom asked for input. The new employees tend to fall into the role of specta- tors, merely watching the dentist and the trio banter the issues about. If they do speak up, their ideas are greeted coolly. Unless the three- some comes up with the concept, it’s likely someone else’s slightly differ- ent approach will interfere with the way they like to do things, which, they argue, seems to be working just fine. And it is, at least for the three of them. The dentist, well she’s a real- ly nice person and although she acknowledges that Liz, Ellen and Tom “aren’t perfect,” she doesn’t want to confront the issue. She pre- fers to just look the other way; tell- ing herself there is really nothing she can do about it anyway. Certainly, strong relationships among longtime employees can be tremendously beneficial for practic- es that rely on small cohesive teams. Moreover, naturally, where there is commonality among employees, alliances and friendships are likely to result. You may have assistants who form strong bonds because of their professional backgrounds or team members who form social con- nections because a group of them enjoys watching a particular televi- sion show or others who like cer- tain activities or hobbies. However, where ties form among those with common interests, so too can divi- sions between the group on the “inside” and everyone else on the “outside.” Cliques can be extremely coun- terproductive, and consequently, expensive. These non-productive units of exclusion reject key players, making it impossible to establish a true team that works effectively together. The problem becomes par- ticularly serious if critical practice decisions are being made without input from those who are not part of the clique or if essential informa- tion is not shared with those who need that information to effectively carry out their job responsibilities and duties or if the treatment of some staff is noticeably different than the treatment of other staff. Teams, not cliques, make the den- tal practice successful. While per- sonalities, work styles and interests may differ, each member of the staff needs to be given the opportunity to contribute fully. As leaders, dentists set the exam- ple for the team and can unwittingly strengthen cliques. For example, allowing a few to monopolize the conversation in staff meetings rath- er than insisting on input from every team member can send the message to those who keep quiet that their input either isn’t welcome or has a lower value than the “chosen” participants. Sharing personal infor- mation with a select few members of the team conveys to the rest that only the favored few have the ear of the dentist. Socializing with cer- tain members of the staff outside of AD g DT page 6A