Data, facts and instruments on the German health system
What it’s all about
Practice management business comparisons and work analyses show that „leadership-active“ practice owners save an average of twenty days per year in managing their staff compared to their „leadership-passive“ colleagues.
The leadership phobia
- „Leadership – it costs a lot of time!“
- „I’d rather take care of my patients.“
- „I don’t know how to do everything as it is!“
The quotes listed reflect the opinion of many doctors on the subject of „personnel management“. When they hear about instruments such as leadership discussions, target agreements and team meetings, they primarily have an immense amount of time in mind and therefore reject the measures they classify as an additional burden as unrealisable.
Leadership activity vs. passivity
That this view is wrong is proven by comparing the results of organisational analyses in leadership-active and leadership-passive practices. In the passively managing practices, leadership measures are only ever taken ad hoc when they are needed, i.e. when things are not going as they should and intervention seems unavoidable.
The „leadership-active“ practice managers are different. They systematically use appropriate instruments such as principles of cooperation, target agreement and work discussions as well as team meetings in which all individual and group-relevant aspects of the practice work are discussed.
20 days saved
By bundling leadership activities and avoiding permanent control and coordination, the need for time-consuming, repetitive leadership activities is completely eliminated.
In the overall view, this leads to twenty days less management effort for „actively controlling“ doctors than for „passively acting“ ones; at the same time, the measures in the latter operations have a significantly higher efficiency due to the autopilot mode achieved.
„Autopilot mode“ means that goals and „rules of the game“, i.e. the management framework, are known and a clear orientation exists that „works“ daily without the need for intervention and only needs to be adjusted or corrected on a case-by-case basis. The resulting freedom has a motivating effect and measurably increases staff commitment.
General practitioners and specialists who want to examine the best practice status of their staff management in the context of the entire practice work can use the Practice Management Comparison© for this purpose. The validated survey, which can be conducted without the need for an on-site consultant, requires only thirty minutes of medical working time and identifies an average of forty suggestions for improving practice operations.