Many people in health care will be familiar with the work of the Studer Group. My familiarity with it has finally reached a breaking point: I'm officially opposed to the assumptions that underlie its work.
First, let me say that perceptive readers will recognize that I take no issue with the smart, honest people trying to do good work in health care and in the Studer Group. Rather, I'm objecting to the assumptions--many of them implicit--that underlie the work as I understand it.
And second, while I'm being a bit over the top, I'm actually hoping to have my views corrected by people who see the common ground that I'm not seeing.
With those two provisos out of the way, let me state clearly where my disagreements lie.
My Biggest Complaints
There are two principal claims of the Studer approach as I understand it:
- Selecting the right people is the most important activity of leaders; and
- The problems of health care can be solved by determined people working harder/smarter.
Posts
3 comments:
Hi,
As the Research & Development Leader for Studer Group I appreciate this opportunity to describe how we help organizations achieve results, and hopefully dispel some myths along the way.
The foundation of what we do is to help organizations create a culture of execution, where no matter what goals the organization sets out to achieve they are more likely to be successful. We do this through the implementation of evidence-based leadership practices, which consists of three phases: aligning goals, aligning behavior and aligning processes.
In aligning goals, we work with the organization to set organization-wide balanced goals, and then ensure that leaders are objectively evaluated on their achievement of those goals. Of course, accountability without training is called cruelty, which is why we suggest that leaders receive 64 hours of leadership training each year to ensure they have the skills to achieve the goals.
In aligning behaviors we then implement specific tactics that research, and our work with 682 hospitals, has shown to make improvements in the important outcomes of the organization. Examples include having leaders round on employees to ensure that their barriers to effectiveness and job satisfaction are identified and, when possible, removed. One of the five “Must Haves”, which is what we call these key tactics, is a process for selecting talent using behavioral-based interviews, etc. So that’s where your first premise comes in: that selecting people is a key function of leaders. We believe this is correct, which is why we believe it is a Must Have for success, just as we believe introducing yourself to patients and families by name is critical, etc.
Finally, in aligning processes we use methods to verify, document and accelerate the results of the organization. This is what leaves an organization hardwired for success, and run on more than just the good intentions of well-trained leaders. After all, no one stays at an organization forever.
The above steps comprise evidence-based leadership, which is the way we work with organizations to help them create better places for employees to work, physicians to practice medicine and patients to receive care.
No matter how well intentioned or skilled, asking people to work harder or smarter will certainly not fix our nation’s healthcare system, let alone even a single organization. So I don’t think I’d characterize that as one of Studer Group’s two key tenets, as you outlined. But having every employee and physician in every hospital connected back to a sense of purpose in their work, armed with evidence-based tactics proven to get results, and supported by systems and strategies? I’d say that’s a good place to start. We feel fortunate to help.
I welcome the chance to discuss further. My email is craig.deao@studergroup.com and cell is 214-405-9062.
Craig Deao
I'd like to pick up on Mr. Deao's point in his last paragraph on connecting people to a sense of purpose in their work. My experience in health care is that the purpose of our work is implicit rather than explicit. We all too often assume that we are working to make care more ideal for patients, but one can go from management meeting to management meeting and never speak or hear the word "patient" and if it is mentioned, it is often related to volume rather than meeting patients' needs.
As I reflect on Quint Studer's early work, he made patient satisfaction a clear, explicit focus for his organization - everything else was subordinate to satisfying patients. In many healthcare organizations I know, staff are sent to learn with the good folks at The Studer Group, but they come back to a mass of competing priorities.
Does anyone (but Quint Studer) believe that a clear, singular organizational focus on patients would provide powerful direction and clarity?
Nancy
At his best, Quint Studer created a singular focus on improving patient care, and, with his powerful magnetism, unleashed the creativity of people to improve. This is where ideas like rounding and AIDET come from, and the results seen at Baptist.
Unfortunately, the Studer coaches do not replicate this in partner organizations. Instead, they share the tools developed by others, citing the shaky science of "EBL" (or evidenced-based leadership) as proof that the methods work. Because these solutions are introduced as top-down "must-haves" they often hamper, rather than unleash, people's creativity. Being Studer's R&D leader, I would suggest that Craig look at the root causes of the success of Baptist, (which few, if any, of the 682 clients have replicated). I believe the success at Baptist resulted from developing people's ability to CREATE solutions. I have not seen any Studer coaches, in several health care organizations, develop the capacity of people to create these solutions. Instead the emphasis is on implementation (execution, as you say) of solutions created elsewhere - the "must-haves." While this creates some results, lasting improvement only comes from developing problem-solving capability with a singular focus on improving how we serve patients.
MAP
Post a Comment