The importance of the “people factor” in improving the quality and efficiency of healthcare is well understood by experts in health information technology (HIT) and healthcare delivery transformation. In estimating the time and cost for implementing new technologies or processes, they appreciate how behavior change and technology adoption are very time consuming and expensive – factors that are often glossed over in policy discussions.
David Brooks’ recent Op-Ed in the New York Times about the personality traits of CEOs leading successful companies sheds some light on the people factors in health reform. Contrary to a lot of the common wisdom about the importance of good personal connections with coworkers for success in the corporate world, Brooks cites information that the most important factors for successful CEOs are “execution and organizational skills. The traits that correlated most powerfully with success were attention to detail, persistence, efficiency, analytic thoroughness and the ability to work long hours.”
He goes on to state that what produces effective CEOs are “emotional stability and, most of all, conscientiousness — which means being dependable, making plans and following through on them.”
In the medical world, this would describe most surgeons, but the difference between the corporate and medical worlds is that CEOs have greater direct control over their people and organizations than do the leaders of health delivery organizations like hospitals or clinics, which rely on the performance of many different professionals and skilled staff who function quite independently, such as doctors, nurses, and many types of therapists. Thus, while “being a good listener, a good team builder, an enthusiastic colleague, a great communicator [does] not seem to be very important when it comes to leading successful companies,” in the clinical world, these traits are very important.
Brooks’ comment that, “business leaders tend to perform poorly in Washington, while political leaders possess precisely those talents — charisma, charm, personal skills — that are of such limited value when it comes to corporate execution,” correlates very well with my observations of senior corporate managers, politicians and clinicians. I have seen business leaders who are successful in working the political circuit but have struggling corporate organizations, and politicians who enter the business world – often as leaders of lobbying or policy organizations in Washington DC – whose operations are chaotic and inefficient.
However, there are a wide variety or organizations in the healthcare universe’s 4 spheres, and the leadership qualities best suited for increasing quality and efficiency depend upon the sphere the organization is operating in, the type of organization, and the local culture. For example, leading a biotech, medical device, diagnostic, HIT, or pharmaceutical company requires the type of hyper-focused “boring” CEO described in Brook’s column. But successfully leading a hospital, clinic, or private medical office requires someone who has relatively stronger people skills. And someplace in the middle would be the leadership of health plans which have to bridge the business and clinical worlds, and leaders of government agencies which have to straddle the policy and political arenas.
Keeping the importance of the people factor in mind while developing health reform and transformation proposals will help create realistic expectations and time lines – both for the actual transformation of care delivery and the ability to achieve cost savings. For example, as CBO noted a year ago – and I’ve previously commented on – the ability of health information technology to achieve cost savings is dependent upon how those technologies actually change behaviors of clinicians, patients, and others – a process which is very time consuming and expensive.