I learned early in my business career, after being in
medical practice that the way business people and medical people communicate is
very different. Besides having
fundamentally different languages, clinical people tend to be more emotional in
their approach to communication than people in the business world. Sometimes clinicians can get a bit too
emotional as they take the passion and concern that is needed when helping a
sick patient into the business meeting.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are business people who are often in
health care due to their profound desire to help others. They can bring a hard-nosed focus on budget
and margin and sometimes appear to be uncaring of the human impact of those
numbers despite their commitment to helping.
Both sides have to understand and accommodate the emotional communication
style of the other if our current health care world in which business,
management and care are all intermingled has any hope to achieve higher quality
and lower costs.
Physicians and nurses know that passion is helpful when
speaking with patients. The patients and
their families want to know you care, and that you share their sadness, their
anger and their fear as they enter evaluation and therapy for problems large
and small. At the same time, the patient
wants to feel that the health professional caring for them is the rock they can
lean on and not be overly emotional. The
gifted doctor communicates emotions without inflaming them and is able to walk
the difficult line of sharing sadness and happiness while also appearing objective
and professional.
In the board room and in business meetings, physician often
feel the need to communicate the emotions of the patients to the managers in
order to underline the importance of the business decisions on patients’
lives. In this way, physicians often
feel when working with business people and managers that they must play the
role of emotional middle-men (and women) communicating the patient feelings and
reactions to the business professionals.
In the business world however, the emotional speaker may be
discounted and de-emphasized in the internal negotiating that often reflects
productive business decision-making. That
emotionality may be thought of as reflective of less than fully rational deliberations
and the one displaying the emotion may therefore be less credible than the one
who can make a “business case” in a totally dispassionate way. There is often a belief in business and
management that rational analysis is inherently devoid of emotions.
In the past few years, research on decision making and
emotions have led to what Jennifer Lerner, one of the leading lights in this
field (Prof Lerner is an advisor to Accolade), calls a “revolution” with the
“potential to create a paradigm shift in decision theories.” In an
article published in the Annual Review of Psychology, she and her
colleagues write, “emotions constitute potent, pervasive, predictable,
sometimes harmful and sometimes beneficial drivers of decision making.” While anger and fear tend to be thought of as
impairing good decisions, even these types of emotions in the right situations can
be useful. In the preface to his book, “Feeling
Smart,” Eyal Winter cites a study that shows when we are moderately angry
our ability to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant claims in disputed
issues is sharpened.
At Accolade, in our early formative years, I sometimes took
on the role of playing a difficult person calling Accolade with medical
problems as part of our certification of new personnel. During one of these certification calls, I
played an unpleasant person, who was angry at everything. The person I was testing, a talented business
health professional was accurate, dispassionate and correct in everything he
was saying. In my role as the patient
with the problems, his professional attitude made my character more angry as it made me feel as
though he did not understand the urgency of my need. I stopped my role playing and admonished him
to stop being so damn professional! He
had to show emotions and allow himself to be more human to me as the angry
person in order to build my trust and allow for positive influence. At the same time he could not reflect my
anger to the point of inflaming an already difficult situation. He had to understand, acknowledge and direct
both his and my (in my actor role) emotions in such a way as to create better
paths towards high value solutions. These
same observations hold true for discussions within organizations as well as
discussions with patients and other stakeholders.
The issue of how we reconcile the differences in emotional communication
between clinical health professionals and managerial health professionals in
order to develop systems that are optimal for patients is critical. We must, when designing health delivery and
care management systems, build them in ways that encourage the understanding of
emotions in order to foster better decision making by all involved. Unless the people on both the clinical and
managerial sides of health care can come together and communicate well, the
chance of developing better ways to build structures and processes that encourage doctors,
nurses, patients and families to work together for maximum effectiveness and
efficiency is significantly hampered.
In health care especially, the decisions that doctors, patients
and families must make when someone is sick are perhaps more fraught with
emotions than almost any other decisions.
Our management systems must reflect, acknowledge, and proactively address
this reality. These realities must be
understood and used in the same way that objective data, both quantitative and
qualitative is understood and used. Failure
to do so, whether in care management decisions or business decisions will
result in poor results for the patient and the organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment