The coronavirus crisis has turned into a governance and structure crisis for many medical groups.
Good group governance, at least in theory and as borrowed from the publicly-held entity world, is often discussed as a balancing of issues, an avoidance of conflicts, and as giving credence to the interests of the providers of capital as well as to notions of corporate citizenship.
Great. But you’re not being tested by a business school professor whose only job has been as a business school professor. You’re being stress tested by the real world.
Do you have a structure that creates and fosters a single unified business?
Do you have a structure that, while giving shareholders or partners the right to vote (but not unanimity!) on “supreme” issues such as sale of the group, otherwise leaves decisions to a leader or to a small board?
Many medical groups are reacting to the crisis like threatened turtles; they’ve pulled their head and legs into their shells. Seemingly safe, they, like turtles, can’t make any forward movement, any progress, without sticking their head and legs out; in other words, without acting decisively. So, the question is, do you allow your group’s leaders to actually lead, to take decisive action?
Does someone, or some small subset of someones, have not only the right, but the ability, to make tough decisions about the group’s future?
If the answer to any of those is “no,” then you’re damaging your future and aiding the competition.
It’s like you’re employed by Coke but wearing Pepsi T-shirts to work.
Stop it.
There are multiple free resources on my website to help you assess and correct, if it needs correcting, your group’s governance structure. They include two blog posts, The Medical Group Governance Matrix, and Your Medical Group’s Governance Structure, as well as the book, The Medical Group Governance Matrix, which you can download from our publications page.
