When something goes wrong in a dental practice, the question of who is to blame is quickly asked – and usually asked wrongly. In the episode „Fachkräftemangel oder Führungsproblem?“ of the podcast Queens & Sons of Dentistry, Dr. Nebo Stankovits, a dental entrepreneur with practices in Hanover and Bremen, explains together with his Bremen site manager Amata how leadership, delegation and error culture work in his practices.
Responsibility lies first with the boss
For Dr. Stankovits, one clear principle applies: if something goes wrong, he takes responsibility – regardless of which employee made the mistake. After all, he hired the employee, so he either selected badly, explained badly or prepared them badly. The decisive question is then what he himself can do better so that the mistake no longer occurs in future – it is always a matter of “lessons learned”. Anyone pointing a finger at others should bear in mind that three fingers point back at themselves. Part of leadership is also openly admitting one's own wrong decisions and correcting course – usually it is not a matter of a 180-degree turn anyway, but of individual adjustments.
Delegating in stages – from demonstrating to letting go
For employees to be able to take on responsibility at all, the preconditions must first be right, according to Dr. Stankovits. He uses an image from the kitchen for this: without a coordinated recipe, good ingredients produce nothing but a “strange broth”. The practice owner is responsible for setting out structures, framework conditions, values and priorities – and for providing the complete infrastructure: premises, equipment, instruments. Then follows a staged process: first demonstrating several times, then watching as the employee performs the task themselves, and only afterwards letting them work independently. At the end stands deliberate letting go: granting scope and expressing trust – combined with the offer to get in touch at any time should problems arise. Externally, he as the owner nevertheless remains responsible. At the same time there are limits: if something goes wrong three times without a discernible learning curve, consequences have to follow – because without consequences, everyone can do as they please.
Feedback in both directions – the example of dental technology
What meeting as equals can look like concretely is shown by the feedback system that the practice has established with its dental laboratory. Instead of – as is widespread in the sector – “laying into” the dental technician, who has to make up for poor impressions, practice and laboratory assess one another. The practice reports back whether the proximal contact, occlusion and aesthetics of the work are right; the laboratory, conversely, assesses the completeness of the documentation – for example whether wax-ups were sent back, a facebow record was taken and tooth and stump shades are documented – and, in addition, the quality of the preparation and of the impression or scan. The aim is explicitly not mutual praise, but rapid intervention when something is not right. Nobody should take umbrage in the process or take criticism personally – assessments are to be regarded neutrally in order to improve.
Direct communication instead of silent frustration
As a personal turning point, Dr. Stankovits names the realisation not to lead in a fear-driven way and to address discrepancies immediately – often they are not mistakes at all, but misunderstandings, and the sooner these are cleared up, the better. Anyone who bottles things up develops resentment subconsciously and becomes unfair. The justification reflex of many employees also needs to be dissolved: a question about an appointment is a purely informational question, not an accusation. Amata confirms this experience from her own perspective and adds a further building block: clearly structured, written work instructions that everyone can consult – step one to ten – so that everyone knows what to do, mistakes do not arise in the first place and no bad atmosphere develops.
Team instead of family
A further change of perspective concerns the much-invoked family atmosphere. That is a fine thing, says Dr. Stankovits, but a practice is not a family; it is a “high-performer squad”: a family cannot be chosen and can hardly be left, whereas a team may take on new members and let members go when circumstances of life change. Amata also points out that leadership is simply not taught in the dentistry degree – there was not a single seminar on leadership or responsibility for staff. One has to grow into this role, and this process never ends.