Culture Focused Practice

Hey, Dr. Tara Vossenkemper here and you are listening to the Culture Focused Practice podcast. Welcome back, hopefully back. We are getting into structure today. So this episode is titled Structure Does Not Equal Control, and we're gonna talk really about how to use EOS without becoming a micromanaging maniac. So if you hear the word structure and you get all itchy on the inside, or maybe physically itchy, like it makes you break out in hives, I hope to God not, but maybe this is an episode for you.

Structure for me, when structure is done right, it gives you freedom. It doesn't queue up more meetings for you, it doesn't stifle you. It allows for more freedom and more healthy expression of freedom. So let's unpack the myth that using EOS or any sort of structured system turns you into some sort of cold, performative, lifeless robot that uses spreadsheets like a weapon.

It's really the opposite. So when you have real structure, it helps you stop repeating yourself. It helps you stop reacting to every single fire. It really allows you to lead like a visionary, like a CEO, like whatever the title is that you have, and to stop being the sort of the toilet for everybody's crap.

Before we go any further, here's my call to subscribe. Make sure you subscribe to the podcast. You can stay up on any of the episodes that release, as well as binge listen to any of the previous episodes. Additionally, the more you subscribe if it resonates, the more this reaches like-minded people who need the same message, so you are serving others in doing so.

Let's keep going. I wanna talk about the agenda real quick, just to give you some, you know, structure, ironically enough for the episode, we have five items. Number one, why structure gets a bad wrap. Number two, the EOS lens structure as containment, not control. Number three, the real cost of chaos in the myth of, in quotes, being chill. I have no chill. Number four, freedom through consistency and fifth and final is permission to lead. So let's get into it, shall we?

Number one, why structure gets a bad rep? I mean, I gotta be honest. I work with a lot of group therapy practices. So if you are a group practice owner and you are not a therapist, this might not resonate with you.

There is a difference between therapist brain and leadership brain. Therapists are trained to give a lot of space. We empathize, we explore, we wanna know more. We're constantly in this space where we are allowing people to process and progress, largely speaking, at their own pace, which is great. And this is theoretical of course, and it's based on stylistic things and you know, but largely speaking, those things I just said hold true.

A leadership brain is set up to define a boundary, to define roles, to be clear on expectations and responsibilities, and quite frankly, to make really fucking hard decisions. Those two things are not the same. So if you are,. Let's just say wired, hardwired, or trained to really tune into emotions and to really be that supportive empathic therapist stepping into a directive seat, it's, it's really disconcerting.

I can say from my own experience, it can be very disconcerting and I think it leaves us questioning or feeling like we're being cold or mean, or like we don't care about the person in front of us, like we are not caring about the people around us. The reality is that it's compassionate to provide clarity and have clear expectations.

It's hard to embrace that though. It's hard to integrate that into our systems, especially with that lived experience.

Another component for like therapist brain versus leadership brain. What happens if you're sort of wondering, well, maybe I get stuck in therapist brain. Am I a therapist or am I a leader?

Leaders who stay in therapists brain for too long. They tend to just perpetually process whether problems or people things or emotional things or systems, and they don't decide. At some point there should be a wall.

You are building a structure. A structure requires a wall, multiple walls, actually boundaries to keep outside things out and inside things in. Of course that boundary should be permeable at key places or there should be doors if you're thinking of walls, but it shouldn't be a boundary where anything is in and anything is out.

Structure also can get a bad rap because there is whether or not you agree with this? I would say that there is baggage around being too rigid, especially if you are female or femme or female identified.

I think this definitely, definitely can be gendered. It doesn't have to be, but I think that it can be. A lot of practice owners have this sort of internalized idea that being really clear and decisive makes them controlling, and I think there is social feedback a lot of the time, not always that being clear and decisive and competent is received as being assertive or bitchy.

And so you, it's sort of like the stuck between a rock and a hard place that we, we have to sort of walk this balance between I need to be candid, I need to be clear, I need to make a decision. And there is a very, I think a very real potentially internalized, but also social also maybe some biological like pushback, internal pushback to doing that for fear of being seen as a bitch, you know, controlling any, any of those sorts of words.

Let's shift from that. Let's shift into the EOS lens: structure as containment, not control. I think this is a nice little segue whenever we are providing containers for our team. I would say that leadership responsibility, one of the core purposes is to be a container for the system or for the structure. So what that means is that we get to reduce overwhelm by having this container in place. We get to prevent the tendency for people to sort of go outside their scope. We're holding systems in place for a reason.

We're also giving people a stable rhythm a stable structure to move within.

When they know what to expect from us. Meaning that we are consistent and clear and we show up all on the same page or as close to the same page as possible, we're allowing for people to operate within the confines of what is being set up for them, I would say with them, and also for them, for the practice, for the business to be able to thrive.

This can also be especially true when it comes to emotionally heavy work. What I won't say is that every employee at my practice is happy with every decision I make. That that would be incredible, but it's just not realistic. What I can say is that there's a high level of trust they have in me and in leadership to make decisions with the cleanest intentions for the practice, and they know that we consider them.

It's important to us, even though we're making hard decisions, even though we're holding bounds, even though we are serving as the container, they are always at the forefront of our minds. Always.

And so I think that they know this and they trust this, and then they they feel safe, they feel some sort of protection. Whether or not they agree with everything we do is kind of a different conversation than what I would not say you should really, um, spend a lot of time on, but instead be thinking about what's the impact of us being a containment system of leadership, being a containment system. And it's that we're providing stability, safety, psychological safety, really emotional safety for folks to be able to show up and do what is expected of them, all of which is clear.

So this isn't about control. It's about, again, containment and structure as containment.

Second component to this is really about how EOS builds in clarity and autonomy. In case you don't know, EOS is the entrepreneurial operating system developed by Gino Wickman.

So the beauty about something like EOS is that it's literally by nature of it existing and integrating it in healthy and accurate ways, you are creating clarity and autonomy both simultaneously. EOS is not about micromanaging, it's about setting up really clear and shared expectations.

It's about people knowing what's expected of them, about where they're going, about how we engage with each other, about how decisions are made, about where problems go to get resolved and all of that also means that they get the freedom to decide how they work within the confines of the system. And honestly, I would say they get the freedom to decide if they wanna be a part of it at all.

And so by being very clear about who we are, how we engage, what we're doing, we're also giving people the autonomy to decide if they wanna be with us. I'm not gonna force anybody to do this. If they wanna be here fucking awesome. I want them here too. If they don't wanna be here. Fucking awesome. I want them to be happy where they are and to find meaning in the work that they're doing and to trust the system that they're a part of.

Okay. Agenda item number three. The real cost of chaos and the myth of being chill again. I think I said I have no chill. I really, I, I don't think I have a chill. Maybe I do. I don't think that I do.

There's two little sub items here. One is that a lack of process equals burnout, not empowerment. The less clear you are on your processes, the more burned out people get. Number one, every decision is whatever it wants to be. If somebody comes to me on any given day, if person A came to me on a Monday and I was hungry, person B came to me on a Tuesday and I was real sleep deprived, person C came to me on a Wednesday and I was rested and fed, my answers are going to differ from day to day.

I know that there's at least one study that they did on judges and court rulings and how there were harsher sentences the hour leading up to lunch, and how they were much more lenient after. We are affected by things that we don't always pay attention to, that we're not always aware of. We're inconsistent in how we show up. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with that.

The impact, however, is that if we're not consistent in a process or how we're talking about a process, are people are gonna be fucking tired. They're gonna get burned out, they're gonna be frustrated. Well, I thought you told me this.

Well, why is that person doing it this way? And this person told me this and I don't really understand. That leads to burnout. They start to not trust us. It's erosion of trust and safety. It's also just who wants to do the mental gymnastics, to figuring out what to do every time they have a question.

The second piece to burnout is not just for your team, it's for you. I absolutely get decision fatigue. I hate making decisions. I don't wanna decide what to wear. I don't wanna decide what to eat. I really wish it was just chosen for me.

That would be incredible. So, decision fatigue. If you are constantly answering questions, you are going to feel tired. It is going to get to you, you might say. No, it's not. I love that my people can come to me. Great. Tell me that again. In six months when you're trying to work on three major projects related to growing your business.

I don't know of one example where this hasn't come to pass. At some point, your love of people coming to you is going to change. It's going to evolve in some form or fashion. You're not going to want your employees to come to you constantly with questions related to operations things or maybe clinical things or process related things for administrative work. I don't have any idea.

You're gonna be tired of it at some point. Just accept it and know that when you have process in place, it makes everything easier for everybody involved. Every single person positively impacts from that.

The second component to real cost of chaos. High trust does not mean no structure. I would argue that high trust is a function of clarity and communication and consistency and structure. That's what it gets you. When you can be clear and consistent and people know what to expect. They know what to expect of themselves, but also from you.

They're gonna trust you. There's gonna be psychological safety and there's gonna be trust. Consistency builds safety, and from that safety, you get buy-in, you get trust, you get all of the things that you want out out of a really healthy functioning team.

Two more agenda items. We are on to number four. Freedom through consistency. Call this the existentialist in me, but I am of the opinion that structure allows for freedom. If you haven't picked up on that so far, you haven't been listening. Structure allows for freedom.

Too much is suffocating, not enough, which feels like ambivalence and is unclear leads to low trust and a lack of performance. So some structure, having consistency allows for freedom. You get freedom through consistency. There's a couple ways that this shows up, especially with EOS.

Of course there are tools related to EOS. There's a few that come to mind. There's scorecards L 10, which are level 10 weekly meetings and rocks, which are quarterly rocks. They're quarterly goals that you set to hit.

You know, it's funny 'cause whenever I first start talking about EOS and also some of the tools associated with it, I think people end up feeling overwhelmed.

Like, it's so much to implement. How am I gonna do this thing? And the reality is that once they're in place, it feels disorienting not to have them. It feels really unmooring when you don't have a sense for, oh fuck, what's my rock for the quarter? Or what do the numbers tell me this week? Or. We didn't meet for L 10, I'm I, we didn't get to check in on this item or this to-do list or these issues.

It's unsettling not to have these tools in place. So I think of these, of course they are tools, but what they really are is sort of like an inherent meaning in them is alignment and sane page ness. And consistency and proactive problem solving. It's being able to course correct before anything spirals out.

It's having your finger on the pulse of what's happening in a way that doesn't feel micromanaging and that isn't overwhelming. It's contained. And because of those things, you then have freedom.

The second piece too, freedom through consistency is that structured accountability increases psychological safety.

I said this already, but it's worth saying again. Whenever people know something like feedback when and how feedback is gonna happen. The not only cadence and rhythm, but also the ways in which it takes place. They don't feel worried about a surprise correction or a surprise criticism. They feel comfortable like, oh, okay, cool.

Whew. I know my numbers. On a weekly basis, I get this report from my DC or my clinical director, or my, my higher up, or I'm able to log in and see all my metrics. Man, I'm low here. Okay. I need to approach them to talk about it first, or they're probably gonna send me an email checking in about this number.

It's all out there. There's nothing hidden. It's all right there. And because of that, because of the structured accountability, they feel better. It's not fun to be in, you know, in trouble, quote in trouble. But it's nice to know what to expect.

Okay. Last agenda item, permission to lead. So again, we're talking about structure, not equaling control. These are not the same things.

There's two components to permission to lead. One is you need to stop apologizing because you want things to run well, period. I don't know if you're apologizing. If you are, you need to stop. If you're not apologizing, if you never felt the need to, that's even better.

Systems are not intended to be stifling. They are supportive structures that allow us to know what to expect. They protect our people, they serve our clients, and they allow everybody to exist without being burned the fuck out. That's what they do.

Second piece, and I could keep going, but I feel like I've covered this already and I'm just bringing it home for you.

Second piece for permission to lead is that you can be values driven and operationally sound. I would say that you have to do both. That you can't do one over the other. You can be culture focused, but you can't be culture focused without structure. You can be structured, but you can't really be structured without culture because it just feels cold and sort of lifeless.

You don't need to be, you don't need to choose between both. I would argue that you should embed values in every system that you create. So if you're going to create a process, maybe run it through your values.

It's a simple way, if you're creating a process, you might assess as you're going, what's the intention behind this? Is this in alignment with our values? Who does this serve? Does this help our practitioners feel good about what they're doing?

Or does it stifle them excessively? Is it real micromanaging or is it structured enough that it allows for autonomy and how people show up. There's a series of questions you can ask yourself as you're trying to do this, and when you start to get in the habit of questioning as you're building, why you're building certain things.

Every single thing that as is a result of that, is a values informed process, product structure, system ,flow. All of it is values informed, which, from my perspective, immediately strengthens the culture of the entire system because now you're also grounded. People come to you and ask questions about, well, why this and why this?

You have very clear answers, which feeds into psychological safety and trust and clarity and communication and all of those things. So.

That's all I got for you, man. That's all I have. If you are really ready to build more structure, if you really want to build more structure and you want freedom from that structure.

Join the EOS Mastermind wait list. You have to join the wait list. Technically wait list gets first dibs to the Mastermind when it launches, which is super soon. So go to www.taravossenkemper.com/eos-mastermind. Sign up for the wait list there and then you'll get information on the launch.

This has been great. I hope this is helpful. I hope you're having a great day. I'll see you next time. Thanks. Bye.