What I Pay Attention to When a Dental Team Says a Workflow “Isn’t Working”

When a dental team tells me a workflow “isn’t working,” I don’t immediately assume the workflow itself is the problem.

Sometimes it is. But a lot of the time, the issue is that the process was never clear enough, never repeated enough, or never owned by anyone long enough to become part of the way the team actually works.

And that matters, because changing the system too quickly can create even more confusion without fixing what was really broken in the first place.

When I’m working with a team through consulting, leadership development, or training, I want to see how the workflow is actually being used before we decide what needs to change.

First, I Look at Clarity and Ownership

A workflow can sound very simple when you explain it in a meeting and still completely fall apart in real life.

I want to know whether everyone understands the same steps, whether people know exactly what they’re responsible for, and whether the process is clear enough that it can actually be repeated.

This becomes even more important when a workflow crosses departments. A patient handoff, for example, may involve the front office, clinical team, and doctor. If each person has a slightly different understanding of what is supposed to happen, those small gaps turn into delays, missed information, and frustration.

Sometimes what looks like resistance is really just ambiguity.

That’s why I’m always asking: Is this process actually clear, and does someone own it?

If there’s no clear owner, no one is really responsible for making sure it happens consistently.

Then I Look at Repetition, Accountability, and Friction

A process rarely becomes reliable after one explanation.

Teams need repetition. They need to hear it again, practice it again, and see that leadership is paying attention to whether it’s actually being followed.

If a workflow gets introduced once and then no one checks it, reinforces it, or addresses when people drift away from it, eventually the team learns that it’s optional. At that point, it becomes really hard to say the workflow failed, because we may have never truly implemented it.

This is where accountability matters, but I also want to know where the actual friction is.

When someone tells me, “This system doesn’t work,” I want examples. Where does it break down? Is it during a handoff? Is documentation too cumbersome? Is someone waiting on information they never get? Is there a decision point where nobody is sure who is supposed to act?

Those specifics are so much more useful than saying the whole process is bad.

Sometimes the workflow really is too complicated. Sometimes there are unnecessary steps. But other times, one weak handoff or one unclear responsibility is making the entire thing feel broken.

I don’t want to rebuild a whole system when one part of it is the real issue.

Finally, I Ask Whether the Workflow Supports the Standard

I don’t think a workflow should exist just because it makes the office feel more organized.

It should support something that actually matters: a better patient experience, more consistent care, stronger communication, fewer missed steps, or a more efficient team.

If the team can’t explain what the workflow is supposed to accomplish, it’s going to be really hard to know whether it’s working.

That’s why I think systems and leadership have to be developed together. The system creates structure, but leadership defines the standard and makes sure the team keeps coming back to it.

A big part of my consulting and leadership work is helping practices figure out whether the real problem is the design of the process, the communication around it, the accountability behind it, or simply the fact that the team hasn’t had enough repetition yet.

When a workflow “isn’t working,” I usually want to understand the pattern before I start changing anything.

Because a lot of the time, the answer isn’t starting over. It’s getting much clearer about what’s already there.