The question group practice owners ask most often is some version of: how do I get my clinicians to do what I need them to do without feeling like I am managing them?
That question contains the problem. The discomfort with management — with authority, with hierarchy, with the power differential between employer and employee — is the thing that keeps most group practices from scaling past their initial momentum. It is not billing complexity. It is not referral pipeline. It is not EHR selection or marketing strategy or the right consultation structure.
It is the owner’s relationship with their own authority.
This is a clinical training problem wearing a business suit.
What training teaches about authority
Clinical training is, among other things, a training in authority avoidance. Therapists learn to hold space, not to direct it. They learn to follow the client’s lead, to avoid imposing their own agenda, to resist the pull toward advice-giving and problem-solving, to tolerate the discomfort of sitting with someone in distress without rushing to fix it.
These are good clinical instincts. They are, in many ways, the thing that makes therapy work. The non-directive stance, the collaborative relationship, the deliberate restraint of the clinician’s agenda in service of the client’s — these are not incidental features of good therapy. They are central to it.
They are also completely wrong for managing a group practice.
The skills that make a good therapist are not the skills that make a good employer. Patience in the face of ambiguity is a clinical virtue. It is a management liability when ambiguity means nobody knows what is expected of them. Non-directiveness serves clients. It confuses employees. Tolerance for the client’s process, wherever it leads, is appropriate in a therapy room. It is not appropriate in a performance conversation that needs to reach a specific conclusion by the end of the meeting.
The practitioners who build the strongest group practices are the ones who figured this out. They developed the capacity to be therapists in the therapy room and employers in the employer role — and they stopped letting clinical instincts bleed into contexts where they do not belong.
You cannot run a group practice on clinical instincts alone. At some point you have to be the boss.
— Marcus Webb, Business & Therapy
The accountability gap
The most common structural failure in group practices is what I call the accountability gap — the space between what an employer expects and what they are actually willing to enforce.
It shows up like this: the practice owner sets expectations. A clinician misses them — documentation is late, client cancellations are not rescheduled, billing is not submitted on time. The practice owner notices. They intend to address it. But they do not address it, at least not directly. Instead they send a general reminder to the whole team. Or they absorb the problem themselves. Or they tell themselves it was probably a hard week for that clinician and they will give it another month.
The clinician never gets direct feedback. The expectation is never enforced. The gap widens.
This is not malice. The reasons are always psychologically coherent. Practice owners do not want to damage the therapeutic alliance they have built with their team members — because they are therapists, and relationship rupture is something they are trained to avoid. They do not want to seem punitive. They worry about what the missed expectation says about the clinician’s wellbeing. They tell themselves they need more information before they can address it directly.
These are clinically inflected defenses. They are not management. And when deployed consistently in the employment relationship, they produce a team that has learned — accurately — that expectations in this practice are negotiable.
The conflict avoidance trap
The accountability gap is downstream of conflict avoidance. Therapists are, structurally, conflict avoiders in the clinical sense — they are trained to de-escalate, to metabolize tension rather than produce it, to find the underlying need beneath the surface conflict rather than engaging the conflict directly.
That skill is indispensable in the clinical relationship. In the management relationship, it is disabling.
Direct feedback to an employee about a performance issue is not a conflict. It is a conversation. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It specifies a behavior, identifies the expectation that was not met, and describes what needs to change. It is not punitive. It does not require the employee to feel bad about themselves. It does not require the employer to feel bad about giving it.
But for practitioners trained to read relational dynamics, to monitor for distress, to protect against rupture, the anticipation of that conversation feels like a conflict — and the clinical response to anticipated conflict is to find another way.
There is no other way. The feedback has to happen. The question is whether it happens at three weeks or at three months, when the problem has compounded and the conversation is significantly harder.
What authority actually looks like
The group practice owners who build the most successful teams are not the ones who are most comfortable with conflict. They are the ones who have developed the capacity to be uncomfortable and act anyway.
They give feedback early, when the problem is small. They are specific — not “your documentation has been a problem” but “your session notes for the week of April 14th were submitted three days late, and this is the third time this quarter.” They describe the impact — on billing, on compliance, on the team — without catastrophizing. They state the expectation clearly and ask for acknowledgment that it has been understood.
And then they follow up. Because the follow-up is the part that communicates whether the expectation is real or performative.
None of this requires being harsh. It requires being clear. The practitioners who confuse harshness with clarity are the ones who avoid both. The ones who understand the difference give feedback that is specific, timely, respectful, and unambiguous.
Leadership is a learnable skill
The good news — and this is genuinely good news for practitioners who came to group practice ownership without management training — is that leadership is a skill. It is not a personality trait. It is not something you either have or do not have. It is a set of practices that can be learned, developed, and improved with the same intentionality that practitioners bring to clinical skill development.
The developmental path is similar. You read. You observe people who do it well. You practice in low-stakes situations. You get feedback on how you are doing. You make mistakes and correct them. Over time, the practices become more natural.
The practitioners who develop as leaders are the ones who decide that leadership development is part of the job — not an add-on, not a nice-to-have, but a professional competency that their role requires and that they have an obligation to develop.
Say the thing
The single most powerful leadership intervention available to a group practice owner is the one they have been avoiding.
Say the thing you have not been saying. Say it directly. Say it specifically. Say it without the clinical softening that turns a clear expectation into an ambiguous suggestion. Say it in the first available conversation, not after you have spent two weeks preparing yourself for the discomfort.
The conversation will be uncomfortable for about ten minutes. The alternative — not having it — is uncomfortable indefinitely, and produces outcomes that are worse for the clinician, worse for the clients, and worse for the practice.
You became a group practice owner. That comes with the job of being a leader.
Do the job.
Do you have additional information about group practice management, leadership development for clinicians, or the accountability gap in clinical settings? We update our articles and research regularly. Contact our editorial team with corrections, updates, or sources.