Leading Without Fear: The Case For Trust-Driven Healthcare Leadership
As a trauma surgeon, I have witnessed injuries that are, sadly, unsurvivable. I've stood over patients whose lives hung by a thread—some saved, others lost. And I've come to understand, more deeply with each experience, that what stands between life and death in those moments is not just the skill of the surgeon. It is the power of a team.
From the moment a critically injured patient rolls through the emergency department doors, a choreography of urgency unfolds. Nurses, emergency physicians, anesthesiologists, respiratory therapists, radiology techs and operating room (OR) staff are each poised, responsive and trusted to do their part. There is no time to waste, no room for ego. In those high-stress, high-stakes moments, the team matters more than any individual's technical brilliance.
This is why compassionate leadership and psychological safety are not abstract ideals in healthcare—they are life-saving imperatives.
Leading Through Trust, Not Fear
Simon Sinek once shared that the Navy SEALs, when choosing their most elite team members, value trust over performance. In healthcare, the stakes may not be combat, but they are just as real. We make decisions every day that determine whether someone will live or die. And like elite military units, the strongest healthcare teams are built not just on capability but on relationships.
This is especially true in trauma care, where every second matters. Trust accelerates action. It removes doubt, energizes communication and reduces cognitive load. In environments where people feel safe to speak up, ask questions and admit uncertainty, the entire system becomes more adaptive and, ultimately, more effective.
Safety Drives Performance
Kostas Dervitsiotis writes that trust is essential for performance and adaptation in high-reliability environments. This applies directly to trauma care, where adaptation is not a luxury—it's survival. Psychologically safe teams are faster, smarter and more agile. They debrief after cases without fear of blame, improve continuously and support one another through the emotional toll of the work.
In 2014, Weller, Boyd and Cumin found how tribalism in healthcare—rigid silos between doctors, nurses and staff—creates dangerous communication breakdowns. When we dismantle those barriers through compassionate leadership, we allow for collective excellence. Nurses speak up, techs are heard and surgeons lead by example. The result is a cohesive unit that performs under pressure because it is built on mutual respect.
I've seen firsthand how a shift in culture—grounded in trust and psychological safety—can transform a healthcare system. At our institution, we made a deliberate investment in fostering open communication, mutual respect and team accountability across disciplines. The results were unmistakable: We improved efficiency without sacrificing safety. Our teams became faster, more agile and more responsive—yet never at the expense of our patients' well-being.
We saw fewer complications, stronger coordination and greater consistency in surgical outcomes. Errors were caught before they reached the patient. And most importantly, team members felt safe to speak up about processes, concerns and how we could be better. These gains didn't come from control or compliance—they came from creating a space where people felt empowered to do their best work and trusted to act in service of the patient. It's a model of leadership that is not only sustainable but essential.
Compassion Is Not Soft, It's Strategic
We must reframe compassion not as a "soft skill" but as a strategic imperative. When leaders model vulnerability, curiosity and emotional intelligence, they foster environments where people feel safe to contribute fully. Husebø and Olsen (2016) found that clinical leadership development improves responsiveness, quality and trust—especially in emergency settings. These are not secondary gains. They are central to operational success.
At our hospital, surgical efficiency increased alongside safety. First-case on-time starts improved from 52% to 74%. We created additional access points for patients and surgeons by developing flexible scheduling systems. And we built leadership development meetings into our workflows to promote continuous learning and shared accountability.
Brené Brown says, "You can't get to courage without walking through vulnerability." When we allow ourselves and our teams to lead with curiosity instead of judgment—to replace shame and blame with questions and learning—we create the conditions for excellence. Shame and blame are inversely proportional to accountability. When team members feel shame, they shut down. When they feel safe, they lean in.
What Structural Safety Looks Like
Compassionate leadership also shows up in system design. It's in how we staff our teams, schedule our shifts and support mental wellness. It's in the way we conduct debriefs—not to assign blame but to learn. It's in policies that prioritize recovery, rest and resilience.
These values travel. I've seen them take root across continents in my global trauma work. From Latin America to the U.S., the most successful trauma teams share a common thread: They are led by people who understand that excellence requires empathy.
Building Teams That Save Lives
When we invest in compassionate leadership and psychological safety, we're not just creating better workplaces but better outcomes. Fewer medical errors. Greater staff retention. Higher patient satisfaction. Stronger innovation.
Healthcare is not just a science—it is a human endeavor. And at its best, it is led by those who understand that leading with trust, humility and compassion is not only good leadership—it is lifesaving leadership.
As Brené Brown reminds us: 'Vulnerability is the birthplace of innovation, creativity and change.' In medicine, it is also the birthplace of trust—and trust saves lives.
Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A dog trainer had no symptoms. An X-ray found a terminal disease
When Christopher Kennedy went to have an X-ray before a routine surgery, he thought he would be in and out. Then a technician spotted scarring in his lungs. Kennedy, 68 at the time, had never noticed any warning signs. He was a retired Air Force technician who exercised regularly and spent his time landscaping his backyard and training Bernese Mountain dogs to be hospital therapy animals. After several tests, a pulmonologist gave him an alarming diagnosis: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, or IPF. It's a type of lung disease with no known cause where scar tissue grows in the lungs and prevents oxygen from reaching the bloodstream, according to Dr. Panagis Galiatsatos, a medical spokesperson for the American Lung Association and pulmonologist at Johns Hopkins, who was not involved in Kennedy's care. The condition is progressive with a "high mortality rate," Galiatsatos said. At first, Kennedy thought he could "beat" the disease. But as his lung function degraded, he realized that was "baloney." Medications meant to slow the progressive fibrosis weren't working, and he was starting to need oxygen in his daily life. Even walking to the kitchen was leaving him winded. In 2024, Cleveland Clinic pulmonologist Dr. Aman Pande confirmed Kennedy's worst fear: He had less than a year to live. "We all wonder, as human beings, how we're going to go," Kennedy said. "And you never know. It's a great mystery. Well, for the first time in my life, I was told 'This is how you're going to go.'" "You come out one of two ways" Pande did have one option for Kennedy: They could see if he was eligible for a double-lung transplant. Kennedy, at 74, was older than most patients who undergo the operation, but he was otherwise a promising candidate, Pande said. Lung transplants are usually the final option offered to IPF patients, Pande said, and are usually curative, though a small percentage of patients can see the condition recur. Kennedy was initially resistant to the idea, because his younger brother had died after the same procedure. But after more convincing from Pande, he agreed to undergo testing to see if he would be eligible. Cleveland Clinic doctors "scoured everything," Kennedy said. Finally, he was approved as a candidate. He was registered on the national transplant list, and waited for a pair of suitable lungs to become available. As the months passed, Kennedy's lung function continued to degrade. He went from using two liters of oxygen a day to 10. He had a mild case of COVID-19. He lost more than 40 pounds. In October 2025, he was admitted to the hospital. "Dr. (Jason) Turkowski, (a transplant pulmonologist at Cleveland Clinic) said 'OK, we're going to admit you and you come out one of two ways: With a set of lungs, or we're going to carry you out,'" Kennedy recalled. "You're reminded every breath matters" Kennedy spent a month in the hospital. There were two false alarms, where it seemed that a pair of lungs might be available but ultimately were not. The third time was the charm, and on Nov. 15, Kennedy underwent a double-lung transplant. "It was a relief. I was apprehensive, obviously, and anxious. I can remember going into the operating room," Kennedy said. "I can remember the flurry of activity, all the people that were in there getting me ready for the surgery. Next thing you know, you're in your room." Just hours after the surgery, Kennedy's lung capacity was already better than it had been in months. He had several setbacks, including a post-surgery infection and a stroke, but his "indomitable spirit" has helped him recover, said pulmonologist Rachel Powers, who has been part of Kennedy's post-transplant care team. "I'm very proud of him. He really has kept a very good perspective of his course of recovery," Powers said. "He's kept such a good outlook, and I think that's been really important for some of the things that he's had to overcome after transplant." For Kennedy, now 75, life is now beginning to feel normal again. Tests show that his lung capacity is at 98%. He is back to spending time with his wife, children and grandkids. He is able to exercise at home and was recently able to take his dog for a walk without losing his breath. He's almost done training the canine, a Bernese Mountain dog named Fini, to be a hospital therapy dog. Kennedy had believed Fini would be the last therapy dog he trained, and named him after the retirement flights conducted by Air Force members. But in a few weeks, he'll be getting a new puppy. He plans to name her Encore to celebrate his own second chance. Training hospital therapy dogs has become even more meaningful after his own medical journey, he said. "There's a lot of things that are different in my life. It gives you great perspective and proportion of life, of what's important and what isn't," Kennedy said. "You take every breath for granted, because, you know, why would you not? But as soon as they become compromised, you're reminded every breath matters. It keeps you centered." Johnson says Jeffrey Epstein files controversy is not a hoax Idaho murders documents released after Bryan Kohberger is sentenced to life in prison While many believe 10,000 steps a day is optimal, new study suggests different Solve the daily Crossword
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
See where gender identity care is restricted and where it's protected
The US Supreme Court's decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender identity care for transgender minors earlier this summer has fueled ongoing polarization around LGBTQ issues and controversial policies across the nation. The high court has also agreed to take on more cases dealing with trans rights in its next session that begins in October. Twenty-seven states have passed laws limiting access to gender identity health care for transgender children and teenagers, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health policy think tank. An estimated 40% of trans youth ages 13 to 17 live in these states. There have already been more anti-LGBTQ bills introduced in state legislatures so far this year than in any full year since at least 2020, a CNN analysis of American Civil Liberties Union data found. These bills span various aspects of everyday life, including bathroom access, school sports and identification documents. CNN is tracking where these laws are being passed and where these bills are being introduced. This story will be updated. Gender identity care includes medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned sex— the one the person was designated at birth — to their affirmed gender, the gender by which one wants to be known. Most of the states limiting gender identity care for trans minors adopted their bans in 2023, a record-breaking year for such laws. So far this year, one state — Kansas — has passed a ban, prohibiting the use of state funds to provide or subsidize health care for transgender youth. Not all laws are currently being enforced, however. The ban in Arkansas has been permanently blocked by a federal court, though the state said it would appeal the ruling. Montana's ban is also permanently blocked, according to KFF. Though Arizona has a 2022 law on the books banning surgical care for transgender minors, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs signed an executive order in 2023 ensuring access to gender identity health care. Nearly 600 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced into state legislatures as of July 11, which is already more than any other year on record, according to the ACLU. Education and health care continue to be key targets. There were more bills restricting student and educator rights — enforcing school sports bans and targeting students' access to facilities consistent with their gender identities, for example — than any other category of bills, according to a CNN analysis of ACLU data. Legislators in Texas have introduced 88 anti-LGBTQ bills so far this year, more than double the number of bills being considered in any other state. Four of those — including one that limits changes to gender markers on state medical records — have been passed into law. In late July, Texas lawmakers are reconvening for a 30-day special session. On the agenda is a transgender bathroom bill. Lawmakers in every state, except for Vermont, have filed at least one anti-LGBTQ bill in 2025, according to a CNN analysis. Twenty-two states have signed those bills into law.
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Oregon's Bold Stand Against Private Equity In Healthcare: What's Next?
Private Equity Has Skyrocketed In Healthcare Complex economic forces shape the U.S. healthcare landscape, with private equity (PE) firms promising efficiency and growth in the medical sector while simultaneously sparking debate. On June 9, 2025, Oregon Governor Tina Kotek signed Senate Bill 951 (SB 951) into law, representing the most recent and stringent legislative effort to restrict private equity investment in healthcare. What does the rise of private equity mean for healthcare? What will be the impact of Oregon's new law? What are the perspectives of investors and physicians regarding private equity in healthcare? The Rise Of Private Equity In U.S. Healthcare PE refers to investments made by firms or individuals in private companies with the goal of enhancing their value and selling them for a profit. These investments often involve significant control over the company's operations and strategic decisions, typically funded through a combination of investor capital and borrowed funds. In healthcare, the funding structure tends to rely more heavily on borrowed funds. In essence and in broad generalization, PE firms identify a business, believe they can operate it more efficiently, and aim to sell it for a profit. This trend reflects the increasing financialization of medical care. In healthcare, PE investments span a wide range of entities, including hospitals, physician groups, medical practices, fertility clinics, cosmetic clinics, imaging centers and ambulatory surgical centers. PE firms now own 460 hospitals, a 25-fold increase over the past twenty years. From 2010 to 2020, private equity deals in healthcare surged by over 250%. This growth is understandable. Healthcare processes often suffer from significant inefficiencies, and investors view the sector as an attractive opportunity due to its size, valuable fixed assets, and stable demand, which is largely independent of traditional market dynamics. "Private equity has revolutionized the engineering space, and it's clear what's been happening in healthcare isn't working. Private equity rewards high performing entities. Why wouldn't medicine want to lean into that?" says Michael Tobias, Founder Principal New York Engineers and shareholder Eaglestone Private Equity when interviewed for this article. This surge aligns with PE's standard approach: acquiring potentially undervalued assets, streamlining operations for short-term profits, and exiting within 3–7 years through sales or initial public offerings (IPOs). This strategy involves taking on immediate financial risk in pursuit of high returns. In healthcare, PE firms have traditionally focused on consolidating high-margin specialties such as dermatology, ophthalmology, and emergency medicine but are now expanding into more diverse areas of care delivery, including neurosurgery. Why Are Physicians Turning To Private Equity? In certain medical circles, surgeons in the latter half of their careers—typically with 15–20 years of practice—view private equity (PE) as an attractive exit strategy. The costs of operating a medical practice continue to rise steadily, driven by expenses such as staffing, equipment, and regulatory compliance. Meanwhile, reimbursement rates to physicians from insurers, including Medicare and private payers, are consistently declining. Private equity offers a way to mitigate these financial risks and exit the market with significant compensation for the assets built over years of practice. This approach can be highly lucrative for senior shareholders within a group practice. However, it may pose challenges for younger partners, who might face exclusion from the deal or diminished roles post-acquisition. What Are The Risk Of Private Equity In Healthcare? Private equity (PE) firms traditionally target high-margin specialties and procedures in healthcare. A leading article in JAMA reported that, following PE acquisition of hospitals, patient safety incidents increased significantly: a 27.3% rise in falls, a 37.7% increase in central line-associated bloodstream infections, and a doubling of surgical site infections. These outcomes occurred despite hospitals treating younger and more financially secure patients. Concerns arise that these issues stem from PE strategies, such as cost-cutting, staff reductions, and deferred investments, which are often implemented to manage debt. How Is Oregon Limiting Private Equity In Healthcare Senate Bill 951 (SB 951) establishes the most comprehensive state-level barriers to private equity (PE) in healthcare, strengthening the corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) doctrine, which prohibits non-physicians from owning or controlling medical practices. Historically, this doctrine was underenforced. The law targets the common structure used by PE for investment, focusing on management service organizations (MSOs) rather than direct PE ownership. MSOs typically handle administrative tasks such as billing and IT, but their contracts often enable indirect operational control. SB 951 closes these loopholes by prohibiting MSOs from interfering in clinical decisions, capping their fees at fair market value, and banning non-compete, nondisclosure, and nondisparagement agreements that restrict physicians or their interactions with patients. SB 951 prohibits PE participation in clinical operations, including hiring, firing, work schedules, compensation, coding decisions, clinical policies, billing collections, pricing, contract negotiations, and, most critically, setting clinical staffing levels and patient interaction time. This legislation essentially undermines the operational influence of PE investments in healthcare. Nationwide Ramifications of Oregon's New Law Oregon's Senate Bill 951 (SB 951) establishes the most stringent state-level restrictions on private equity (PE) in healthcare. Investors must comply with new regulations in a phased approach, with full compliance required by January 2029. Other states may follow Oregon's lead and adopt similar legislation. Recent high-profile health system bankruptcies, some of which involve PE-backed entities, have fueled momentum to strengthen regulations on the corporate practice of medicine in states like California. 'We're at an inflection point in this country when it comes to the corporatization of healthcare,' said House Majority Leader Ben Bowman (D-Tigard, Metzger, S Beaverton), who introduced the bill. 'With the passage of this bill, every Oregonian will know that decisions in exam rooms are being made by doctors, not corporate executives.' What Do Surgeons Have to Say About Private Equity In Healthcare? Brian Gantwerker, MD, a private-practice neurosurgeon in Santa Monica, CA, offers a nuanced perspective on PE in healthcare. "I believe private equity is a good thing in terms of commerce and goods and services outside of the medical field. The main issue is of course that private equity job is to purchase assets load them up with a lot of debt and then sell them off the commoditization of healthcare. Private equity as it is now represents a pump and dump scheme. I think it is possible to have private equity involved in a responsible way where the assets are purchased as part of an agreement with healthcare leaders in their community, and there are certain guidelines that they have to abide by such as keeping it open up to a minimum of five years and knowing and announcing when sale of assets will occur at least 6 to 12 months in advance of that transaction occurring. That way, if things fall through or if the clinic or entity fail, the community will be deprived of that service, but in a way that other services might be set up in advance to help catch those critical patients that may fall through the cracks. Responsible capitalism is possible. When it comes to patients, that must be our north star." John Abrahams, MD, a neurosurgeon at New York Brain & Spine, authored the leading paper on private equity in neurosurgery, published in The Journal of Neurosurgery. He expresses a more pessimistic view when quoted for this article: 'I don't see any benefit in the short or long term.' Dr. Abrahams argues that expected benefits, such as economies of scale, fail to materialize. Private equity (PE) firms often struggle to negotiate better insurance rates due to insufficient outcome data, and growth through acquisitions tends to diminish practice valuation. The risks are clear to practicing surgeons: PE firms impose management fees and may require surgeons to assume debt. In his defining article, Dr. Abrahams writes, 'Private practice neurosurgery is in serious trouble. Recent reports do not support its survival, and as costs increase while reimbursements decrease, new solutions and business models need to be developed. Successful business models need to be shared at a national level so we can all learn the difficult lessons at once and grow with the new knowledge gained. Private equity is not the solution for healthcare, and if you want to learn more about its perils, read the book These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs—and Wrecks—America by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner. It describes in detail how private equity ruins companies in general, as well as gives some examples of failure in healthcare.' What's Next for Private Equity in Healthcare? The Deeper Question Oregon's SB 951, by reinforcing the corporate practice of medicine doctrine, establishes regulatory guardrails to protect the patient-physician trust, potentially curbing excesses while sparking broader debates about the limits of state oversight in complex systems. Caution is always warranted with government intervention, as overly prescriptive laws risk unintended consequences, stifling the entrepreneurial spirit that could address healthcare's inefficiencies and echoing Hayek's warnings against the hubris of centrally planned economies. At its core, the fundamental question persists: Are we content to entrust the stewardship of healthcare—our vital guardian of life and dignity—to entities such as government bureaucracies or distant investors chasing the scraps of crony capitalism, whose contributions and ownership may be mere abstractions. Or, perhaps more appropriately, we should steer reform toward those directly providing and receiving care.
