BNI 764: I Don't Agree With Your Podcast #742

Summary

Host: Tim Roberts
Release Date: November 20, 2024

Introduction

In episode 764 of the BNI & The Power of One podcast, host Tim Roberts addresses a thoughtful challenge posed by a listener concerning a previous episode, #742. This installment delves deep into the dynamics of managing professional conflicts within BNI chapters, specifically focusing on the interplay between physical therapists and chiropractors. Tim provides clarity, insights, and reinforces the foundational principles that guide successful BNI chapters.

Background: The Challenge to Episode #742

The episode kicks off with a listener reaching out to Tim, expressing respect and appreciation for his podcast and support for their BNI chapter. However, the listener raises concerns about the messaging in episode #742, particularly regarding the relationship between physical therapists (PTs) and chiropractors. The crux of the issue revolves around whether a PT's reluctance to refer patients to chiropractors constitutes a significant conflict that should prevent a chiropractor's induction into the chapter.

Listener’s Concern Highlights:

Conflict Perception: The listener felt that if a PT doesn't believe in chiropractic care or refer patients to chiropractors, it might signal a conflict of interest substantial enough to exclude chiropractors from the chapter.
Collaborative Approach: Contrarily, the listener’s chapter emphasizes teamwork, especially in treating TMD jaw pain, showcasing successful collaboration between various health professionals, including PTs and chiropractors.

Main Discussion Points

Clarifying Misinterpretations

Tim begins by acknowledging the listener's valid concerns and appreciates the pushback. He emphasizes the importance of open dialogue and clarifies any potential misinterpretations from episode #742.

Notable Quote:

"I'm absolutely willing to look at it and answer it. It's happened in the past where some of them were so crazy I was just like, no, you're wrong, but that's fine." [05:30]

Role of the Membership Committee

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the pivotal role of the Membership Committee in BNI chapters. Tim underscores that decisions about accepting new members are not unilateral but are made collectively by the committee after thorough deliberation.

Key Points:

Holistic Evaluation: The committee assesses the overall benefit to the group, considering factors like potential referrals, professionalism, and chapter culture.
Conflict Management: Instead of outright rejection based on perceived conflicts, committees are encouraged to explore ways members can collaborate effectively.

Notable Quote:

"The process is the membership committee, when you get an application, should be speaking with the member who's currently a member, where there could be conflict and having that discussion and asking questions." [16:45]

Importance of Chapter Culture

Tim highlights that the success of navigating professional overlaps hinges largely on the chapter's culture. Chapters that foster open communication, collaboration, and mutual respect are better equipped to handle potential conflicts.

Examples Provided:

Specialization: Encouraging members to focus on their specialties to minimize service overlap. For instance, while both PTs and chiropractors deal with pain management, their approaches and specialties can complement rather than compete with each other.
Collaborative Initiatives: Some chapters actively brainstorm and coordinate patient care strategies, enhancing referral opportunities and member support.

Notable Quote:

"You also just can't force that to happen if the conflict is so thick, because now you're using one type of pain as an example." [12:15]

Strategies for Managing Overlapping Professions

Tim offers practical strategies for chapters grappling with overlapping professions:

Specificity in Services: Members should clearly define and communicate their unique services to avoid confusion. For example, instead of broadly stating "I solve pain," specifying "I specialize in spinal adjustments for lower back pain" provides clarity.
Open Dialogue: Encouraging members to discuss potential referral sources and establish boundaries or collaborative frameworks can mitigate conflicts.
Training and Trust: Regular training for membership committees ensures they are equipped to make informed decisions. Trusting the committee's judgment fosters a cohesive chapter environment.

Notable Quote:

"Sometimes, again, I used my own example, right? I did life disability, long term care. I was licensed in investing... we had somebody else in the chapter and then we had somebody else who was a PNC insurance..." [25:10]

Acceptance vs. Rejection: Finding the Balance

Tim reiterates that there is no one-size-fits-all answer when it comes to accepting or rejecting members. Each decision should be tailored to the chapter's specific context, culture, and the potential member's ability to add value without causing undue conflict.

Key Insights:

No Absolute Rules: Decisions should not be based solely on profession but on how well the member fits and contributes to the chapter's ecosystem.
Potential for Growth: Allowing members with differing viewpoints can open doors for diverse referrals and business opportunities, enriching the chapter as a whole.

Notable Quote:

"There are times where it is too confusing, too overlapping, too much conflict, where the right decision is to not accept that person." [29:50]

Notable Insights & Quotes

Throughout the episode, Tim shares several insightful observations and emphasizes foundational BNI principles. Here are some standout quotes:

On Open Communication:

"If you ever have a differing opinion than what you've heard on one of my podcasts, don't hesitate or feel like you can't share that." [02:10]
On Chapter Success:

"Congratulations to your chapter, because the fact that you do have all those people working together on one very specific type of pain... speaks to why your chapter is where it is." [35:20]
On Decision-Making Authority:

"I've always entrusted my membership committees to make those decisions. Whether I agree with them or not." [30:35]

Conclusion

Tim concludes the episode by reaffirming his commitment to fostering open dialogue and encouraging listeners to engage in constructive debates. He praises chapters that successfully navigate professional overlaps and underscores the importance of trust, training, and collaborative spirit within BNI groups.

Final Encouragement:

"Listen first and foremost, I appreciate it. I appreciate this topic... Go to bnipowerofone.com let me know. I'll talk to you then. Have a great day." [52:00]

Final Thoughts: Practical Takeaways for BNI Members

Embrace Open Communication: Encourage members to voice concerns and differing opinions to foster a transparent and collaborative environment.
Define Clear Specialties: Clearly articulate each member's unique services to minimize overlaps and confusion, enhancing referral quality.
Trust Your Membership Committee: Empower committees with the necessary training and trust their judgment in making decisions that benefit the entire chapter.
Foster a Collaborative Culture: Promote teamwork and mutual support among members to navigate professional overlaps and maximize referral opportunities.
Continuous Learning: Engage in ongoing training and discussions to stay aligned with BNI's core principles and adapt to evolving chapter dynamics.

By integrating these strategies, BNI members can enhance their chapter's cohesion, increase referrals, and elevate their membership to new heights through the power of one cohesive, supportive community.

For more insights and to engage with Tim Roberts, visit bnipowerofone.com.

Transcript

A (0:40)

Welcome back to BNI and the Power of One and we are back today with something a little unique. This one is around a challenge to a previous podcast we did. So it says hi. As you should know, I respect you very much. Enjoy your podcast. I also appreciate your support for our chapter and region. I'm concerned about the message in number 742, especially because the specific reference was health and wellness and pain and especially if anyone from this chapter has listened to it from a very simplistic view. What I took away was that if a physical therapist didn't believe in chiropractic care and wouldn't refer anyone for pain to them, then it was enough of a conflict that the chiropractor is a conflict and shouldn't be inducted. As you can see from the infographic below, we have a gang of folks that treat TMD jaw pain and we meet and brainstorm on how as a team we can cooperate and coordinate patient care. Physical therapy and chiropractic care are very different modalities. I hesitate and cringe to have a message go out to the BNI community that it's okay for a PT to quote, make that decision for a chapter and inadvertently B and I as a whole, Some humans prefer one over the other. Some humans can benefit from one over the other dependent on their condition and others like me, need both plus massage and acupuncture. Any chance for a follow up podcast? I do feel that this is an important distinction for health and wellness. Contact Spears and others. Thank you as always for listening. So listen first and foremost, I appreciate it. I appreciate this topic. I appreciate the question, I appreciate the pushback. And if you ever have a differing opinion than what you've heard on one of my podcasts, don't hesitate or feel like you can't share that. I'm absolutely willing to look at it and answer it. It's happened in the past where some of them were so crazy I was just like, no, you're wrong, but that's fine. And this one I think is a little bit of a misinterpretation of what I said. So there's a couple of different points. So this is, this is where this is muddy water. The topic in general is muddy water. If you want to hear the original one against number 742. The question that came in was around chapter has a physical therapist in the group. They had a chiropractor come and apply. The chapter spoke with the physical therapist. That person felt like there was way too much conflict, explained their case on why they Thought there was way too much conflict and the chapters membership committee decided not to accept the chiropractor because of that. And I said I agreed with that. Now that's not the right decision for every group. And as I said in the podcast, what the chapter did well was have the conversation. I think the biggest thing you're trying to avoid is unnecessary drama, which I said in there, right, that if the chapter just accepts the chiropractor without talking to the physical therapist, there's going to be an immediate blow up, an immediate issue, and that that is going to cause way more damage than any good adding that seat could be. And I believe in the case with what their physical therapist said, that they may have been right in making that decision, that the conflict was too thick, at least they're perceived as a chapter, that the conflict would be too thick, that it would cause a lot of tension and drama. These decisions are always that of the chapters membership committee and they always are. They're not easy and they're not simple. And a lot of it comes down to what's the culture of the group? What's the general expectation of the group? Now, your group, very, very large, has always had a great culture of how do we get them to work together. So even in your example, you said that, you know, we have a gang of folks that treat jaw pain and we meet and brainstorm on how, as a team, we can cooperate and coordinate patient care. That is amazing. And that is a great culture. Not every group's gonna have that, unfortunately. And. But I wish they did. You also just can't force that to happen if the conflict is so thick, because now you're using one type of pain as an example. This one was just general pain. And I think there was more into it on, like, why they can refer each other and stuff. As I said in the podcast, just because two professions can't refer each other or won't refer each other is not a decision for not accepting somebody, because you do open up the doors for more opportunities for everybody else and you would hope that those two would be able to work together and figure it out. But if it's very clear that that member is like never going to do that, then that's a conversation that the membership community needs to have on what are the negative consequences of this and are they worth it? Sometimes they're worth it, right? Like if you got a member who's like, I won't let anybody else in and da, da, da, da, da, da. Letting somebody, first of all, they don't have that decision. It's a membership committee decision. So when you wrote from a simplistic view, I took away that the PT didn't believe in chiropractic care and wouldn't refer pain to them. And that was enough conflict that they weren't inducted. And then you said something else, like, I would cringe to have the message go to the BNI community. That's okay for a PT to, quote, make that decision. They didn't make that decision. The membership committee still made that decision. And that's the point. Like, the PT could have been like, no, no, no, no. Here's why in the membership committee been like, no, we're still going to let them in because we think there's enough of a difference and they'd be willing to handle whatever drama, for lack of a better term, the PT might drum up. And now the PT is not being positive and supportive and it could be risk to their participation level in the chapter as well, if that's the case. So I think the confusion is around what's the process. The process is the membership committee, when you get an application, should be speaking with the member who's currently a member, where there could be conflict and having that discussion and asking questions. Not only do you feel like there's conflict, that's the very simple one. If you go, do you feel this conflict? And they go, yeah, no, they can't come in. That's too simplistic. That's not the right approach. The question should be like, how can you work together? How can we make this happen? How can we? Is there enough of a difference that we won't cause confusion within the group? That's a big thing. So maybe it's a matter of instead of, hey, you both can't just go up and talk about pain, as vague as pain is. And I don't think your chapter does that. Nobody goes up and says, I solve pain. Because then it would be, so do I. And so do I. And so do I. And so do I. And so do I. So the membership committee should have and could have been like, listen, we're going to accept it. Neither one of you is allowed to say, I solve pain. You got to be very specific about different things. So I think we're all on the same. We're actually on the same page here. I just think it's a little bit of a confusion and most likely my fault in how I articulated that podcast. I went back and listened to it. No member gets to make that decision. It's a membership committee decision. The chapter should be looking first and foremost, holistically, what is best for the group as a whole and trying to find the ways, as it says. Even in the online training that the member talked about in the question on how they can work together. But there are times where it is too confusing, too overlapping, too much conflict, where the right decision is to not accept that person. Okay, so it's, that's where this is. It's not a hey, you should just accept everybody and figure it out kind of thing, as well as it's not a you should just reject everybody because somebody else said that they might not refer them. It's the membership committee taking the holistic view of the group and asking the appropriate questions to see, is this a matter of somebody just, you know, hogging seats? Is this a matter of, well, they may not refer each other, but the rest of us can refer them and they can refer us. Or is there a matter of, like, if we do this, it's going to blow up because it's too confusing and too hard and those kind of things. So it's, it's not a. There's no right answer. And I think I said that even in the podcast. There's no, like, right answer in every scenario. You have to really do the due diligence of the group. It's why we trust and train membership committees. It's why you and your chapter have done so well. Because we've trained for years. Your member. I didn't train the previous questions. Membership committee. I'm not saying they were trained wrong, they're not. But just saying, like, if you get good training and your membership committee works well, then you can get the chapter to work cohesively like yours has. But again, not. It's not a. Every person who applies can fit. That just can't be the case. And sometimes, again, I used my own example, right? I did life disability, long term care. I was licensed in investing. I was licensed in those things. I didn't talk about it. We had somebody else in the chapter and then we had somebody else who was a PNC insurance, who also sold life insurance and disability insurance and stuff like that, and then eventually a commercial insurance person and so forth and so on. So there's always chances of overlap. There's always overlap in most chapters and we ask people to really focus on their specialty. And I would say you're probably right that there's enough difference between a physical therapist and a chiropractor to have specialty. My point was the chapter was so focused on pain Vaguely that. And maybe I said, I said that I agreed with the chapter and I probably was wrong on that. I agreed with the approach they take. They took. Maybe the decision wasn't right. The decision might have been wrong for that group, but the decision might have been right for that group too, not knowing what the culture of that chapter is. So I think your challenge is appropriate. Your challenge to, hey, I think you just told everybody that this position was able to dictate. It is a little bit of a stretch of what I said, but I'm like going back through it, like, yeah, there was probably enough to figure it out. There was probably enough difference between a chiropractor and a physical therapist for them to coexist. And maybe the physical therapist was the problem with that. And maybe the chapter should have said, no, we think there's enough difference here that our members wouldn't be totally confused and maybe they could have accepted it. But if the chapter as a whole or the membership committee anyways is like, we're super confused, then you know, they're reflective of the group and they decided that this would be too much of a conflict and too confusing for the group. And they made the decision that they thought was right for the group, but they, at least they followed the process. They met with the physical therapist. The real lesson out of all of it is it should not just be a immediate, like, decision based on somebody's profession, whether they're in or out. You should be meeting with both sides and you should be trying to figure out how can we make this work. So that's my follow up to it. I think you, I think your concern is legit, but we've never wavered from the overall message of what we train and what I believe, which is that somebody applies. If you perceive there's any level of conflict, meet with both sides. Figure out how they can best work together, if possible, make the best decision, you think, for the group as a whole, more often than not, that's accepting the person. But sometimes it's not, sometimes it's not. And so we entrust. I've always entrusted my membership committees to make those decisions. Whether I agree with them or not. We entrust them to make those decisions. There's plenty of times where I've said, like, you should have accepted that person, but I'm not forcing that, and you shouldn't have accepted that person, and I'm not forcing that. So hopefully that kind of clarifies. And again, congratulations to your chapter, because the fact that you do have all those people working together on one very specific type of pain and how you can collaborate and coordinate is speaks to why your chapter is where it is and and why it's unique in that sense of where it is, because not a lot of groups are able or willing to do that. So again, thank you. And for everybody else, listen, I'm not not opposed to debate. I'm not opposed to hearing your feedback, whether you disagree. It doesn't have to always be when you agree. It could be when you disagree as well, willing to share both sides of the argument. Or if you ever have a question, topic, anything of the sort, go to bnipowerofone.com let me know. I'll talk to you then. Have a great day.

Summary