Choosing the right tyres: what Formula One can teach us about dental remuneration
In Formula One, tyres are everything. Grip, degradation, temperature range, and timing all influence performance. On a dry race, fans know that at least two different slick compounds must be used during the race, chosen from soft, medium, and hard. That rule alone guarantees that strategy matters.
Winning a race is not about picking a favourite tyre and hoping for the best. Tyre choice depends on multiple variables, including:
- Track temperature and ambient weather
- Surface abrasiveness
- Track layout, such as high-speed corners versus stop-start sections
- Fuel load at different stages of the race
- Car set-up and driving style
- Expected safety cars or interruptions
- Degradation rates and performance drop-off over time
Choosing the wrong tyre for the conditions can be disastrous. Slick tyres on a wet track are a classic example. No amount of driver skill can overcome a fundamental mismatch between tyre choice and reality.
Because the stakes are so high, Formula One teams invest heavily in data. Sensors, simulations, historic race analysis, and real-time feedback all inform decisions. Tyres are changed during the race, not because of gut instinct or social media commentary, but because the data shows that the conditions have changed.
There is no single tyre that works for every circuit, every car, and every race.
Dentistry has its own tyre choices
Choosing the right remuneration package as a self-employed clinician is remarkably similar.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Options may include:
- Fixed percentage
- Sliding scale percentage
- Salary
- Room rental
Which option is most appropriate, and at what level, depends on the data. It depends on the practice. It depends on the clinician. It depends on what is being provided, what is being expected, and what is required for the practice to remain sustainable.
Yet in WhatsApp and Facebook groups, comments are often made such as “30 or 35% is punitive”. These statements are usually offered without access to the underlying data of that individual practice or the reality of that individual clinician’s output.
In many practices, a difficult truth exists. The percentage retained by the practice, now often referred to as a licence fee, does not fully cover the fixed costs associated with supporting that self-employed clinician. The practice may, in effect, be subsidising the associate.
Percentages are frequently discussed in isolation, without reference to percentage of what. A percentage is only one side of the equation. It must be considered alongside UDA value, hourly production, or sessional income.
For example, a clinician may be advised by a stranger on FB or WA to reject 25% and only accept 50%. Yet if 50% is 50% of£200 per hour and 25% is 25% of £400 per hour, the outcome is identical. Both result in £100 per hour. The percentage sounds different, but the reality is the same.
Just as in Formula One, focusing on one variable while ignoring the rest leads to poor decisions.
Reading the data before making the call
For principals, this means keeping a close finger on the pulse of practice expenses. It also means having the courage and vulnerability to share that data transparently with self-employed clinicians.
When clinicians understand the fixed costs they generate, they can see why a target hourly rate is required. That target is not arbitrary. It is essential if the practice is to maintain standards, invest in equipment, retain quality team members, and provide a safe, professional environment for patients.
If an associate is unable to generate the income required to cover those fixed costs, the principal is forced into difficult decisions. Do they cut costs, often at the expense of quality of materials and equipment provided, not to mention the Impact on team members wages. do they work closely with the clinician to improve income generation without discounting, or do they consider changing associates.
These are uncomfortable conversations, but they are unavoidable. Like Formula One, the data has to be read before the decision is made.
Reviewing strategy, not setting it in stone
For clients on The Blueprint for a Better Practice, I share an associate remuneration comparison spreadsheet. This allows principals to share clear, factual information with their clinicians so everyone can see whether the agreed remuneration package works for all parties.
And just as tyre choice is reviewed during a race and from race to race, remuneration packages should not be fixed indefinitely. Regular evaluation conversations allow principals and clinicians to review performance, changing conditions, and evolving expectations.
Some suggest that the answer is simply to increase patient fees without adjusting associate percentages. In reality, many clinicians are already seeing white space in their diaries. With ongoing financial pressure, patients are more price sensitive. Raise fees too far, and patients may walk.
This is a delicate balancing act. Setting fees that patients accept, maintaining quality of materials, team, and environment, and remunerating valued clinicians fairly all require careful, ongoing adjustment.
The real lesson from Formula One
Formula One teaches us that success comes from understanding the full picture. Tyres are chosen based on data, reviewed regularly, and changed when conditions demand it.
Dentistry is no different.
Before judging a remuneration package, step back from the headline percentage, look at the data, look at the context. then and only then make the decision that fits the conditions you are actually racing in.
