Dentistry is very good at teaching and developing clinicians. We know how to build conferences around new techniques, new technology, and new research, and we’ve created learning environments that allow attendees to take something home and put it into practice. But somewhere along the way, we decided leadership could be taught using essentially the same model. Put an expert on a stage, fill a room with people who want to become better leaders, and hope something sticks. After attending more than a dozen conferences this year, with some of which were outstanding, I’m starting to think we’ve been teaching leadership the wrong way. 

From listening to doing 

When we attend a clinical conference, our expectations are usually very clear. Clinical education has always done an exceptional job of delivering exactly what attendees expect. Leadership is different. Understanding how to read practice management reports or being an amazing clinician does not make a leader. Yet we’ve largely approached leadership education in the same way as clinical education. True leaders need to be more than amazing clinicians, and they need more than a lecture series to go from good to great.  

In fact, I was listening to a podcast recently in which Nicole Phillips RDH, CDIPC, distinguished between excellent, high performing clinicians and leaders. To greatly paraphrase her message, to develop a leader takes a structured approach with constant progress checks, which takes time, not a weekend lecture. 

Historically, leadership-specific conferences have been great, but after experiencing something new to me this year, I am not so sure the right model has made it mainstream. At a typical leadership development event, the best speakers challenge us to think differently, share lessons they’ve learned throughout their careers, and often leave us energized to become better leaders ourselves. Yet even after some of the best leadership presentations I’ve attended, I’ve often walked away feeling like there was still more to be done. I understood the concepts. I appreciated the stories. I just wasn’t convinced I had actually become a better leader simply because I had listened to someone else’s experience. I needed something more tangible, and it just felt like the premise of leadership conferences that are modeled in the same fashion as our clinical conferences, are unable to give me what I was looking for.  

Enter the Hygiene Leadership Summit 2.0. For the remainder of this article, I want to use this event as an example of what leadership development can look like and, hopefully, help you identify some of the components worth looking for in your next leadership meeting. 

Rethinking the traditional conference format 

The Hygiene Leadership Summit 2.0 had a completely different physical feel to it. It threw away the large conference hall setting with the lecturer standing on the dais behind a podium. It explored a study group type setting with round tables, designated cohorts, and a facilitator. The chances of sitting in the last row or not being called on to answer a question were very low. Attendees were encouraged to participate and were given room to work during the lecture time. Every attendee received a workbook where they took notes, worked through simulated problems, documented ideas, and built action plans throughout the summit.  

After every exercise there was group discussion with their peers and an opportunity to present to the larger group and facilitators. They challenged assumptions, redirected conversations, and continually asked participants how the ideas being discussed could realistically be implemented once they returned home. 

Bringing different leadership experiences together 

In a previous article, we explored how successful niche conferences are more selective about who attends, and this event supported that claim. There was a large range of experience represented in the room — some participants had spent decades leading organizations. Others were stepping into leadership roles for the first time. A few of dentistry’s most recognizable leadership voices were present, but they didn’t dominate the conversations. Emerging leaders were encouraged to ask questions, challenge ideas, and share their own experiences alongside executives who had spent years building organizations.  

That balance created something our profession doesn’t always do particularly well. It created an environment where experience was respected without becoming intimidating, and where newer leaders felt comfortable contributing instead of simply observing.  

Conversations that happen beyond the classroom 

The workbooks were key and helped us visualize and record the plans that were made, but it might come as no surprise that some of the most valuable leadership lessons happened over breakfast, while walking back to the hotel, sitting by the pool, waiting in line for coffee, or sharing dinner together. Unlike many conferences, where attendees disperse throughout the city once the day’s sessions conclude, everyone remained together. 

Those informal settings removed much of the structure that exists during scheduled presentations, and the conversations naturally became more candid. People weren’t discussing abstract leadership principles anymore. They were not identified as employees of the company they work for, it all became real. The leaders were talking about real employees (without revealing names), difficult decisions, failed initiatives, and situations they were actively trying to navigate. One discussion about accountability would naturally evolve into a conversation about organizational culture.  

Nobody seemed particularly interested in pretending they had everything figured out. Instead, they were trying to solve problems together, often discovering that challenges they believed were unique to their own organizations were being experienced by leaders across dentistry. 
 
At the very beginning of the summit, it was declared that we would operate under the Chatham House Rule, allowing participants to freely discuss ideas and experiences and bring them back to the respective companies, without identifying who shared them. For a room full of executives and organizational leaders, that simple guideline created permission to be honest. People admitted when something wasn’t working and shared failures alongside successes.  

More than once, I heard someone acknowledge that they assumed everyone else already knew the answer to a problem they were facing, only to discover that several other organizations were struggling with the exact same issue. Leadership can be isolating, particularly when your responsibility is to project confidence for the people you lead. Creating an environment where leaders can temporarily set that expectation aside may have been one of the summit’s greatest strengths. 

From leadership theory to application 

For several weeks after the summit, I tried to analyze why that experience felt so  different and how could I put into words why exactly why it stood out from other leadership meetings in the past. I came to the conclusion that most leadership classes spend a great deal of time talking about leadership, but much less time helping leaders work through what those concepts actually look like inside their own organizations.  

Leadership is rarely complicated in theory. It becomes complicated when personalities, budgets, competing priorities, staffing shortages, and organizational history enter the conversation. That is even further impacted when the audience members are identified as senior leadership with reputations to protect and, therefore, don't want to risk looking foolish with a simple question. That’s where development begins, and that’s also where traditional conferences often run out of time. 

After reaching my conclusion, I wanted to confirm my hypothesis with the organizers, so I reached out, and this is what they said. “We wanted to create an event that genuinely delivered value,” said Elliot Zibel, CEO of ClariFi. “Not a product pitch, but an opportunity for hygiene leaders to learn from one another, challenge their thinking, and leave with practical ideas they could implement immediately.”  

Misty Mattingly, senior vice president and chief dental hygiene officer at Sage Dental added, “The 2.0 difference is the intent and the outcome, tangible transformation, not theory,” she said. “We’re not here to consume content; we’re here to do the work.” She wanted attendees to leave with more than another collection of leadership ideas, but with “a real, repeatable system [that] leaders can run on Monday,” including clear priorities, practical tools, and a plan for putting those ideas into action. For me, I feel comfortable saying that they achieved their goals. 

What to look for in your next leadership conference 

So, if you want to become a better leader, or if you are responsible for developing leaders within your organization, look beyond the speaker lineup and course titles when choosing where to invest your time and money. Sending someone to another leadership course may add to what they know without necessarily changing how they lead. Instead, look at how the event is structured and whether it creates opportunities to actually practice, participate, and work through the challenges that come with leadership. Some things I would look for include: 

• Opportunities to actively participate, not just listen 

• Smaller groups that allow for meaningful discussion 

• A mix of emerging and experienced leaders (if possible) 

• Time to work through real organizational challenges 

• An environment designed to encourage candid conversations about successes and failures 

• Tools or structured exercises that turn ideas into an actionable plan 

Great speakers still have tremendous value, but the stage can only take leadership development so far. Real leaders have to be developed somewhere beyond it.