Consultants
Disagreements were not uncommon amongst Board members. That in my opinion is healthy. But there was one issue that all Board members consistently had agreement.
The hospital spent way too much money every year on consultants. In fact, I cannot remember a single issue of significant importance that it was not recommended by the CEO to hire a consultant. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on these fees.
We had consultants for employee satisfaction, physician satisfaction, strategic planning, finances, marketing, salary surveys, goal setting and a host of other issues. Our question always remained; “we spend nearly $1 million annually on salaries and benefits for the top 5 administrators. What are we paying the CEO for if we continue need consultants to tell us what to do?"
At one point, the board decided to make a point with the CEO. He repeatedly would bring issues up at the Board meeting and want approval without giving us proper notice or adequate information. So, at one meeting, he wanted approval to hire a particular consultant for strategic planning and had already given her the indication it was a “done-deal”. We decided to deny the request and table the issue until we could discuss it further and make an informed decision. The CEO was not happy. He got angry and was telling us that the dates were already in place, and we were jeopardizing the plans, etc. We did approve it later in the month, but it did send a fairly strong message that we were tired of the same manipulation of information.
What’s more ironic about this particular consultant is the fact that when he didn’t get his way with initial approval, he gave this consultant outstanding reviews stating her company was the best around, etc. etc.
During the strategic planning retreat, the consultant determined very early on that there was a significant trust issue amongst the staff, physicians and the CEO. In fact, we had to spend nearly the entire morning on one of the days and dedicate it to the discussion on the lack of trust related to the administration with specific issues about the CEO.
Needless to say, this consultant determined early on that the strategic planning process was hampered because of this issue. After the process was completed, the consultant was willing to help us work on the trust and morale issue. But the CEO presented her at the next Board meeting as not very competent in her field and didn’t think we should proceed in that direction. This was a stark contrast to how he earlier portrayed her when he wanted things his way.
Being part of that strategic planning process, it is my opinion that this particular consultant grasped some of the real problems in the organization early on and since the problem was directed at the CEO, he immediately discredited her. We never had any further contact with her by the Board.
In my 13 years plus on the Medical Staff, I cannot remember one single new original idea developed by the CEO. It always appeared to me that the continued advances, programming, strategic moves and successes were always someone else’s ideas. But he was never bashful about taking the credit for the ideas and successes. It is also my opinion, that this is a major contributor to the lack of true respect he garnishes from those working alongside him. Many respect the position but not the individual.
The hospital spent way too much money every year on consultants. In fact, I cannot remember a single issue of significant importance that it was not recommended by the CEO to hire a consultant. We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on these fees.
We had consultants for employee satisfaction, physician satisfaction, strategic planning, finances, marketing, salary surveys, goal setting and a host of other issues. Our question always remained; “we spend nearly $1 million annually on salaries and benefits for the top 5 administrators. What are we paying the CEO for if we continue need consultants to tell us what to do?"
At one point, the board decided to make a point with the CEO. He repeatedly would bring issues up at the Board meeting and want approval without giving us proper notice or adequate information. So, at one meeting, he wanted approval to hire a particular consultant for strategic planning and had already given her the indication it was a “done-deal”. We decided to deny the request and table the issue until we could discuss it further and make an informed decision. The CEO was not happy. He got angry and was telling us that the dates were already in place, and we were jeopardizing the plans, etc. We did approve it later in the month, but it did send a fairly strong message that we were tired of the same manipulation of information.
What’s more ironic about this particular consultant is the fact that when he didn’t get his way with initial approval, he gave this consultant outstanding reviews stating her company was the best around, etc. etc.
During the strategic planning retreat, the consultant determined very early on that there was a significant trust issue amongst the staff, physicians and the CEO. In fact, we had to spend nearly the entire morning on one of the days and dedicate it to the discussion on the lack of trust related to the administration with specific issues about the CEO.
Needless to say, this consultant determined early on that the strategic planning process was hampered because of this issue. After the process was completed, the consultant was willing to help us work on the trust and morale issue. But the CEO presented her at the next Board meeting as not very competent in her field and didn’t think we should proceed in that direction. This was a stark contrast to how he earlier portrayed her when he wanted things his way.
Being part of that strategic planning process, it is my opinion that this particular consultant grasped some of the real problems in the organization early on and since the problem was directed at the CEO, he immediately discredited her. We never had any further contact with her by the Board.
In my 13 years plus on the Medical Staff, I cannot remember one single new original idea developed by the CEO. It always appeared to me that the continued advances, programming, strategic moves and successes were always someone else’s ideas. But he was never bashful about taking the credit for the ideas and successes. It is also my opinion, that this is a major contributor to the lack of true respect he garnishes from those working alongside him. Many respect the position but not the individual.
posted by Anonymous at 6:15 AM
4 Comments:
To show the depth of the use of consultants, I was told at one meeting that a consultant was hired to advise the hospital how to go about moving the patients to the "new part" of the campus. Now really this isnt brain surgery people.
I would think that every single consultant contract was approved by the hospital board so, obviously, a case has been made for each consultancy whether Dr. Dan liked it or not. Consultants, through their work with many clients, are able to bring "best practices" within an industry to individual clients. That is useful when approaching a project that is rarely done and for which it makes no sense to develop internal expertise. Consultants are commonly used in most large organizations.
I have to say that the bottom line here seems driven by Dr. Dan's obsession with smearing Bryant Hanson. Whatever Hanson does is wrong, maybe even evil by Dr. Dan's lights. Many of his charges are borderline libelous. Many more are based purely on the personal opinions of a man who was rejected when he stood for board chairman and who was removed at the end of his first term (in contrast to nearly all other board members who almost always are given a second term).
At least we know where our raises went
I certainly wondered when comments and threats from anonymous would start.
Contracts were approved by the Board, but not without serious questioning. There are seven Board Members and I believe in the demorocratic process where majority rules. That has been one of the problems that the Commissioners still do not seem to grasp. I was the lone dissenter on some votes and part of the minority on many other votes for 4 years while on the Board. I accept that. I also know that there are standards used to determine the percentage of consultants used by hospitals and believe those numbers should be checked.
I have very strong feelings and viewpoints about the future of Floyd. I have been associsated with Floyd since 1978 and have worked now with 3 administrations.
I strongly believe that things need changed.
I strongly believe a physician needs to be on the Board and really don't believe it has to be myself.
I have tried to present information to the readers to allow them to get an understanding of what really goes on. There is nothing in this for me personally and in fact, I have opened myself up for comments, disagreements and criticism.
I want what is best for FMHHS, its employees, my patients and the community and I see things from a perspective few others can.
I think comments like anonymous made pretty much sums up the type of atmosphere we deal with daily.
Post a Comment
<< Home