Lame Duck
In many organizations, the departure of a president or CEO is many times related to the advancement of someone from within the organization to take over the job. This has its pros and cons but it at least shows the organization values continuity along with continued accountability. Others may hire a new president or CEO and move quickly through a transition. This also has its pros and cons but shows a commitment to continuity.
Other organizations allow their senior leadership to fall into the “Lame Duck” mentality where it just seems acceptable to allow senior leadership to coast through their last few years. This routinely happens in government, academic and healthcare fields. This commonly leads to impotence within the organization.
We have several senior leaders in administration making comments and plans about their upcoming retirements in 1--3 years. I believe this mentality is harmful to the overall institution and leads to the “lame duck”.
This mentality causes changes within the organization that completely changes the dynamics and relationships among everyone involved.
If you talk to large companies or institutions, you will hear that if retirement involves the CEO, it many times leaves the organization without vision and essentially on hold. In actuality, the same holds true for lame ducks at any level. Lame Ducks are not expected to exercise power or make significant changes in the organization and many of them are looking for ways to develop a “legacy”. This is usually not beneficial to the institution, but to the individual. Major decisions like programming, investments, fiscal and personnel decisions that would advance the organization are many times placed on hold hoping for the permanent replacement and his/her vision.
Poor transition planning routinely leads to months of taking politically correct steps to create a search committee, deliberate over qualifications of a new leader, and then to find suitable candidates. Once those months have passed, then come the information gathering, interviews, reference gathering, and the on-site visits along with Board meetings to discuss the candidates. The ritual is tiring and often results in a failed search, followed by the naming of another lame duck as we have seen from other local facilities.
There are numerous arguments for and against the differing processes for transition. Some will argue that the search process promotes consensus, prevents discrimination and results in the best selection. If judged by the results, these presumptions cannot be readily validated. Using consultants and search firms may bring in more candidates and one may actually be selected, but when they do not work out, is the search firm or consultant held accountable or financially penalized. Are their interests truly in finding the best fit or in finding “a” fit in order to collect their large fees? We see this happening with physician searches all the time. They charge huge sums to bring in candidates, but many times the candidates do not last long in the practices because of a poor fit. This happens in all businesses including hospitals.
The other school of thought and usually last on the list is to name an insider for the job. Many believe it politically incorrect because there is the presumption that a candidate from the outside will be superior.
This many times creates an atmosphere of devaluing or undervaluing the very people we know and work with on a regular basis. The flip side of this can result in the “Peter Principle” of promoting to incompetence.
I certainly do not have all of the answers, but I feel strongly that having a CEO and several others high in administration making statements about their upcoming retirements is a mistake for the organization. It has created a “Lame Duck” problem that is continuing to worsen.
Our Board should more aggressively take steps to rapidly transition to a new leadership. This is especially true with the current financial situation and the current distrusting atmosphere that has readily been identified.
I believe the Board should formalize a defined and expeditious transition since the CEO and others have voiced their plans to retire. Delaying the process helps only the individual and hurts the organization.
The day to day operations at Floyd would continue with the vast majority of employees oblivious to the absence of those being replaced.
I believe we have some very competent individuals in our organization and we should strongly consider them first. They already know the problems as well as the strengths. In addition, inside promotions encourage stability and loyalty. I do not believe that lots of initials behind a person’s name necessarily make them a better candidate.
Our current CEO has a never-ending contract and he basically can stay as long as he wants. It is called an evergreen clause. I believe it shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the Board and absolutely should be changed immediately.
We need new leadership with new ideas and the ability to forge better relationships with the physicians and employees.
Comments I heard from some other Board members during my tenure shows a lack of understanding of this importance of this process and duty of the Board. Allowing the CEO and others in key positions to choose when they leave just worsen this “Lame Duck” mentality.
The Board and Commissioners have waited too long. It is a shame that declining financial numbers may be the final straw that causes the needed change to occur.
Lengthy “Lame Duck” administrations show poor planning and lack of vision or concern for the overall health of our Hospital.
Other organizations allow their senior leadership to fall into the “Lame Duck” mentality where it just seems acceptable to allow senior leadership to coast through their last few years. This routinely happens in government, academic and healthcare fields. This commonly leads to impotence within the organization.
We have several senior leaders in administration making comments and plans about their upcoming retirements in 1--3 years. I believe this mentality is harmful to the overall institution and leads to the “lame duck”.
This mentality causes changes within the organization that completely changes the dynamics and relationships among everyone involved.
If you talk to large companies or institutions, you will hear that if retirement involves the CEO, it many times leaves the organization without vision and essentially on hold. In actuality, the same holds true for lame ducks at any level. Lame Ducks are not expected to exercise power or make significant changes in the organization and many of them are looking for ways to develop a “legacy”. This is usually not beneficial to the institution, but to the individual. Major decisions like programming, investments, fiscal and personnel decisions that would advance the organization are many times placed on hold hoping for the permanent replacement and his/her vision.
Poor transition planning routinely leads to months of taking politically correct steps to create a search committee, deliberate over qualifications of a new leader, and then to find suitable candidates. Once those months have passed, then come the information gathering, interviews, reference gathering, and the on-site visits along with Board meetings to discuss the candidates. The ritual is tiring and often results in a failed search, followed by the naming of another lame duck as we have seen from other local facilities.
There are numerous arguments for and against the differing processes for transition. Some will argue that the search process promotes consensus, prevents discrimination and results in the best selection. If judged by the results, these presumptions cannot be readily validated. Using consultants and search firms may bring in more candidates and one may actually be selected, but when they do not work out, is the search firm or consultant held accountable or financially penalized. Are their interests truly in finding the best fit or in finding “a” fit in order to collect their large fees? We see this happening with physician searches all the time. They charge huge sums to bring in candidates, but many times the candidates do not last long in the practices because of a poor fit. This happens in all businesses including hospitals.
The other school of thought and usually last on the list is to name an insider for the job. Many believe it politically incorrect because there is the presumption that a candidate from the outside will be superior.
This many times creates an atmosphere of devaluing or undervaluing the very people we know and work with on a regular basis. The flip side of this can result in the “Peter Principle” of promoting to incompetence.
I certainly do not have all of the answers, but I feel strongly that having a CEO and several others high in administration making statements about their upcoming retirements is a mistake for the organization. It has created a “Lame Duck” problem that is continuing to worsen.
Our Board should more aggressively take steps to rapidly transition to a new leadership. This is especially true with the current financial situation and the current distrusting atmosphere that has readily been identified.
I believe the Board should formalize a defined and expeditious transition since the CEO and others have voiced their plans to retire. Delaying the process helps only the individual and hurts the organization.
The day to day operations at Floyd would continue with the vast majority of employees oblivious to the absence of those being replaced.
I believe we have some very competent individuals in our organization and we should strongly consider them first. They already know the problems as well as the strengths. In addition, inside promotions encourage stability and loyalty. I do not believe that lots of initials behind a person’s name necessarily make them a better candidate.
Our current CEO has a never-ending contract and he basically can stay as long as he wants. It is called an evergreen clause. I believe it shows a lack of responsibility on the part of the Board and absolutely should be changed immediately.
We need new leadership with new ideas and the ability to forge better relationships with the physicians and employees.
Comments I heard from some other Board members during my tenure shows a lack of understanding of this importance of this process and duty of the Board. Allowing the CEO and others in key positions to choose when they leave just worsen this “Lame Duck” mentality.
The Board and Commissioners have waited too long. It is a shame that declining financial numbers may be the final straw that causes the needed change to occur.
Lengthy “Lame Duck” administrations show poor planning and lack of vision or concern for the overall health of our Hospital.
posted by Anonymous at 6:20 AM
12 Comments:
It'll probably take about ten years to straighten this mess out. Does the hospital have 3 year reviews??? Or perhaps a better question, doe the hospital have a viable review system??? I remember that years ago the U of L had an outside review team come in and review entire departments. This was money well spent.
You forgot one thing.
Where is the part about loading them in a canoe and pushing them out into the ocean?
Bob Russell the former Senior Minister of Southeast Christian Church set the perfect example on how to transition out and retire.
The Church hired Dave Stone years ago as an Associate Minister with full intent that he would replace Bob Russell.
Bob Russell took Dave under his wing and made sure Southeast was not his legacy. He is the most humble person I know. He spent his career serving God and preparing Dave to take his place.
Bob announced his retirement 5 years prior and slowly transitioned out. They hired a third Minister to take over when Dave retires. He gave Dave Stone all leadership responsibilities 6 months before his retirement, so he wouldn't be a lame duck.
Bob Russell wanted Southeast to continue to grow after he left. Some people fear that if their organization continues to grow after they leave that they were a failure and unimportant. In all honesty a persons integrity and leadership skills shine when they transition out and the organization continues to grow.
Didn't take you long to fall back into the 3'C's. Cry-Criticize-Condemn. All in the name of NA Health.
Why is proper planning such threat to some?
Some people have vision for the future while others have no vision and just want to allow the same old things to continue.
Bob Russell and Southeast did do it right.
But we will be left with a transition similar to Jewish where our CEO will be forced out.
Bob Russell was great and inspired respect. End of story.
The trend is as follows:
5-7 years ago, physicians were looking for ways to partner with Floyd, now they won't even attend meetings to talk about possibilities.
Floyd needs to continue with building and expansion programs, but cannot do it becuase of financial problems.
Financial problems won't improve until physicians feel better about working with and at Floyd.
That brings us back to the beginning where physicians aren't eager to enter into any relationship with this current Administration.
This is a significant change and it is because of a lack of trust. For the good of Floyd, we need a transition.
Are there any hospitals where the physicians trust the administration?
There are hospitals where physicians want to work with the hospital.
Baptist East is fairly friendly from what colleagues report
There are several other hospitals in the northern part of Indiana that doctors are partnering with in different joint ventures.
There will always be some inherant discord between the two groups, but that has not stopped progress in many other institutions.
In the past it was a well known fact, that there was a small group of Doctors that more or less "ran" the hospital and called all the shots. If that is what the Doctors want to do, it is foolish to waste money to have a token CEO. You will probably never find a CEO of any organization that meets the approval of everyone. If a Doctor feels that they would be better qualified and can do a better job in running the Hospital, I would suggest that they approach the board and apply for the next CEO job vacancy, it seems that according to this blog one might be open in the near future. It would save the Taxpayors money by not have a resident in training. Also according to this Blog with all the Pay and Perks the present
CEO enjoys and with all the expenses and major cutbacks from the Insurance Companies, the Doctors might even see an increase in pay.
Many hospitals and large insurance companies do indeed have physicians who are the CEO's.
I am not aware of any current physicians wanting the job. Many physicians are poor businessmen but there are a few who could do the job better in my opinion.
But taking care of patients is what physicians really like to do.
I would not consider a Physician"Businessman" making a 45% profit a "poor businessman".
But of course you did say many not all, I also would venture to say that there may not be as many as fortunate as yourself that can lay claim to the 45% Profit either.
Post a Comment
<< Home