CEO Double Standards
The CEO of Floyd Memorial Hospital and Health Services has once again displayed a double standard when asking the Board to approve adding another Vice President to the Administrative Staff.
His request comes just a couple of months after he instructed each manager to cut their budgets by 5 percent because of the current declining financial situation at Floyd and not meeting the stated budgetary goals. He announced these cuts at the Medical Staff meeting and he made everyone believe that only essential patient care positions would be filled during this time. He assured us that patient care related areas would not be affected by the cuts. Again, this was not accurate.
Many of the associates are "quietly" exasperated and angered at this announcement. An employee came to my office and stated that at her last staff meeting, they didn’t pass out minutes and were told it was because of the budget cuts. Many nurse managers and non patient care managers have several open positions they would like filled and as of this writing, there were 68 open positions posted on FMHHS’s website.
It should be noted that this same position was turned down at least twice last year while I served on the Board. Three of the current Board members spoke articulately at the meeting why this move was poorly timed and a bad idea and these three voted against it. The vote was 3-3 with the Chairman casting the deciding vote in favor. These same Board Members voting in favor have a consistent voting record never in opposition to the CEO, regardless of the issue. With this much controversy amongst the Board, tabling the issue for further discussion would probably have been more appropriate.
Evidently, three Board members are unafraid to speak up against an obvious double standard and a poor choice by the CEO. I believe these Board members are frustrated by always being in the minority this year while some other Board Members have never voted against a single major issue that the CEO requested.
The timing of this appointment places the Board in a very difficult situation trying to explain to the associates, physicians, and the public why this position was needed now.
The administrative line goes something like this: “This VP position will give the employees a voice at the most senior level of the organization.”
If this is true, is the CEO now admitting that for the last 13 plus years of his tenure, the employees have not had a voice? Which is it?? This appears to be more double talk from the CEO.
Just two months ago, he publicly told everyone including the press and medical community that the recent financial adjustments were necessary and only patient care positions would be added when needed. The question remains “why this position and why now”?
The credibility of this CEO is once again further fractured by poor judgment. There should be no missing this double-standard action toward his own workforce, the managers, board of directors, the physicians he wants a trusting relationship with, the public and the commissioners that he works for. In this single action he has demonstrated his complete lack of sensitivity to his own associates and managers and of course the medical staff.
Many people once again believe this action demonstrates a poor perspective on his image as a leader. He once again places his Board and Commissioners in a difficult position of how to defend such poor judgment. The public should be asking more questions on this issue, and other issues like why we are on diversion in the middle of the summer, and about the potential decline in our Bond Rating because of the financial situation.
I think everyone should ask him directly why he hired this position in contradiction to what he told his associates and physicians a few months ago. I hope the press will ask him and that he will be publicly required to make himself available to answer this question. He held his associates accountable for staffing "adjustments"-----he should be held accountable as well and the Board should have said "no" as the CEO has with his subordinates.
His request comes just a couple of months after he instructed each manager to cut their budgets by 5 percent because of the current declining financial situation at Floyd and not meeting the stated budgetary goals. He announced these cuts at the Medical Staff meeting and he made everyone believe that only essential patient care positions would be filled during this time. He assured us that patient care related areas would not be affected by the cuts. Again, this was not accurate.
Many of the associates are "quietly" exasperated and angered at this announcement. An employee came to my office and stated that at her last staff meeting, they didn’t pass out minutes and were told it was because of the budget cuts. Many nurse managers and non patient care managers have several open positions they would like filled and as of this writing, there were 68 open positions posted on FMHHS’s website.
It should be noted that this same position was turned down at least twice last year while I served on the Board. Three of the current Board members spoke articulately at the meeting why this move was poorly timed and a bad idea and these three voted against it. The vote was 3-3 with the Chairman casting the deciding vote in favor. These same Board Members voting in favor have a consistent voting record never in opposition to the CEO, regardless of the issue. With this much controversy amongst the Board, tabling the issue for further discussion would probably have been more appropriate.
Evidently, three Board members are unafraid to speak up against an obvious double standard and a poor choice by the CEO. I believe these Board members are frustrated by always being in the minority this year while some other Board Members have never voted against a single major issue that the CEO requested.
The timing of this appointment places the Board in a very difficult situation trying to explain to the associates, physicians, and the public why this position was needed now.
The administrative line goes something like this: “This VP position will give the employees a voice at the most senior level of the organization.”
If this is true, is the CEO now admitting that for the last 13 plus years of his tenure, the employees have not had a voice? Which is it?? This appears to be more double talk from the CEO.
Just two months ago, he publicly told everyone including the press and medical community that the recent financial adjustments were necessary and only patient care positions would be added when needed. The question remains “why this position and why now”?
The credibility of this CEO is once again further fractured by poor judgment. There should be no missing this double-standard action toward his own workforce, the managers, board of directors, the physicians he wants a trusting relationship with, the public and the commissioners that he works for. In this single action he has demonstrated his complete lack of sensitivity to his own associates and managers and of course the medical staff.
Many people once again believe this action demonstrates a poor perspective on his image as a leader. He once again places his Board and Commissioners in a difficult position of how to defend such poor judgment. The public should be asking more questions on this issue, and other issues like why we are on diversion in the middle of the summer, and about the potential decline in our Bond Rating because of the financial situation.
I think everyone should ask him directly why he hired this position in contradiction to what he told his associates and physicians a few months ago. I hope the press will ask him and that he will be publicly required to make himself available to answer this question. He held his associates accountable for staffing "adjustments"-----he should be held accountable as well and the Board should have said "no" as the CEO has with his subordinates.
posted by Anonymous at 8:25 PM
50 Comments:
What a lot of blather! And what another perfect example of how you intentionally misrepresent facts. You make this sound like an ADDITIONAL senior position has been added to staff. It is my understanding that an existing position was simply retitled and designated as vice president--a very common title for the head of human resources in most organizations.
There is no misrepresentation.
This is an ADDITIONAL VP position that has never been present. It now brings Floyd to 5 VP's with all the addtional perks associated with it.
You are the one misrepresenting the facts and attempting to rationlize the addition by calling it something different. Retitling positions have never needed Board Approval. This is another little fact you failed to mention.
How did you know what position this was unless you are part of the administration and once again defending these poor choices?
Identify yourself and show the readers.
This is the taxpayers Hosptial. There should be accountability.
You are a master at partial facts. You know very well that this is not an additional hire but nothing more than designating the incumbent of an existing position as a vice president. What a lot of to-do over a minor organizational issue.
And, by the way, you aren't the only person who has a pipeline into the the board.
It's an old administrative move, Dr. Dan. When you can't do the job, add another Vice President, Vice Chancellor or Associate Director.
I don't deny that the person being moved to the VP position isn't already in management. But he was not a VP and did not have the salary or perks that went with the VP position.
No where did I imply that we hired someone new. But you did add to the administration by adding this additional VP position.
The timing was horrible and sends a very bad message to everyone. Of course, you will never admit the mistake was made. You will never admit that you split the Board again because of the poor choice.
The previous anonymous commenter may actually be on to something.
RE: "No where did I imply that we hired someone new"
Do you have any integrity at all? What would any reasonable person conclude from this statement in your opening comments:
"I think everyone should ask him directly why he hired this position"
Since no one was being hired, but simply promoted, leaving out that little fact clearly misrepresented what was going on.
What a silly thing to make a deal about. The head of HR is typically a VP level in most organizations. Why is it an issue for Floyd to have a VP in the position, except as an excuse to attack the CEO again?
Can't you find something more useful to spend time on?
To the person that asked if HB had something more useful to spend his time on, I believe he stated in one of his posting that he has more patients then he has time to see. If that be the case, someone is getting short-changed somewhere because he does spend a lot of time on this BLOG. :>).
As one of the many middle managers, we have had discussions (privately of course)and many are appalled by this action. Dr. Dan is correct in his comments.
This is a new position. You can slice it, dice it or call it whatever you want, but it is new. It shows poor leadership and completely ignores the struggles we are dealing with from the budget on a daily basis.
THIS IS TYPICAL TOO MANY CHIEFS AND TOO FEW INDIANS JUST WHAT WE NEED IS ANOTHER VICE PRESIDENT- NO COMMUNICATION - NO ATTEMPT TO LISTEN TO STAFF OR DOCTORS BEFORE 60 MILLION BUILDING THAT IS NON FUNCTIONAL- I CANT GET PEOPLE IN HOSPITAL YET THERE IS A HUGE CARDIAC ICU THAT IS MOSTLY EMPTY WHAT A JOKE!!! WHAT WAS ONCE A GRAET COMMUNITY HOSPITAL IS NOW A DISASTER!!!
As a local business owner of a multi-million dollar company, I have read the blog for months without commenting. But recently, more and more attacks have been hurled at several people, especially Dr. Eichenberger, just because they have been critical of the hospital administration. He continually points out critical issues and examples of ongoing poor judgement. Today’s blog exemplifies this in a way that cannot be justified.
It was mentioned several months ago that people withhold donating money to Floyd’s Foundation because of the CEO. This is a true statement. Many business leaders and other company owners whom I golf regularly with comment on the lack of trust we have in this CEO. Sure we are cordial when we attend social functions, but few of us choose to associate at any other time.
It is probably time that the Board re-evaluates the direction of Floyd and makes the changes necessary to ensure the future success. He may be costing more money than he is worth at this point. It takes a Board with foresight to fulfill their fiduciary duties.
HR, What does it take for the board to listen to the employees and do something about the CEO??
Will someone please explain to me how changing the title of the top Human Resources manager to Vice President (a title which exists in virtually every other organization of similar size)is some kind of major problem?
I see a lot of emotional smoke, but I don't see any fire.
And, HB, the earlier poster made a pretty good point about how you first characterized this title change as an additional hire. That does seem misleading whether it was intentional or not.
What I cannot understand is, when Dr. Dan was on the board while the non-functional addition to FMH took place, noone heard any complaints. But after not being reappointed to the Board it and everything about the daily business of FMH is now a major issue. Granted, there very well might be issues that need to be addressed, but the same people that needs to address them apparently are afraid to take a stand and do it in a business manner. Being cordial at various functions and then talking behind ones back does not accomplish anything. I would rather be remembered as someone that took a stand, rather than someone that just liked to complain and did nothing. If the Administration of FMH is as bad as what some have claimed on this Blog, surely someone would be stepping forward with the facts and meet these issues head on. If they don't want to do that, I will have to agree with the poster that said "Why don't you all just give it up".
I might add, " Talk is cheap and actions always speak louder than words".
Show me a Doctor that sees his patients ON time and I will show you one that is NOT setting in front of a computer. Show me a patient that is LATE to see a Doctor and I will show you someone that will have LESS time in the waiting room. "Let that male humor shine thru".
Note to Dr. Sonne:
You can't remain anonymous when your all caps button continues to remain down.
Acyually there are very few times we have had a wait at Dr. Eichenberger's. Between me, my husband, and child we are in there enough to know the routine.
I know you are going to respond back that it is because he isn't spending time with his patients and that isn't true either.
I've always said, the only thing worse than a Monday in a primary care office is a Tuesday after a holiday.
Glad to see so many comments.
I find it unbelievable that there are still a few anonymous remarks trying to defend and rationalize this decision.
It again shows the degree to which some will go to defend the complete lack of sensitiviy and evidently the lack of understanding of what the front line workers struggle with since the budget cuts.
Trying to divert attention and act as if this was simple renaming of a position is sad.
Expanding administration while telling everyone else to cut back is inexcusable.
You act like someone committed murder. What is the big deal with a routine position upgrade? How does that damage healthcare? How does that threaten the financial health of the hospital? And, since the board approved it by a majority vote, why shouldn't we accept that the majority made their decision based on the its merits?
And I know that some of your readers would still like to hear you address your misleading initial post which made it look like an additional management position was being added at the hospital. You are so critical of the smallest failing on the part of your victims. How about "manning up" to your own misrepresentation at worst, or very poor judgment in word choice at best?
I'd like to invite the ones that apparently don't understand what's happening to go home and tell their friends and family that they can't afford to buy something or get something they need because overtime is a thing of the past and hours are being cut back to "save the budget", but at least we have a new VP. Too many people reading this blog do not have a clue as to what is going on. Too much emotional smoke? You bet emotions are running high creating the smoke. The only reason you can't see the flames is because of standing on the outside. Inside it's pretty darn hot.
I guess the evil CEO must have all those unhappy employees chained to their work stations since I haven't noticed a stream of folks rushing to leave Floyd and go to other hospitals.
The problem with a position upgrade as you now refer to it is that everyone else was asked to cut their budgets.
Rules evidently do not apply to administration.
Who is misleading here. This is a new VP position that will cost the hospital probably $10,000 in salary increase and then when you add the VP perks, it could come to $50,000 plus in additional expense.
All this at a time when the CEO told all other departments to cut their budgets and put a hold on hiring.
The double standard is very clear.
RE: "hold on hiring"
Are you SURE about that? It is my understanding that the hospital is actively recruiting and hiring and is NOT under a hiring freeze.
The only double standard I see for sure is that you find something to criticize in everything management does or says while giving yourself a pass on your obvious misrepresentations. Lies by omission are just as dishonest as outright false statements. You need to be accountable for what you say and do when condemning others.
Where does your understanding come from??
Hmmm!!
Still waiting on your identity.
Whether it is spoken or unspoken, when managers are told to cut their budgets 5% and hold hiring any nonessential personnel, they consider that a hiring freeze.
Lies by ommissions, I think, came from you.
And why would you think that a hiring freeze is in place if "essential" staff is still being recruited and hired? And is it your position that non-essential staff should be hired? Y
You are absolutely blind to your own prejudices.
Only because it has come out of the CEO's mouth at meetings.
When managers are given the task of cutting their budgets, there is very little they can manipulate other than personnel.
It stands to reason that if they choose to be successful, they will refrain from adding new staff unless absolutely necessary.
But this is probably too rational of an explanation for you to understand.
HB Quote "But this is probably too rational of an explanation for you to understand."
This seems to be your greatest problem, you are quick to judge everyone else, it seems that if people don't concur with your views on ANY subject, you are ready to declare them uninformed and irrational. In my place of business you certainly would not be called a teamplayer, but in all probability would be labeled a troublemaker. It is a good thing that you are your own boss, because you would have a hard time in the private sector.
Hiring freeze is exactly correct. There are staff who are now doing 2-3x the workload because of not replacing positions that have been vacated recently.
Poor timing for giving a VP promotion is also exactly correct.
anonymous wrote:
"I guess the evil CEO must have all those unhappy employees chained to their work stations since I haven't noticed a stream of folks rushing to leave Floyd and go to other hospitals."
Better check again.
Thanks for all the contributions to the thread.
It was my intent to just do this one posting on this topic, but the CEO is now going to try and defend this ill-timed decision. All the publicity has him and others on the defensive. It is quite evident in the responses.
I am waiting patiently to once again show the illogic in what he presents as his rationale.
And the rest of us are still waiting for you to respond to your misleading opening statement.
Here is the opening statement:
"The CEO of Floyd Memorial Hospital and Health Services has once again displayed a double standard when asking the Board to approve adding another Vice President to the Administrative Staff"
There is no ambiguity in this statement. He did add another VP to the staff and it is costing the hospital more money.
My first impression on reading your post was that an additional person had been hired. I cannot and will not pass judgement on your intentions.
What I am tired of, is your calling for the identity of some of your "opponents" here. I have not seen you call for the identity of any of your "supporters", such as the owner of a multi million dollar company from above.
You have chosen to allow anonymous comments on your blog. You need to play by your own rules and be consistent. If you don't like the rules--change them, it is your blog.
Mark
I will again say. I am NOT an employee of FMH, nor do I even know anyone that is. I am a citizen that believes that everyone should be given a fair shake. There have been many strong statements made about the Administration of FMH. I think this is very unfair, to post as fact without no accountabillity but your own view. But what really sets me off is that you accuse anyone that does not concur with your view as being part of the management of FMH. This to me is signs of paranoia.
I know the identity of the individual and most of the supporters as they have either informed me personally or through email.
You are correct, I could certainly change and only allow comments from people who are willing to let me know who they are as is done on other blogs.
I really thought that anonymous commenters would be willing to be more specific regarding their bias. I have certainly done so.
How about the "ambiguity" in this part of the message which followed:
"I think everyone should ask him directly why he HIRED this position"
Come on...you may be dishonest, but you aren't stupid. That would clearly indicate that an additional body was brought in.
Diverting attention away from the issue of adding more administrative personnel while asking everyone else to cut back is the double standard.
There was no intentional misleading on my part. I forget that some of the readers aren't aware of the inner workings of Floyd and I can understand how you could interpret this differently, but the majority who read this knew that the VP position was added from a director level.
It doesn't change the hypocrisy of what was said and done.
All you need is a mirror to locate all the hypocrisy you could handle.
These attacks and attempts to redirect from the real issue is an "Ad hominem" type of fallacy.
It is used frequently by those who have no real argument for the current discussion.
Dr. Eichenberger, I truly do not know how you have managed for so long respoding to these people.
The situation described in your post is inappropriate!!!
Well, he pretty much invented ad hominem attacks on this blog. If you need proof, go back and take a look at the comments he made questioning the competence and personal integrity of county commissioners, hospital board members and hospital administrators. And then there is always the continuing theme that anyone who disagrees with him is "irrational" or worse. Blogs are two-way streets.
Here's the difference;
The "attacks" as you call them on commissioners and the CEO have been directly related to a defined action or decision that they have made in their public positions.
They are being held accountable for these.
The attacks on me are not on my actions or any defined event performed in the public arena, but the attacks are on my viewpoints and criticisms.
So rather than defend the decisions that were made in each of the postings, you just attack the messenger.
Just like this posting. I am critisizing his decision and holding him accountable for it.
You, on the other hand, are attacking me because you don't agree with my criticism.
You are blind to anything that doesn't support your own position.
You were attacked for misrepresentation in your initial posting and for continually ignoring/denying that you had done so.
You have no right to criticize others for launching personal attacks. It is one thing to offer a diffent point view "directly related to a defined action or decision that they have made in their public positions." It is something else again to question someone's honesty, intelligence or professional competence just because you disagree.
If you can't remember doing that, plenty of examples can quickly be cut and pasted from your earlier postings.
In any job I've ever had I found that if you took pride in your appearance and went to work everyday, and was willing to learn, and applied yourself to the best of your ability, you would have no problems in the workplace.
Remember, years ago when the Nurses in the workplace wore uniforms and their nursing caps. I can understand why someone could be fired for not looking like their MGR. thought they should. I have seen hospital personal with dirty tennis shoes, ect. I don't blame management for taking issue, but the employee for not having enought personal pride. I think their should be stricter rules in hospitals concerning dress codes.
As far as looks that is not the issue. Fair and equal treatment is what daisy is saying. As far as promoting Mike Ford when there is budget cuts is wrong. The employees are suppose to get a check at Christmas sort of a bonus check. But what the Managers and VP's can save the Departments at the end of the year they get to split it among thereselves and the employees get squat. Departments are running half staff and over worked just so that these Managers and Vp's can get a bigger bonus check that is for the birds. Yes I know all this for a fact. And the reason employees stay is because they are afraid to lose their retirement and not be able to get low cost Health insurance somewhere else. Do you honestly think this a way to run a corporation!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can anyone sleep at not knowing they treat people this way!!!!!!!!!
RE: "But what the Managers and VP's can save the Departments at the end of the year they get to split it among thereselves and the employees get squat."
That sounds like nonsense to me. Can you come up with a single manager who was given the money that a department saved during any year?
Quote " And the reason employees stay is because they are afraid to lose their retirement and not be able to get low cost Health insurance somewhere else. Do you honestly think this a way to run a corporation!!!!!!!!!!!!!" If there are employees working under these conditions they should either take their concerns to the Hr Manager and try to resolve their issues instead of whining and complaining on an Internet Blog. Personally, I would not want anyone caring for me when I am ill that is just on the job for their Insurance and Retirement Benefits. You are no better than any employee of any other "Corporation" as you choose to call the hospital. I will let you in on a secret that I learned long ago, I heard my employer tell one of his employees, if you don't like the way I do business, there's the door, don't let it hit you in the A-- when you walk thru it.
Everything is true as an employee of Floyd I know. Whether the public wants to know the facts is up to them. The employees are afraid they will lose their jobs. As far as going to the HR Manager which is Mike Ford he will not help you resolve your problem but help you get fired!!!!!!!!!! He is no help!!!!!!!! Bryant Hanson doesn't know how to even run a Hospital. They are having to go back and redo all of the new Construction because they had the job rushed. As far as the new smoking policy Hanson was seen driving through the parking lot at night smoking a pipe what a role model. And this is the same man who wants smoking banned. So now we have patients smoking on the sidewalk. Mike Ford is the biggest two-faced lier there ever was. He just kissed a--- to get the VP position. As far as the Managers and VP's get a bigger bonus well that is the way it is at Floyd. Maybe other companies don't but they do.The public only sees one side when their there but the staff really knows all the dark secrets of Floyd Memorial Hospital. The Board of Trustees need to wake-up and take back charge of the Hospital. So, employees don't have to work in fear!!!!!!!!!!
If an employee is working in fear,
that tells me a lot about the employee. I have NEVER heard of an employee that came to work and did his/her job as requested by Management have anything to fear.
What about all the problems in finance?
Don't let them fool you, THEY think very much about what HB posts here. Another VP position? Is it 'mission critical' at this time? Not really.
Baloney to anonymous who posted at 132PM, those in finance work in fear of their director EVERY DAY!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home