Lame Duck
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.