All is not as it appears.

12 08 2009

The recent gap in posting has been partly due to the large amount of work I have been putting into our degree assignment. This morning I (hope I) put the finishing touches to the wee beastie and popped it in a zip file. My paper is on “Engagement of clinicians and management in the NHS” and after considering the issue in terms of organisational structure, strategic planning and clinical leadership I do think I have some useful thoughts.

One of the principal causes of poor engagement is that, contrary to the Mintzberg classification of organisational structures, hospitals (or ours at least) are not being run as the professional bureaucracy that the clinicians expect but as a machine bureaucracy.

I appreciate that for some of my readers I might as well be speaking Polish but I am also encouraged that many people read this who are not approaching the topic from an in depth study of organisational taxonomy and yet show an interest and insight. I think it helps me to try and explain this (to myself) in different terms so I will try and do the same for you.

In a managed professional bureaucracy the “operating core” (clinicans) are the source of production and because of the specialised nature of what is produced (clinical care) the core have a large degree of autonomy, control over performance and are supported in this by the “strategic apex” (management).

A good example of a machine bureaucracy would be a factory with highly specialized, routine tasks; formalized procedures in the core; a proliferation of rules, regulations, and formalized communication throughout the organization.

Unfortunately, in the modern NHS the latter rings more bells than the former. Drives for performance, merged and centrally managed waiting lists, cross covering, out-sourcing, the lack of core professionals¬† influence or even be involvement in strategic planning, imposition of “guidelines” and “protocols” may be viewed as a move away from the autonomy and professionalism expected of a managed professional bureaucracy.

Bate proposes changing the culture of a hospital as the “experiment” of clinical directorates has failed. He may be right. What is sure is that the current structure is not as the operating core would like, nor as Mintzberg suggests it should be. Perhaps this partly explains the lack of engagement between clinicians and management.

crooked-house-poland

Advertisements




Follow my leader?

29 11 2008

The blog Inside Work asks some searching questions of leaders.

  • What may I expect from you?
  • Can I achieve my own goals by following you?
  • Will I reach my potential by working with you?
  • Can I entrust my future to you?
  • Have you bothered to prepare yourself for leadership?
  • Are you ready to be ruthlessly honest?
  • Do you have the self-confidence and trust to let me do my job?
  • What do you believe?

One of the challenges of Leadership is followership and it seems clear to me that to be a good leader I must consider how I act not only as a leader but also how I act as a follower. Then those who work with me will learn from my example of followership how they might also follow me.

follow-my-leader_cropUnfortunately, the opportunities to mis-lead are therefore plenty. I suspect this is the case for many across the NHS as Consultants struggle with their “followership” of the management in Medicine. Unwittingly, complaints and railing against “managment” will work their way into the consciousness of junior staff destined themselves to become leaders.

It must however also play a considerable part in the interface between physicians and management that Consultants find themselves unable to have confidence in leaders who are unable or unclear in their responses to the questions posed above. Without that confidence there will not be followership and thus however good, innovative or worthwhile the management advances are the chances of success are extremely limited.








%d bloggers like this: