Nobles Hospital

[Andy Onchan]

2 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

It is basically the most powerful office on the Isle of Man.

And for the most part conflicted with the positions held.

[Uhtred]

50 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Thinking about Quayle, I wonder if  there's something else going on.  He's someone who has done very nicely for himself, going through life doing what he's told.  He's very happy to settle into the life of a Minister in the Isle of Man Government which has become little more than a figurehead position, where they just read out the words written for them and take the money.  When this disruptive woman (and like many public schoolboys of his generation he may find that a problem in itself) comes along with a belief that politicians are supposed to be in charge, the last thing he wants to do is disrupt his easy life. 

You see in press conferences and even Tynwald how indignant he gets when people dare to ask awkward questions.  As far as he's concerned he's been a good boy and done what he's told and actually expecting him to be in more than nominal charge or understand what is really going on is a completely undeserved imposition.  So Beecroft has to go as she won't 'play the game'.

Of course this sort of attitude isn't limited to Quayle or even CoMin.  The nice easy life is why many went into politics and suggesting that politicians should take control, make informed decisions and (even worse) accept responsibility is horrifying to them[1].  So Beecroft behaving as a politician would in most other democracies is going to meet a lot of resistance, even if she hadn't been in a Department with a lot of vested interests.  Whether she was truly awful is another matter, I've heard mixed reports and I suspect she could have been more tactful at least.  But she was only there for not much more than a year and ill for a lot of the time.  And some of the decisions she was blamed for (such as Meals on Wheels) clearly came from Crouch who seems to have wanted to bring everything in-house.

 

[1]  It's not necessarily conscious.  Some have actually come to believe that is how Manx politics should operate and  many in the civil service believe this as well.  Certainly they will tell their politicians that is the way they 'have' to operate.  Ministers are expected to operate at best as the Chairman of a company often does in the UK - have little detailed knowledge of what is going on, chair some meetings and make the occasional speech.  Though many cases over the years have shown this isn't exactly a successful model in the commercial sphere either.

All very plausible Roger and bang on about Quayle’s difficulty with women. As another example, see how he lays into Daphne Caine, the only MHK to really call him out as the incompetent fool that he is.

[Uhtred]

1 minute ago, Andy Onchan said:

And for the most part conflicted with the positions held.

Absolutely. There are 3 distinct and incompatible roles there. The principal adviser to COMIN should certainly not also be the local establishment foil for the Governor, and neither of them should be what is effectively the CEO of the civil service.

[Nellie]

6 hours ago, Boo Gay'n said:

But if you have a duff minister, a duff chief exec, or both, it becomes a dance of death - with either nothing getting done or things getting done badly.  

 

That'll be the Department of Infrastructure, then? 

[Dr. Grumpy]

Hmmm.... Interesting. Sir Jonathan appears to have been advising some of our largest tertiary care providers at the same time as advising the IoM government on providing tertiary care services. Could this be construed as conflict of interest? 

sir-jonathan-michael-hearing-summary.pdf

[Manximus Aururaneus]

On 12/28/2019 at 1:01 PM, Andy Onchan said:

https://www.gov.im/media/1367487/clinical-professional-transformation-panel-high-level-summary-of-the-terms-of-reference.pdf

Having read that link and the Michaels report, and then comparing them to what I see and hear on the shop floor, I can only conclude that the bigger (and more immediate) problem is a lack of visible leadership on the ground now. The public have been offered no 'vision' of how todays problems are to be dealt with, and the staff seem to have little idea of how it is to be sorted (that's no criticism of the staff themselves). There is indeed a need for long term strategic change, but it seems to me that there is a more basic and urgent need for on the ground leadership.

I'm a fan of Noble's, I hope that they can find someone to sort it.

 

[Uhtred]

1 hour ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Having read that link and the Michaels report, and then comparing them to what I see and hear on the shop floor, I can only conclude that the bigger (and more immediate) problem is a lack of visible leadership on the ground now. The public have been offered no 'vision' of how todays problems are to be dealt with, and the staff seem to have little idea of how it is to be sorted (that's no criticism of the staff themselves). There is indeed a need for long term strategic change, but it seems to me that there is a more basic and urgent need for on the ground leadership.

I'm a fan of Noble's, I hope that they can find someone to sort it.

 

The revolving door of ‘leadership’ that seems to have been perpetual for years now cannot be helping the shop floor staff at all.

[Patient centred]

3 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

3 hours ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

Hmmm.... Interesting. Sir Jonathan appears to have been advising some of our largest tertiary care providers at the same time as advising the IoM government on providing tertiary care services. Could this be construed as conflict of interest? 

sir-jonathan-michael-hearing-summary.pdf 166.38 kB · 8 downloads

Yes

[P.K.]

2 hours ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Having read that link and the Michaels report, and then comparing them to what I see and hear on the shop floor, I can only conclude that the bigger (and more immediate) problem is a lack of visible leadership on the ground now. The public have been offered no 'vision' of how todays problems are to be dealt with, and the staff seem to have little idea of how it is to be sorted (that's no criticism of the staff themselves). There is indeed a need for long term strategic change, but it seems to me that there is a more basic and urgent need for on the ground leadership.

I'm a fan of Noble's, I hope that they can find someone to sort it.

A classic case of over-managed and under-led.

Possibly because managers are so easy to make. Go on a few courses and hey presto! You're a manager....

Being able to lead, inspire, get people to believe in themselves and a vision, earn respect by actions rather than words etc etc is a lot harder.

As you are not going to find someone like that in the CS/PS nor Tynwald then recruitment of the right people is going to be somewhat problematic....

[Max Power]

2 minutes ago, P.K. said:

A classic case of over-managed and under-led.

Possibly because managers are so easy to make. Go on a few courses and hey presto! You're a manager....

Being able to lead, inspire, get people to believe in themselves and a vision, earn respect by actions rather than words etc etc is a lot harder.

As you are not going to find someone like that in the CS/PS nor Tynwald then recruitment of the right people is going to be somewhat problematic....

You are right of course, people generally join the PS for security rather than a desire to serve. There are exceptions and some very good ones but it doesn't tend to breed good managers, mainly a lot of moaners who have been walked over by others on their way up the greasy pole.

[Derek Flint]

I was listening to a podcast by Gen. Stanley McCrystal this morning. He talks of it being more important what happens in the teams, rather than what the leader does. He worked hard on being a listener, and a facilitator, encouraging teams to get out of their silos and inter-operate, such as SEALS and Rangers in his cases. Send the intelligence down the command chain, and empower people to take choices and make decisions.

 

As an aside, I’ve  had excellent and timely service from Audiology and Radiology at Nobles in the last couple of months. 

[display name]

2 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

 

 

As an aside, I’ve  had excellent and timely service from Audiology and Radiology at Nobles in the last couple of months. 

They saw right through you. Pardon?

[Derek Flint]

1 minute ago, display name said:

They saw right through you. Pardon?

Badum tishhhhh!

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, P.K. said:

A classic case of over-managed and under-led.

Possibly because managers are so easy to make. Go on a few courses and hey presto! You're a manager....

Being able to lead, inspire, get people to believe in themselves and a vision, earn respect by actions rather than words etc etc is a lot harder.

But of course they're leaders.  They've been on the leadership courses and got the bits of paper and everything.

There's a fashion at the moment for going on about 'leadership', but it usually seems to translate as talking 'inspirational' bullshit and refusing to allow your decisions to be challenged because you're a 'leader'.  It's basically just management with even more ego.  What Nobles lacks isn't management or leadership but administration - actually making things happen.  Which of course is despised because we live in a culture where talking about things is seem as more important than doing them.  Which is how a journalist gets to be UK PM.

As you say actions are what is important and that doesn't just mean demanding arbitrary and impossible results and then devoting your efforts to find someone to blame when things go wrong.  It means people who actually understand what those working under them do and how things can be improved rather than management whizz-kids who think every section of every organisation has to operate in exactly the same way.  It means managers who devote their time to improving their organisation rather than keeping their superiors happy.

[Non-Believer]

1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

But of course they're leaders.  They've been on the leadership courses and got the bits of paper and everything.

Succinct. Except the one thing that appears to be lacking is the assessment for any natural aptitude (or even interest) before they're selected for attendance on such courses. Or any other course for that matter.

Meaning that those courses are effectively wasted because those attending and being given the obligatory pass (because a lot of such courses can't actually be failed - it's not PC to fail people, leads to low self-esteem and depression etc etc), don't necessarily possess either the ability or interest to apply what they've learned (if anything).

Then we put them in charge....