Dear Editor,
One is forced to take the Minister of Health seriously when he admits to failure, and insists on apologising therefor.
The next logical step in the process would be for him to reflect very profoundly on where and how he has misled himself.
One recommendation would be to utilise his considerable research capability to access relevant reading material on organisational management systems and procedures. In addition to the lessons claimed to have been learnt, the Minister would discover that his management style militates against him, as it runs counter to established principles of authority, delegation and accountability. He will be encouraged to reflect on the legal fact that the GPHC is a corporate body, established under Corporations Act, and accordingly should constitutionally be managed by a Board of Directors, of which the Chief Executive Officer is a member.
The decision-making for that organisation is the clear responsibility of the board, and the latter should therefore not be bypassed, certainly in such critical issues, as recruitment and placement of senior medical (and non-medical) professionals – an activity, incidentally, which would appear to be no longer related to the human resources management function of the corporation.
The convoluted behaviour of the Minister (and the Director of Medical Services) in the instant case of an offending medical practitioner would appear to have been misinformed, either by arrogance or by ignorance, of fundamental organisational management principles, thus contributing to the misinterpretation of ‘authority’ as ‘power’ unaccompanied by accountability.
What such individualistic behaviours also ignore is the projection of a model that is hardly sustainable, but one that can be mimicked by those whom these hierarchical actors subordinate. The outcome is more chaotic than organised disaster.
There have been too many incidents (not accidents) that reinforce the perception that systems and procedures are lacking. If this is denied, it only means worse – that they are not operational.
So that if the Minister, on reflection, recognises that one fundamental role of the ministry is to be the court of last resort, it should have the chastening effect on the impetuosity to be a line decision-maker, too compromised to revise its own judgement (Caesar unto Caesar?).
Those who ignore the lessons of bad decision-making are doomed to repeat the admission of their failures.
Worse than trying to be all things to all people, is being all things to one’s self.
Yours faithfully,
Earl B John
