- Thread starter
- #41
thats what i put, its not 100% public, there has always been private elements. there is public perception that it is all public, and policy debate resolves around that starting point.
the bad thing is the mis-management. like your previous example of administration of administration, this seems a chronic problem with larger organisations of any type.
Apologies! I am aware on noises of from the hard left (albeit I haven't spoken to one of them for some years) about the morality of private, but I wasn't aware it is part of headline conversation any more.
You are also right about higher management. I have done a bit and been trained a bit. Most of us in work are there to implement the strategy and tactics of our managers. But there has to be a purpose and a goal. What I have seen of higher management is that all the purposes and goals are perverse.
For example, in the 'Trust' ' and 'Health Partnership' where I work, the main goal of senior management is to make our 'business' bigger and stronger. That means stuff like taking over failing trusts, rationalization, acquistition, rebranding. Success is income and turnover. This has nothing to do with health care delivery. So health care and university teaching and research make up their own strategy and tactics - to increase income and turnover - more grants, more papers, more students, more patients. That is perverse and a symptom of failure.
Like lots of organizations the NHS (and universities) muddle through and deliver quite well to 'customers' largely through the diligence and sense of duty of the frontline workers.