A number of times over the past few months I’ve found myself getting slightly hot under the collar about the fact it’s easy to say ‘no’ or ‘I don’t agree with this’. Sometimes saying no or not agreeing is absolutely the right approach, but there is a difference with not agreeing because something will definitely be detrimental, with not agreeing because something doesn’t sound good, will require working in a different way and possibly be a lot of hard work.
On one level the health service challenge is relatively straightforward. We cannot afford to maintain the system we have in the way that we currently have it, something has to change. There are many people who still seem not to get this and for once I do not mean the politicians. Whilst their approach, how they communicated and the speed of the proposed reforms is far from ideal, the underlying point remains the same, the NHS needs to change, that also means us. Of course success will mean politicians supporting and backing radical and possibly unpopular changes to the way hospitals (and the wider healthcare system) provide care, but just for now let’s not focus on the politics because that’s too easy, for now let’s focus on ourselves.
The longer we carry on resisting change the worse it will be. Many agree that the NHS can become more efficient, we have been talking about it for years. Many can articulate the need for further joined up, integrated working, so what exactly is the problem? It is multifactorial, but to a large extent we are the problem. This includes you and me. Why? Because fundamentally we don’t like change and it’s hard.
There are many reasons for being change adverse including a lack of self-confidence, lack of sense of urgency, self / turf protection, career risk, conflict avoidance and fear of the unknown. Furthermore, and people dance round this topic, some blame everything and anyone else; politicians, the system, processes (often those that originally we put in place), other people and even on occasions next doors cat, when really the problem is us. We all have an ego, some are bigger than others.
There is good ego; appropriate pride in oneself, self-esteem etc. but there is also bad ego; an exaggerated sense of self-importance and conceit which tends to be what gets in the way of change. As unpopular as it will make me we have quite a lot of bad ego in the NHS, particularly prevalent in a couple of groups.
More great efforts have been abandoned or undone by ego left unchecked and conflict not resolved than for other reasons. Some individuals and groups create such negative energy that they bring down entire teams or systems quite quickly. Paralysis by one voice (monovoxoplegia) is common; we all will have experience of this.
Ego and conflict can be positive, providing energy and inspiration if managed and controlled. But when not controlled they become a monster that can destroy teams, causing people to argue and work against each other, focusing more on what is not working rather than what is.
Some consider the reforms unachievable. Bu how do we know unless we try? I don’t know what is possible and what isn’t, but I do know that we will not maximise the positive impact of the reforms if we don’t acknowledge that some of the problem is our attitude. We will go some way towards achieving the unachievable by changing our mind-set and adopting a different approach. Every single one of us has and can play a part in this; where you sit in the hierarchy or what job you do is irrelevant.
I had not heard of the Nolan Principles, the seven principles of public life, until about 18 months ago. I thought the Nolan’s were sisters from Ireland in the 70’s, I had no idea there was a Nolan Committee which defined principles for holders of public office to adhere to. These principles are for the benefit of everyone who serves the public, even in a voluntary capacity. Maybe I’m the only one who wasn’t aware, but just in case I’m not alone or if you need reminding of them, here they are;
- Selflessness
- Integrity
- Objectivity
- Accountability
- Openness
- Honesty
- Leadership
We are experiencing the biggest reorganisation that the NHS has ever seen. The scale of the change is unprecedented; we don’t really know what’s going to happen or how it’s going to happen but we know that it will happen. We are the people who have responsibility to make it happen and we have a choice; we either try and make this as positive as possible (positive does not mean agreeing wholeheartedly or mean that it will be easy) or we can take what perhaps might be the easier but weaker option, by saying ‘we don’t like it’, ‘it will never work’, by not taking personal responsibility and using all our energy rallying against it. The latter option will undoubtedly impact negatively on patient care and in theory we are all against this.
Our actions need to speak louder than our words. Pride and bad ego need be put to one side. For some this will be very uncomfortable and scary and for all it will be very difficult, but we have an opportunity for taking control by getting involved rather than commentating.
Every time you feel a bit hard done by, aggrieved or scared by change, try and think about the seven principles and then focus on what is better for patients, not what best suits you. As I write this, I hope I can too.
Attitude determines choice and choice determines results.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
From The Pearl Catcher
Kate Hall is a Health Foundation Leadership Fellow and has specific interests in leadership and quality improvement.








Readers' comments (3)
Blair Mcpherson | 29-Jul-2011 3:13 pm
It is a truism to say change makes people anxious it is also true that change can be exciting and that people are keen to learn about new ideas in their area of work. The problem comes when people suspect the motive for change and when they question whether what their leaders say is different to what they are really thinking and planning.Your reference to the Noland principles are very relevant because what we are seeing in the NHS is doubts about the integrity of those who are forcing through changes,claiming to listen but not hearing what is being said,stating they value staff but making people redundant and cutting pay,saying the NHS is safe in their hands but appearing to be ideologically committed to competition no matter what.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 1-Aug-2011 8:52 am
Well said Blair.
All's well and good to advise me to embrace change, but I work till 11pm just to keep the job ticking over because keeping the books balanced absolves the trust of their obligation to me.
I have a right to feel " bit hard done by, aggrieved or scared by change" when my team tell me that they are unable to cope any longer and ask me how the trust will support them. You know why? Because I have nothing in the emotional or financial to help the situation and I too come in to work in tears, having sleepless nights thinkign of what I may have missed and wondering if the trust will support me when inevitable sh1t hits the fan because I just can't fo it all.
This isn't about ego, it's weariness and apathy. Either offer meaningful help and attempts to engage or stop wasting the little time I do have.
The
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 2-Aug-2011 2:20 pm
Blair is spot on again. This particular 'exciting' change is all about cutting...cutting costs, cutting pay, cutting pensions and cutting jobs. It is about prematurely ending careers with the outrageous denigration of managers and anybody else who is not a doctor or nurse (thankfully the BMA saw through this nonsense) as useless penpushers, bureaucrats and administrators; as unwanted costcodes on a financial spreadsheet, conveniently forgetting that most of these bureaucrats have a career based upon years as clinicians with the wealth of knowledge and expereince that comes with it. It is about fiddling around with more pointless organisational structures whilst the real job of treating and looking after our patients gets harder and harder. It is precisely about listening but not hearing. When research from eminent bodies such as the Kings Fund is brushed aside by LaLa yet the sanctimonious bleatings from the red-tops appears to form the basis for government policy then something is most definitely awry. Anon 8.52 am articulates it beautifully albeit rather disturbingly. I sincerely hope that Government health ministers read the HSJ and its readers comments and can see how people feel. But then it would probably be a case of seeing yet not believing.
Unsuitable or offensive?