EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Agenda For Change Changes to Agenda for Change

With news in yesterday's UK budget that government is going to end "pay progression" in the public sector, does anyone think that the current pay scales are about to be scrapped. Possibly to be replaced with performace related pay or something in the NHS ?

Performance related pay for Bands 8c (and above) comes in 01 April 2013.

Realistically, the government will look at ways of reducing the wage bill of the Public Sector. In line with initiatives such as "best value" it is not inconceivable that the next step would be to stop the automatic advancement within other pay bands unless benchmark performance is achieved and maintained.

This routinely happens in the private sector.
Those who perform their duties reap the rewards, those who don’t will not advance any further, (makes sense to me).

The only question will be how the performance targets are set, and monitored, this will have to be on a local level. Any local biomed management should be doing this routinely, in any case.

The conscientious and industrious biomed (in the NHS or private sector) should have nothing to worry about!

So do we seriously think that targets set will be realistic when the government is looking to save money and privatise the NHS.

Another pay cut funny how our lord and masters in Whitehall never seem to be affected...

Time to revisit some truths on management or leadership perhaps?
You lead the people, but manage the task.........

John Adair (1973) is a renowned leadership theorist. He devised his Action Centred Leadership Model following observations of leaders and their relationship with followers. This theory was captured in a diagram with three circles, each overlapping, which illustrated that each of the circle functions were interdependent. He theorised that this is because individuals make up teams, teams / individuals complete tasks, and without a task there is no need for an individual or a team. If one function is weak or missing then the other functions will be adversely affected. He gave an example that if the team is weak, then the task will suffer. One weak individual will affect team performance and therefore completion of task. Adair (1973) states that leaders should concentrate on task completion, the building and sustaining of a team, and the development of individuals within a team.

This model was actively promoted within HM Armed Forces in the 1980’s when I was first exposed to his theories on leadership. John Adair (1973) stated that the three objectives can be achieved through the following actions, these are often referred to leadership functions. Defining all tasks so that goals and objectives are SMART (Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Realistic and Time Constrained).

If we consider the guidance on a practical basis, we can further break down the three functions, task/team/individual into a number of relevant points to be considered in most workplace leadership scenario’s.
When considering the Task, the leader must have a clear understanding of what it is they are trying to achieve, (a clear objective) a workable plan which has been shared with the group or team. The group or team must be briefed as to what their tasks or individual roles are. It is also important to obtain approval and commitment from staff who are “taking ownership”. A knowledge of what resources or tools are available to complete the task, the timetable involved, and how the progress of the task will be monitored.

When considering the Group or Team, what skill sets and experience are available to complete the task? Identify the resources and allocate responsibilities to individuals. Does team spirit or morale need improving or strengthening?
What motivation is required to achieve success, Are any additional skills required, and if so how can they be provided. Include the quieter members and control the overactive ones. Be prepared to offer feedback in a constructive manner whist remaining impartial. Praise, support and encourage the Group or Team.
The individual is important too, whilst a Group or Team has a collective identity, there must be an acknowledgement of individual personalities who bring different expertise and experience to the Task. Some individuals may work equally well as part of a team or unsupervised. Some individuals may prefer not to work alone. People have differing career aspirations and expectations. An effective leader will take the time to ascertain the skills, experience and motivational factors which drive individual members of the Team or Group.

Just a thought on NHS leadership, like....
The targets will be local, set by local management.

An interesting post, Sean. I also have a copy of John Adair's "Effective Leadership" that I have referred to from time to time over the years. In fact it has been one of the few books I haven't been able to bring myself to throw out as I moved from place to place.

Good stuff indeed. But I can't help thinking that most folk we hear from on here will only pay lip service (at best) to such noble ideas; they will only be interested in their own comfortable life, pay and conditions.

Just look at the comments.

Not so sure about that bit that touches on "the individual", though.

Surely Adair makes clear that the Individual may (and in fact should) be ditched if required for the prosecution of the Task (or for the common good of the Team). And I should know - I was that *soldier!

Sorry to mention that tired old saw:- "there's no I in Team!

But (and on the other hand) remember also that sometimes the best team (that is, the one most suited to the Task) consists of a single member!

* The non-team player, the individualist, the trouble-shooter, the operative, the specialist, the lone-wolf ... whatever.

One thing that I don't see mentioned in your précis, Sean ... and one that may be worth mentioning is:-

The leadership of the team may need to change from time to time (and usually temporarily) according to what is actually going on in the "here and now". In military circles, rank may need to be set aside as the occasion demands.

For example, one guy (the best navigator, say) may lead the team to the site, only to have the geek on the team take charge of the technical task to be completed there. He then hands back to the navigator who in turn relinquishes command to the guy with the Masters Certificate once they reach the shoreline, to sail back to security at base. Yet another mission completed!

I'm sure we could all dream up many examples of leadership scenarios in "tech teams" as well. I have a few I could dredge up from my memory banks ... but I'm sure you get the picture.

So what's the "answer" then, Sean? Leadership courses for (aspiring) biomed managers?

Yes Geoff, leadership courses for people with "potential" as opposed to "aspirations" to become a manager, or leader.

Many biomed's become a Manager because they were a good and competent time served technician. The skill sets required are different, and it does not follow that a good biomedical technician, becomes a good Manager, (or leader).

A competent Manager can devolve control or authority for a task, to other competent team members, as and when required. This is based on the maturity of the workplace relationship.

What I am getting at, is the fear of being faced with unrealistic targets says more about the lack of confidence in local Management, as opposed to Machiavellian schemes from central government.

But sadly, in my (own) experience, lack of confidence (in your own abilities) is something inherited from parents ... and beyond. That is, it's "in the genes" - or at least a product of your early upbringing.

It seems that some lucky folk are indeed "natural leaders" (they can be literally born to it), whilst others will never be; and all the training that the army (for example) can make available doesn't seem to change that.

Not that those less able (in that regard) should give up, of course. But rather just acknowledge that it's just another Skill Set they shall need to acquire if they really want to continue climbing the greasy pole.

On the other hand (and as I have said many times before), there's no shame in admitting your deficiencies (or rather, your strengths and weaknesses) and carrying on at a level you are most comfortable with, and productive at.

There is (was) nothing worse than seeing blokes promoted to the "level of their own incompetence". After all, apart from humiliation, where does the guy turn to from there?

Personally, I always thought it was better to be a Chief Technician (say) - still hands-on, of course, but carrying leadership duties as well - rather than the Manager (many of whom tend to continue to make wistful glances back towards the workbench).

Indeed. But to be fair (and to offer a bit of balance), I have also known (and also worked for) excellent managers who had previously been pretty lousy technicians!

One of the reasons they were good managers was that they were also good listeners (and sought opinions from, shall we say, the shop floor).