In the midst of the VA Secretary kerfuffle, I'd just like to say that a hostile workplace created by a senior or...
In the midst of the VA Secretary kerfuffle, I'd just like to say that a hostile workplace created by a senior or supervising physician, especially if it's a prior history and not a current ongoing issue, were it a disqualifier, ought to have displaced an awful lot of deans, chairs, faculty, staff, and just random physicians everywhere.
It's endemic to the culture. While it's now trendy to disavow that, and even occasionally do something substantive to change localized environs, the underlying culture is still not happy that the cult of horrible personality has been criticized. After all, some of the most brilliant ... but he (mostly) made this breakthrough! ... great leadership! ... money, efficiency, saves lives! ... etc.
There's a sort of parable (?) that tends to pop up within the inner halls of medical care/training where one asks: if you were sick and could choose between the very best doctor/surgeon in the world, but he (it's always he) is an utter bastard, or you could have the second best doctor/surgeon in the world, who is a decent and non-abusive human being, which would you choose?
Obviously, I don't have to tell you there are a lot of people who pick number one. I probably also don't have to tell most of you that I'm a big number two person. Exploring the reasoning given enhances but isn't different than the basic problem with the culture that spawns that question in the first place. Being number one is more valued than being a decent human being.
Would it send a message if there's documentation of this behavior and it costs someone high profile their job? Yes. it's not clear what that message would be, though, nor how it would be processed, discussed, and applied more widely, if at all. Rationalization is a powerful thing.
P.S. Don't ask me about my thoughts on some of the other things they are bringing up.
It's endemic to the culture. While it's now trendy to disavow that, and even occasionally do something substantive to change localized environs, the underlying culture is still not happy that the cult of horrible personality has been criticized. After all, some of the most brilliant ... but he (mostly) made this breakthrough! ... great leadership! ... money, efficiency, saves lives! ... etc.
There's a sort of parable (?) that tends to pop up within the inner halls of medical care/training where one asks: if you were sick and could choose between the very best doctor/surgeon in the world, but he (it's always he) is an utter bastard, or you could have the second best doctor/surgeon in the world, who is a decent and non-abusive human being, which would you choose?
Obviously, I don't have to tell you there are a lot of people who pick number one. I probably also don't have to tell most of you that I'm a big number two person. Exploring the reasoning given enhances but isn't different than the basic problem with the culture that spawns that question in the first place. Being number one is more valued than being a decent human being.
Would it send a message if there's documentation of this behavior and it costs someone high profile their job? Yes. it's not clear what that message would be, though, nor how it would be processed, discussed, and applied more widely, if at all. Rationalization is a powerful thing.
P.S. Don't ask me about my thoughts on some of the other things they are bringing up.
Comments
Post a Comment