Said the whistle blower.
Not true said senior management.
I raised my concerns on many occasions with my manager, with senior managers and when nothing happened with board members.
We take all such allegations seriously especially if they relate to the safety of vulnerable people. We commissioned a quick internal investigation by a manager outside of the department. Due to some key individuals being absent due to ill health it took longer than expected to complete the investigation.
After 3 months I had heard nothing.
The report found no grounds for disciplinary action but recommended a wider review of practice. The complainant was informed a management investigation had found no grounds for disciplinary action.
After months I received a phone call from the directors PA saying the matter had been looked into and it had been decided to take no action. I couldn’t believe it. I told my manager I was thinking of going to the press. He said do that and they will sack you.
The Senior management team (SMT) commissioned an internal management review of practice by a team made up of people with relevant experience from operations and HR. The remit was to make recommendations to improve practice and highlight any issues of concern. The report was presented in draft to the Director who commissioned the report on behalf of the SMT. The report highlighted examples of poor practice which whilst not widespread were not isolated examples. The report identified inadequate levels of supervision, understaffing and staff lacking the necessary training as eroding practice over a number of years. The final report was more ,” balanced” at the directors request with the languages toned down and removal of pejorative phrases such as ,”dangerous levels of staffing” , “untrained staff” “ excessive hours” ,” total absence of supervision”
The report was presented to the SMT who noted its findings and recommendations. However a number of comments on social media from unnamed sources had suggested that there was some sort of cover up of a potential scandal and an investigation report that Senior management were not prepared to discuss, “due to its confidential nature.” In response SMT decided to share the report with the board both to reassure the board and secure some additional funding to meet the recommendations. However they decided that the board should receive a summary of the report rather than the very lengthy full report contains as it did references to statements made by employees to the investigation team.
The board acknowledged the findings of the report, accepted the recommendations but in private were very annoyed with senior managers. As one board member put it,”
How did the CEO and their Directors allow this state of affairs to go unchallenged for so long”. In response the CEO doesn’t point out it was the board who ordered a review of management posts, dramatically cut the training budget and over saw a stop go freeze on recruitment.
In order to reassure the public at the suggestion of the PR and Comms team the board agreed to share the version of the report they had received minus some of the more graphic examples of bad practice, and more focused on the recommendations. As the chair of the board said in the meeting, “We want to be open and honest to retain the trust of the public however we must balance this with our responsibility for the reputation of the organisation.”
Blair Mcpherson former Director author and blogger www.blairmcpherson.co.uk
