Big disconnect between system leadership and leadership at each site. All of the right things are said but words are a lot cheaper than deeds.
Support from management
If you want to centralize decision-making and actively create a group-think environment, you absolutely cannot have resolute and creative problem-solvers and decision-makers outside of the "bubble". So Boise has placed or retained very agreeable site leadership in its locations. Its not these site leaders' fault. They learn quickly that being a "team player" means go along or else. But it makes for really weak leadership.
Great at the local and even regional level. But Boise leadership calls the shots. Rather than be honest about that, they choose to try to convince everyone that their idea IS your idea. When you say it's a collaborative relationship and it really isn't there's no surprise to how that turns out.
Freedom to work independently
Simply awful. Not really experienced anything like it in my career. As a senior leader, I was placed under a system leader that was uninspiring, completely disorganized, tried to micro-manage processes she didn't fully understand, and was the ultimate grandstander. By promising things to leadership off-the-cuff in order to further her own political standing, my department's objectives changed from being goal-oriented to whim-oriented without any clear cut overall strategy and removed the ability to make quick decisions independently.
Doesn't matter how much you communicate if the message keeps changing. Awfully inconsistent messaging.
Never could send my team to trainings or conferences for their professional development. That right seemed solely reserved for Boise senior leadership. I have no loyalty for leaders who make their career goals and then pull the ladder up behind them. Very distasteful how they do succession planning.
Overall compensation for your work
For the scale of work done, compensation was pathetic. Not surprisingly, Boise compensated themselves and their staff very generously.
Very poorly regarded by the patient community. From a board perspective and donor perspective, huge disconnect with everyday patients' experiences. Not the board or donors' faults either: they only know what they are told by the system.
Not a meritocracy, so advancement and job security were based almost solely on proficiency at being an ideal "yes man".
Nothing wrong with challenging work. It's only a problem when you're challenges turn into barriers that are placed upon employees due to incompetence from senior leadership.
Suggestions for improvement
- While there are a few good leaders at the executive level, the majority of them are professional ladder-climbers uninterested in innovating for the good of the system. Until they retire or are fired then St. Luke's will not progress beyond mediocre.
What I like about the company
There are some great people who work for the system. Truly best of the best. They give everything they have DESPITE the environment and senior leadership. Dr. Pate is a great leader with a forward-looking vision.
What I dislike about the company
Regarding things to dislike about the system is too broad of a topic. From personal experience, quality improvement, quality assurance, and regulatory assurance is laughable there. While there are some fantastic staff trying to do the best they can, top leadership in this service line is a joke. Take a look at the system's quality scores and regulatory survey results as proof of that. Great performance doesn't need tap-dancing or "massaging"; results speak for themselves.