New NSFT CEO Michael Scott visiting Crisis Team: But Crisis Team told not to talk to him


How is Michael Scott, the new Chief Executive at Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust, going to sort out the crisis team crisis if staff receive emails like this before they meet him?

Dear All,

Just to let you know……

I found out yesterday that the new Chief Exec will be attending our MDT meeting on Tuesday 22/07/14.

I have no clear idea of what his agenda may be at this point so ask that we continue with business as usual. This is not an opportunity to express your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with Michael as he is there to see how we run things day to day.

May I ask a prompt start @ 08:00hrs and that there are at least 2 laptops down there for seamless MDT purposes.

Many Thanks

Acting CTL

Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust

Crisis Resolution Home Treatment Team

Hellesdon Hospital


17 thoughts on “New NSFT CEO Michael Scott visiting Crisis Team: But Crisis Team told not to talk to him”

  1. My personal opinion is this site needs to stop criticising managers at all times as it just seems to be an Orwellian default position ‘managers bad’. The email talks about showing what the CRHT actually does something many of us are proud of. The CRHT is feeling a better place to work at the moment and I know I am not the only one feeling this. Maybe this should be recognised by a visiting chief executive and the value and hard work of the team should be shown off and aplauded as should be the team effort that had made this possible.

    Just a thought.


  2. Dark Side of the Moon

    Perhaps, just perhaps, things are improving because the campaign exposed the radical redesign, all the incompetence and waste, shaming the trust to do something about the crisis? When the campaign started, the trust claimed there was no crisis, no cuts and the radical redesign was improvements. If you want Orwellian, read Insight magazine.

  3. Absolutely possible. Suspect as always it’s more complex than one thing alone. But it’s good that things are starting to get better. Let’s hope it continues..

  4. Reads like a reasonable request to me.  I’m sure there are other, and better, forums that staff can raise the issues of the Trust in rather than MDT meetings.  Time together as a team to discuss clinical priorities is precious in a busy working environment.  Also as the previous commentator mentions, its important that he experiences and understands what happens in the CRHT rather than it being hijacked in this way.


    Oh, and by the way, I’m not sure how respectful to your acting CTL this is.  They clearly want to use the time in a productive way and get the best out of it, rather than wasting time.  I doubt that they’d be any other motive behind this.

  5. I agree with Jumper. Well said. I’d add that that supplying the CTL’s email in this way detracts from the integrity of the campaign and is actually destructive to any progress made by the hardworking team in question. Did anyone have the decency to air this with the person concerned before making this personal attack in a very public arena? .

  6. I also think it was a reasonable request. I’m glad the CEO had taken the time to try and find out what the team do.
    I’m sure the Acting CTL would have happily requested he attend on another occasion to listen to staff views.

  7. I guess if he didn’t do such visits, how could he gain personal insight into the functioning of a team, and he would be left open to the ‘ staying in your ivory tower ‘  comments that have been made against some senior managers  etc in the past.

  8. These comments come all at once to defend an unnamed (fellow?) middle manager but say nothing about the closure of assertive outreach, what happened to homeless Holly or all the other service users who have been failed by the reorganisations, mistakes and cuts. Priorities?

  9. all good points Jane but this story isn’t about that. If the campaign start attacking the staff doing the work at any level it will not only destroy individuals but affect the good work that is being done and undermine public confidence in what is available even if it is good.

  10. I certainly didn’t see this post as an attack on the Team Leader in question; the question is why was it necessary to send such an email at all; the Trust has a lot of work to do to create a different culture where staff have the confidence to speak their minds without fear of being discriminated against, especially in a climate where they are being forced to compete with each other for their own jobs. People have short memories; we have just had 9 staff down-graded in a flawed, artificial interview process, other people have lost their jobs. Social Workers in the Trust may be about to face a similar process; the current proposal for CRHT is that there will be only 3 social work posts instead of the current 5 posts; the Trust’s strategy for the next 5 years involves a further £44 million of cuts and at least another 200 job losses. Not a great atmosphere to encourage openness and honest speaking on the part of front-line staff. No, we should not be attacking Team-leaders who have an unenviable job and have seen their numbers reduced so that they have a ridiculous number of people to line-manage; however, top managers have to accept responsibility for the decisions they make and the processes they set up. Similarly the Unions have to take responsibility for cooperating with a process that forces staff to compete with each other for jobs; this process does more to undermine staff morale than anything the Campaign has done.

  11. I do not believe for one moment the “default ” position is just to blame managers. Yes, as Terry has said, Team Leaders are in a difficult position when the numbers in the team have been cut like this, but can you imagine what it must be like for someone to be downbanded after a flawed interview and then go to work and watch agency staff trying to do the job they themselves were extremley good at. It must be humiliating and degrading and is costing the Trust a lot of money  as the downbanded staff have had thier Band 6 pay and enhancements protected. The answer is quite simple, stop retaining agency staff on £45,500 a year and reinstate the Band 6 staff to the role they were so good at.

  12. But you seem to be missing the point. Band 6 substantive staff have rights. Agency staff have none. They’d rather employ contract workers whom they can fire on a whim (albeit more expensive) that permanent staff who can drag them in front of an employment tribunal and/or bring about industrial action.

    These people aren’t fair employers, they’re cowboys!

  13. Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog
    and I am impressed! Very helpful information specifically
    the last part 🙂 I care for such information a lot.
    I was seeking this certain information for a long time.
    Thank you and good luck.

  14. The other day, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iPad and
    tested to see if it can survive a thirty foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad
    is now destroyed and she has 83 views. I know this is
    totally off topic but I had to share it with someone!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top