Non-issue

I thought I was being reasonable and democratic in my management. We had seventeen new lecturers, to be distributed in six units. We have three units with one professor, one associate professor, and one lecturer each. One unit had a professor and an associate professor. The next unit had a professor and a lecturer, and the last one had an associate professor and a lecturer. So I proposed we placed one lecturer in the fourth unit, and two each in the fifth and sixth units. That made three staff members in each unit, as required by the medical council. Then the remaining lecturers were distributed in all units so that each unit had equal number of staff members. Two were extra, who were placed in the first two units by seniority. That put four lecturers in unit numbered one, two, five, and six each, and three lecturers in the remaining units each. The second unit had seven qualified doctors counting a senior resident, while the third unit had only five because there was no senior resident there. We decided to shift the senior resident from unit two to unit three. We then had seven qualified doctors in the first unit and six each in the remaining units. This distribution was unanimously approved by all staff members. I went home a satisfied person. Happiness sometimes does not last long. Mine did not this time. Next morning the head of unit three approached me and said she did not want the senior resident given to her from the second unit. She said she should have one more lecturer, while unit six should have one less. It took me a half hour to do the entire calculation again and show her that the last two units had to be given four lecturers each because they were with only one staff member each above the level of a lecturer. It took me time, but she was somehow convinced that it was a correct (though an unhappy) arrangement. Head of unit two was on leave to grace some conference and so was head of unit six. Today morning the head of unit two came to me and demanded, “I would like my senior resident returned to me and a lecturer from the sixth unit should be shifted to the third unit. All other doctors in my units are new. This resident knows my work style and preferences. The sixth unit head is a mere associate professor and should do with only five qualified doctors instead of six.” “But our distribution is made not for comfort or happiness of unit heads, but to ensure that there are equal number of doctors to treat patients, who go to all units equally” I said. “You have four lecturers, of which one has worked with you for a month already. And your associate professor has been with you for ages.” He made a hand gesture signifying little respect of both of them. That was surprising, because both of them were good. I could not see what a senior resdient would do that an associate professor and four lecturers could not do. One unit head did not want that senior resident and this unit head wanted him, but the situation was such that the wish of neither of them could be satisfied. “I request you to do with the doctors you have. If I reshuffle doctors in a matter of four days without a sound reason, they will develop a feeling of insecurity, which is not good for morale.” “So you won’t do it!” he said and went away in a huff. When I related the story to other staff members, one associate professor made a very valid comment: “I think the whole thing is a non-issue.” It was indeed an non-issue. I would have indulged in self pity if I could, for having to put up with unit heads who wanted personal whims satisfied at the cost of disturbing democratic working, believing they deserved better things than others because they were senior in position, forgetting the primary purpose of the institute was patient care and not keeping senior officials in physical and mental comfort.