Patricia Mukhim
At long last the controversial director of NEIGRIHMS, Dr DS Thappa has left after being told by the Union Health Ministry that he should repatriate to his former Institute, JIPMER Pondicherry. Dr Thappa must be the first director of any national or local institution to ban a newspaper from entering the Institute premises. It’s another matter that the Director could not ban the doctors from reading the online version of the newspaper. I was first informed of this about two years ago when a patient who is also a friend told me he heard that The Shillong Times is banned from NEIGRIHMS and that another local newspaper has been patronised. The reason for the ban is because The Shillong Times consistently reported on the various problems faced by patients and faculty. In fact faculty desirous of meeting the Director to discuss matters related to the proper functioning of the Institute, had to wait for hours outside his office. One day a group of doctors met this writer and informed that they had written to the Union Home Ministry on the malfunction of NEIGRIHMS and that quite a few good doctors from different disciplines were forced to resign and leave because the working atmosphere had become so invidious. Naturally this became a subject of our investigation. After all, a free and fearless press is the greatest ally to a free and prosperous people. This is our belief and we will continue to pursue this objective.
The only claim to fame of the outgoing Director is that he put a stop to the alleged scam in the Cardiology department where stents, (he claims) were supplied by a particular pharmacy. The irony is that the Cardiology Department is also the most sought after in NEIGRIHMS, bringing patients from across the region. Insofar as the administration of any Institution is concerned, patients and their relatives and the civil society around it also have a responsibility to keep a close watch on its functioning and to bring any malfeasance to the public domain. People who use the Institution, more so a health care and research facility cannot be hand-cuffed to a slavish deference to the Director or the administration or any single Department of the Institute. Hence those with grievances about being pilfered by a certain doctor in the Cardiology Department should have gone to the District or State Consumer Protection Council with the necessary complaints. At least the matter would have been investigated. But no one would do that! Yet everyone would gossip about the goings-on in the Cardiology Department.
DS Thappa was one who could not tolerate media scrutiny because he believed he was above it all. The day any news report on NEIGRIHMS appeared, he would scurry to write a rejoinder through the public relations officer. One day the Director stooped so low as to use the mobile number of his colleague to call this writer. He used intimidating language, not expected of the head of an Institution. Later he collated all the news reports and articles that had appeared in The Shillong Times during his tenure and wrote to the Press Council of India (PCI). The Council did not find merit in his complaints and set aside the case. Such is the pettiness to which the Director had stooped.
Funnily, even after being told to vacate his Directorship, Thappa did not relent. He again approached the Meghalaya High Court to stall his departure. No director is above any institution. Directors come and go and are usually transferred in, “public interest.” He should just have left. But not Thappa! He has now approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). That is of course his right as a public servant but transfer orders are hardly ever revoked by the Union Ministry.
This brings me to the point of leadership in a health care institution. The Director of a Health and Medical Research Institution must also have adequate administrative capabilities apart from his professional proficiency. An Institute like NEIGRIHMS suffers from internal pressures where there is increased demand for transparency and accountability and also in managing different departments headed by specific health professionals who are experts in their respective fields. The Director is just the first among equals and therefore must treat every head of department with deference and have regular conversations with them on how to improve services in those departments. A director who is vengeful, has an unpleasant demeanour and indulges in witch-hunting cannot survive for too long in a society that does not believe in hierarchy. That’s the first problem that directors who do not know the meaning of leadership would face in any institution. A leader serves and does not expect to be served. A leader does not create cliques that dance to his tune and will desist from any whistle blowing. That has been NEIGRIHMS problem. There is apparent lack of unity among the medical fraternity and that’s how Directors divide and rule. Too much time is wasted in conflict management rather than in planning for the future. The director of a health institute must know management because that entails planning, organising, control, budgeting, implementation and evaluation. Above all, a director should ensure efficient utilisation of resources to achieve the short term and long term goals of the Institution.
There are many schools of thought in management. One is the traditional or bureaucratic approach to management with a well-structured chain of command adopting a top-down approach and where the head of the organisation believes in tight control and usually does not believe in learning from others. A competing school of management is the human relations approach which focuses on participatory decision-making and self governance. This, many experts believe works better because workers are motivated and involved and they have the space to air their grievances without getting into a conflict situation. A leader/director that does not know how to manage conflict in the Institution and allows all grievances to spill over to the public domain is a failure. And that is where leadership counts!
Management experts Bennis and Nanus have famously said, “Managers are people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing.” The authors believe that although management and leadership represent two distinct disciplinary and practice areas very often they overlap. Leaders have to do both (a) manage institutions but not get stuck in the status quo (b) lead the institution to higher levels of achievement. It is the leader who envisions the future and lays the path to reach future goals by engaging his team in the effort. After all institution building is a team effort – never the work of one individual.
I am amused therefore to read a letter from the outgoing director which circulated over social media on Wednesday and also appeared in the media on Thursday, where he portrays himself as a victim. Many directors have served NEIGRIHMS and quietly left when their time had arrived, not necessarily after the five –year tenure. The ministry has every right to review the performance of every director and to allow the person to continue only if he/she has succeeded in achieving certain objectives. A director during whose tenure the best minds of the Institute have migrated should have the humility to ask himself some hard questions instead of playing victim. Above all, a director that is vengeful and seeks to destroy the careers of younger colleagues is neither a leader nor a manager. NEIGRIHMS is well rid of such a person.
Now the Union Health Ministry has to find a Director with the dignity, grace, competence, leadership and managerial skills and above all life skills in managing human relations to head NEIGRIHMS. Let’s not forget that this Institution was created to promote excellence in health care and medical research in a region with poor public health infrastructure.