Need To Know

[Davey Do]

I was going through a 32-year-old journal I kept during what was one of the most trying yet rewarding periods of my life and nursing career.

I was working at township hospital in the inpatient CD treatment program, which was extremely well-structured. There were guidelines for the staff, such as the team concept, open communication, no gossiping, etc. It was the healthiest environment that I worked in my career.

In my journal, I mentioned that one of the therapists had been terminated and the matter was openly discussed with the director. Although details were not discussed, the therapist had been terminated for going outside of professional boundaries with a patient, something like he had asked a patient out for a date once she had been discharged.

My memory is murky, but it seems that one of the rules of the program was to have no alliances, either personal or business, with a patient until six months after they had been discharged. I don't precisely recall, but the rule is not imperative to what I wish to convey and the question that I want to pose.

As we staff were a community and had relatively close relationships with each other, to lose a coworker was troubling. The director gave us the reason for the therapist's termination. I understood the director did what he had to do, and for his openness and honesty- along with a multitude of other reasons- I felt comfort and respect toward him.

That's the only time in my nursing career that I was privy to the reason for a coworker's termination that wasn't hearsay or gossip. Every other time administration refused to go beyond "So and so doesn't work here anymore".

We all know that those in charge tend to convey that they know what's best for everyone involved and it's usually far from the truth of the matter, when on fact, secrecy and honor among thieves is pro quo.

What do you think? In your opinion, did the director do the right thing? Or should we have been kept in the dark, as was the case for the next 30+ years that I worked in nursing?

[JBMmom, MSN, NP]

Hmm. I think everyone would want to work in the environment you describe when they're on the end of receiving information. However, I wonder whether the colleague that was terminated would object to having that information be made public. Now I suppose that since the former colleague violated a known rule, perhaps what they might want done in the situation is irrelevant. 

In this day and age I think that many employers work in "cover your butt" mode. Many places do not allow recommendations of former colleagues that seek other employment. No one wants a former disgruntled employee coming back and suing them for saying something that potentially damaged their next career options. Perhaps the same could be said in this situation. If the director made everyone aware of the violation and termination, and then randomly someone had a friend or acquaintance that was considering hiring this person, it may slip that someone knows the circumstances of their dismissal. And if it were shared with the wrong person, it could damage their career potential. 

No one likes the hush hush work environment where you feel like you're not quite sure what could happen to you, but I think that's the reality of many workplaces today. 

[No Stars In My Eyes]

Worked at a facility once where employees said that if you got a call to "come to the director's office before your next shift"....that meant you were about to be moved through that infamous rotating door, and were fired. No going back to get anything out of your locker; it was delivered to you; here's your hat, what's your hurry? Don't let the door slam your butt on the way out. Many employees 'disappeared' that way, leaving others to wonder. That call and the white-out that covered up your name on the schedule posted by the time-clock were all that hinted at more staff turn-over...

[kbrn2002, ADN, RN]

I have to say unless the terminated employee made it clear, preferably in writing that he/she was OK with the reason for the dismissal being revealed by management and  discussed between managers and fellow employees that I am not OK with this. 

It's nobody else's business but the employer/employee involved why there is any sort of discipline, up to and including termination. Granted the reason why an employee is disciplined and/or terminated usually makes it way through the gossip mill anyway but that's way different than it being openly shared by management.

[Davey Do]

In a sense, in this case, a premise is being stated that the perpetrator's rights and comfort should be given more cause for consideration and concern than those affected by his actions. The perpetrator's crimes and ramifications should remain a secret, and those affected have should not be allowed to be privy to either.

Keeping from the public information of crimes and the ramifications thereof is not how our legal system works. The public has a right to be informed of a lawbreaker's crime/ and punishment.

Maslow's Need Hierarchy lists our need for safety and security as being only second to our basic physiological needs. In other words, we need safety and security almost as much as we need food, water, shelter, and sex.

We feel safe and secure only with knowledge of our environment. Fear of the unknown can be stressful to the point of being crippling.

Case in point: I was terminated from Wrongway one month after receiving the first DAISY award presented by the facility. EVERY employee I spoke with thereafter mentioned this, a couple going as far as to say things along the lines of, "If you got fired, that means ANYBODY could be fired", and "we don't know who's going to get it next". Fear of the unknown.

I support the director's actions in this case, one reason being that it was for the greater good.

On 3/11/2022 at 6:34 PM, Davey Do said:

I understood the director did what he had to do, and for his openness and honesty- along with a multitude of other reasons- I felt comfort and respect toward him.

I, for one, would much rather work under a supervisor who looked out for those who served and did their jobs than a supervisor who looked out more for the one who broke the rules.

[HiddenAngels]

I think the reason they shared the information was because like you said, you guys were close.  Was it the right thing to do ehh.  Could have been done to deter you guys IDK, mgmt is tricky..  If I get fired for breaking the rules of the no love policy and I find someone I love and break the rules ha ha, well isn't that life...

[Davey Do]

I read posts on this website blasting administrators for their insidiously underhanded methods to achieve a selfish, nonempathetic, desired outcome.

A situation is presented where it was stated that this was the healthiest environment I had ever worked in my 40+ years in the field. An honest, nonconventional approach is utilized and met with either concern for the wrongdoer or a mundanely accepted. The director's actions were not based on personal feelings, his actions were based on principles, for principles need to always be put before personalities.

I am not surprised with these rubber-stamped responses.

[JBMmom, MSN, NP]

I wasn't thinking about this situation alone when you posed your question. The employee you referenced being terminated for wrong doing that was clearly defined is appropriate by corporate standards. However, all of the remaining staff were aware of those rules prior to the employee being dismissed. So in essence you didn't really learn anything new about your work environment, the rules were the same, you just learned information about the former coworker. It was not a criminal action, and it didn't appear to directly impact any coworkers as the intended relationship potentially pursued was with a former client, not a coworker.

My concern with information in other situations being shared is that the employee is not there to defend themselves. And we all know that sometimes management makes decisions and the employee impacted may not agree or may dispute the situation. When someone is forced to leave without being given a chance to represent themselves to their former coworkers so BOTH sides can acknowledge the situation, you're still not getting the whole story.  

[Davey Do]

Treatment for the drug abusing patients was built on the 12-step program, which is a program of honesty, and staff were encouraged to also work their own programs.

Promptly admitting mistakes, making amends, and continuing to take a personal inventory is all part of working a program. It was an open, honest environment, and as I said before, it was the healthiest that I had worked on my 40+ years in the field.

Also as I said before, decisions and actions were the result of "practicing these principles in all our affairs". Personalities or likes or dislikes did not come into play- principles were always put before personalities.

And fact is fact is fact: The therapist made an error in judgement & action, and had to deal with the ramifications thereof. The director informed staff because there would be no unknowns and subsequent fear.

The focus on the therapist's inferred rights is ludicrous when the actions of the director and the feelings of the staff were of paramount importance. We had to go on and work together and serve the patients, which we did in a healthy, open environment.

 

 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

3 hours ago, Davey Do said:

The focus on the therapist's inferred rights is ludicrous when the actions of the director and the feelings of the staff were of paramount importance. We had to go on and work together and serve the patients, which we did in a healthy, open environment.

I can't say I agree with this.  

Definitely they had their heart in the right place and the results were welcome and positive.  It's better than an environment of fear and gossip.

However, at the end of the day giving out such personal and inflammatory information about a coworker doesn't sit well with me.  Unless they committed a crime and went to jail and then it was public knowledge I say the policy like you said they followed for the next 30 years was to say "this person doesn't work here anymore" and leave it at that.  They shouldn't have made an exception.  

We've all had to deal with the wreckage of someone getting fired.  It's not always pretty but adults can handle it and move on, or not.

[Davey Do]

17 hours ago, Davey Do said:

The focus on the therapist's inferred rights is ludicrous when the actions of the director and the feelings of the staff were of paramount importance.

It is a common occurrence both here on this site and in the real world for the mainstream populace to focus on the negative. On this case, a lot of focus has been placed upon the possibility that the terminated therapist might not have been treated justly.

Yet very little has been discussed about the positive points of working in this healthy environment. We all believe we'd like to work in a harmonious environment where we could just do our job in an environment free of the fear of unknowns or underhanded tricks of our superiors.

Very few would prefer to discuss the dynamics of a healthy work environment, how it got there, how problems were dealt with, or what was gained from such an experience.

We'd much rather discuss negativities, bad coworkers and superiors, so we flock in droves to drama. A minister/clinical psychologist once said to his congregation something along the lines of, "We stare at a traffic accident because we can say to ourselves, 'Thank God that wasn't me!'"

NOTE: I typed the above portion last night and hesitated in posting it because I thought maybe it was a little overkill. Given the continued focus, I now see that it was not.

PEOPLE! Focusing on what is consensually believed to be a wrong clouds our vision to that which is right! It is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water!

In essence, the majority is saying, " I don't want to know how this was a good work environment! I want to focus on what I believe to be a wrong and criticize him so I can feel like I'm a better person than that bad director who said things he shouldn't have!"

If we dislike our situation and point fingers at them because we believe that they're bad and we're good, we will never be able to see beyond our own parochial perspectives.

Conventional notions are not always right and alternative perspectives need to be considered on order to "get thar" and, as they say, "the proof is in the pudding".

[HiddenAngels]

Hmm maybe I misread your post at first but I did get a sense of you liking/ treasuring the work environment.  I actually thought the mgr/super clueing you in on what happened was just (a part)) of what you liked about it. Whether it was right it wrong I wrote ehhh, because I didn’t really consider it. It seems the transparency and raw emotions to communicate to you guys about what happened was what you valued.  Maybe I’m still missing it???  That’s kind of why I posted that if I got fired for love or something I believed in for me I would just rock with it.