Be kind to veterinary leaders

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Sarah Keir — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:14:22 GMT

I doubt it was discrimination specifically because they were women but because culture still sees women as softer targets and less likely to stand up to abuse - which is part the reason why there are less women in leadership positions to start with. In fact, it has been shown that women are often harder on other women!

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Arlo Guthrie — Thu, 27 Feb 2020 08:33:03 GMT

Well, I was talking to someone yesterday who has their finger a little more on the pulse, and they told me they'd heard that the open letter was largely triggered by the fact that a number of women in senior positions in the profession have been on the receiving end of some poisonous stuff, not all by social media or in forums, but also by other forms of electronic communication.

I was somewhat relieved to hear that, because I don't think that is something anyone could ever accuse the members of VetSurgeon.org of. As the father of two daughters, I'm a fully paid-up feminist myself, and wouldn't tolerate women (or minorities, for that matter) being discriminated against on this site. Not that I've ever had to moderate against that sort of thing - this has always been very much an equal opportunities platform for insulting each other .

Joking aside, I was really surprised to hear that women are being singled out for horrid stuff in the veterinary profession, and I wish they had been a bit bolder about naming and shaming. I think clarity is needed.

Having heard that, I'm also even more of the opinion now that it was not right to frame the point in the context of #bekind. Kind, or well-mannered professionals don't need to be told to #bekind. Dysfunctional people who discriminate against women and minorities are usually bullies who are probably not going to listen to entreaties to be kind. They need to be told to #learnsomebloodymanners, or #showsomeeffingrespect!

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 24 Feb 2020 14:55:46 GMT

It is an interesting letter. I certainly agree that personal abuse is never particularly helpful in trying to convince others of your argument, and I hope studiously avoid it. However having recently been on the receiving end of an 'open letter' from the President that described myself and others as 'hugely irresponsible' and 'seeking to impose (our) views on others' simply because we have raised an important issue concerning fair play in the disciplinary system following an article published in the most highly respected of veterinary journals - I see little 'kindness' towards myself and to be frank I don't expect it.

In fairness to the RCVS it can never be a 'kind' organisation - being a regulator is never going to win you huge popularity - removing people from the register or sanctioning them can not be a 'kind' activity - however the RCVS should be a polite, courteous and efficient one. I agree with Arlo's earlier comment that perhaps calling for everyone to be 'kind' when you are a regulator is possibility a false concept - everyone should however try to be polite (its often said to cost nothing).

All too often criticism no matter how constructive is portrayed as abuse. As a profession our leaders do need to encourage vibrant discussion of issues and I fear that we are currently seeing great efforts being made to 'close down' debate on issues the leaders feel are uncomfortable for them or generally controversial. Over the last 5 - 6 years the RCVS has increasingly discussed important matters behind closed doors, standard of proof, 'under care', the future of Belgravia House - a lack of transparency breeds distrust (as identified by NOLAN and the reason for the Nolan principles). If the problem is to be solved then 'leaders' who have signed their letter need to recommit to openness, transparency and accountability. All three can be very uncomfortable things (which is why organisations like to be able to develop policy in secret).

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 24 Feb 2020 12:55:04 GMT

[quote userid="2457" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28912/be-kind-to-veterinary-leaders/219732"]Like Iain, I find it sad that it needed to be said. 'Be kind' shouldn't need to be asked, or explained. It is possible to have strong opinions about people's actions and what they represent, without resorting to personal insults and attacks.[/quote]

The very real difficulty, though, is the entirely subjective nature of a 'personal insult' or an 'attack'.

First there is the question of 'personal'.

Surely anyone who occupies high office has to accept personal responsibility/accountability. Part of the job spec. And its regardless of whether you're the paid head of a company or an unpaid volunteer. Let's not forget that if you're doing the job well, you get all the praise too.

So it IS personal. Everything is personal. The real question is whether it is an 'insult' or an 'attack'.

Here the problem is twofold. First, the question is how you define 'an insult'. Everyone has their own threshold for what they find insulting, and it can vary depending on what else is going on in their life. For me personally, online insults are usually water off a duck's back. But if I've been up all night trying to settle my seizing daughter, and changing her pee-soaked sheets for the third night in a row, I'm likely to take things more personally than I might otherwise.

Daniella dos Santos highlighted examples of insults she said she has been on the receiving end of (by definition, therefore, the sort of thing which she thinks is unacceptable):

"I’ve personally been on the receiving end of it, being described as foul, lacking in integrity, incompetent, unsuitable to lead, rotten, idiot, shameful, corrupt or a token."

I do not know Daniella personally. I have nothing against her whatsoever, and no axe to grind. Of the examples she highlights, the three that leap out at me are 'foul', 'rotten' and 'idiot'. On their own, they are just nasty personal insults which say a lot more about the author than the target.

'Shameful' is one that you would have to read in context.

But the others? As I say, I do not know Daniella personally, and I am NOT FOR ONE SECOND suggesting she is anything other than a highly capable, honest, first class individual. Frankly, I do not know. But I tend to assume the best!

The point, though, is whether it is fair to state that someone in office is 'lacking in integrity', 'incompetent', 'unsuitable to lead', 'corrupt' or 'a token'.

Or for that matter, a 'lickspittle' (I have to admit I had to look that one up. It means someone who is obsequious to those in power).

What if these things are true?

I REPEAT, I am not for one second saying any of them apply to Daniella, or Niall for that matter! I am just making the point about whether you want to live in a society where it is deemed unacceptable to make these kinds of remarks - which usually ARE hurtful - because you prefer everyone to #bekind.

That really is my second point. Which is: 'What if the thing deemed insulting is actually true?'

So I still come back to what I think is the solution, which is to level the playing field with equal accountability, starting by asking (requiring) those who want criticise individuals in high office to have complete profiles, including a head and shoulders photo of themselves (ie like mine).

[quote userid="7638" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28912/be-kind-to-veterinary-leaders/219701"]Not sure this would change anything, Alastair was using his (I assume) real name when he called Niall a lickspittle. A photo wouldn't change a great deal, would it?[/quote]

I think it does change things. On two levels.

Firstly, one's photographic image is more identifying than a name. So, if you post stuff that makes you look like a nasty piece of work, people are going to recognise you at BSAVA Congress (or whatever), and probably give you a wide berth. I am not saying that Alastair's post made him look like a nasty piece of work. On the contrary, I read it as someone who has honestly held and perfectly valid fears about the direction things are going in.

Still, 'public' figures have to show their faces. So, I believe, should their critics.

Second, I think it makes criticism more human, easier to accept, if it comes from someone who's visage you can gaze upon. Does that make sense?

In summary, I think for a properly functioning society, we have to allow robust criticism, and we have to accept that robust criticism is going to be hurtful at times. But I also think we need to level the playing field. People in high office open themselves to criticism, and make themselves recognisable to everyone. I think it is only fair that their critics do the same.

Alastair Welch Come on, please start me off. Upload a head and shoulders photo of yourself to your profile!

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Gillian Mostyn — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 21:33:18 GMT

Like Iain, I find it sad that it needed to be said. 'Be kind' shouldn't need to be asked, or explained. It is possible to have strong opinions about people's actions and what they represent, without resorting to personal insults and attacks.

It happens at every level. Even my sports club has had to have a social media policy due to the abuse some volunteer coaches were getting online. Not acceptable.

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Iain Richards — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 20:40:48 GMT

I support the letter and it is sad it had to be written. Those who take on representative roles in the profession can and should expect criticism - as the letter states. However, the on-line forums are giving rise to some poor behaviour and the really sad thing is that it just isn't needed. The point can be made without the vitriol or the abuse, so why are people chosing to be unpleasant?

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Anthony Todd — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 19:40:18 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28912/be-kind-to-veterinary-leaders"]What do you think?[/quote]

Two things:

It is essential, in my view that, to ensure reasoned responses, at the least, repliers should identify themselves so that the validity of the post is ensured.

If an anonymous poster says anyone is a "convicted XXXXer " it will inevitably damage that person's reputation,and anyone can do just that and again and again, using different names.

It is very alive and much more virulent than any virus, when it comes to damaging anyone's views,and reputation however valid.

However, as often happens here, the poster's view is not considered at all [just because the respondent does not agree!!] and the poster is personally criticised instead.

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Alastair Welch — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 12:38:35 GMT

In which case your declarations of interests DOIs as published on the RCVS website are inaccurate. When did you resign your position with the BVA? Are there any other inaccuracies? Do you subscribe to the Nolan principles in public life and recognise that inaccurate declarations undermine the public’s trust?

The RCVS are currently failing to meet their own targets in terms of KPI’’s with respect to the timely investigation of concerns. This is a longstanding problem, who is to blame, what is being done about it and don’t you think that rather than suck in more concerns (by reducing the standard of proof) you should focus on getting your current remit right?

I do like a bit of satire but it’s deadly serious. The veterinary profession deserves good regulation and currently you are failing badly.

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Danny Chambers — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 12:19:40 GMT

Firstly, I no longer sit on the BVA Policy Committee.

Secondly, I have always declared any perceived potential conflicts of interest, including my involvement with charities and politics. I can assure you that I do not allow them to affect my decision making from a regulatory perspective.

Whilst I love the classical reference, I would note that there are former BVA Presidents who have been elected to RCVS Council, and until recently the BVA Scottish President was simultaeous RCVS Councillor, so I don't consider myself to be 'the most egregious Janus-in-chief'. It is a small profession, those vets who decide to get involved with the BVA or RCVS in some form or another end up moving between various roles. Professional people are required to deal with conflicts of interest on a daily basis, whether in clinical practice or elsewhere.

I suppose the easiest way to avoid any criticism or any conflicts of interest is to simply not get involved beyond being a Momus-in-chief.

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Alastair Welch — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 10:32:57 GMT

In a small profession the potential for conflicts of interest is obvious. The problem is that what some might view as cooperation could equally be seen as collusion.

There are lots of examples of questionable split loyalties but the most egregious is Janus-in-chief Danny Chambers.

Mr Chambers in both a member of the RCVS council and sits on the policy committee of the BVA. The integrity of both bodies is undermined by someone having a foot in both camps.

My question for Danny Chambers is simple: do you want to represent us or regulate us, you can’t do both?

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Shams Mir — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 22:09:49 GMT

Let there be no misunderstanding, in my view there is no justification whatsoever for any disparaging personal statements or attacks in any professional discourse.

Now, when a society turns against its leaders on a large scale, the reason generally tends to be that the leaders are perceived as just not listening to the people they claim to represent.

It’s disappointing that the signatories to this letter, rather than reading the writing on the wall and putting their heads together to figure out why this is happening and assuring the profession that they are listening and not plotting, they chose to come out pleading for kindness to them; although I truly sympathise, I don’t think this was a leaderly approach. It appears that no lesson was either learnt from the backlash to the RCVS president’s plea of similar sorts recently.

I think an important underlying cause for confusion and distrust in the profession lies in the fact that the body claiming to be the ‘voice of the profession’ is in bed with the profession’s regulator! Unless, this issue is resolved, I don’t see an end to the distrust.

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Arlo Guthrie — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 12:07:18 GMT

Alastair Welch I find it hard to disagree with anything you’ve written. Considered and clearly an honestly and strongly felt opinion.

To be clear, my sympathy with the open letter is to the extent that I do not envy anyone in public life these days, scrutinised as never before, and on the receiving end of more vitriol from more people than ever before.

In that regard, I think the pendulum has swung too far, which is why I sympathise with the letter.

You put your name to your criticism, which Is good. Would you do me a favour and upload a head and shoulders photo to your profile? I think it may sound like a small thing, but makes a difference as it further humanises what people say.

Go on, humour me!

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Alastair Welch — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 10:41:04 GMT

Arlo,

I must say I read the open letter with incredulity.

I am of the view that some of the signatories are currently formulating plans which will result in significant harm to the practising arm of the profession whilst some other signatories are watching them do so. What makes it worse is that this harm is being discussed in secret. Without the Vet Record expose of the secret discussions the profession would be unaware of the college plans, and for the signatories to cry foul is frankly ridiculous.

It is really worth considering the words of Chris Barker (current RCVS councillor), he states that the "Council did become a PR exercise" and that he received phone calls telling him to keep his mouth shut. This is really damning stuff: an elected member of Council says that very same council is just window dressing for the real levers of power. There is no reason to believe that things are any better indeed Chris is leaving "before before cynicism paralyses me". I am afraid that I view the open letter as simply an attempt to silence criticism of the current system. I realise I labour the point but the college are not very good at doing what they are supposed to do (by their own measurement). On this occasion they have been caught short by some good journalism and rather than face their frailties they put up a smoke and mirrors defence diverting attention form their clandestine discussions.

In September the college announced that between October and December there would be a six week 'call for evidence' into the 24/7/under care/telemedicine issue but so far nothing. You can be absolutely sure that if they are announcing it in mid September for an October start they had a plan in place, so what has happened? This is potentially a paradigm shift in the way we work so why has this not started, and more importantly why do we not know why this has not started? The reason is that the college behaves in a furtive manner hiding things from the wider membership. Are they stacking the deck own favour of the outcome they desire?

Unlike you I do not 'sympathise entirely' with the letter, I view this as an ill-judged attempt to close down the debate. I'm quite sure that the signatories would prefer members to keep quiet and take their medicine but they must realise that discussing significant changes to the governance of the profession in secret is going to lead to significant il feeling, and that those defending this position should expect direct and personal criticism. Remarkably the RCVS president has opted to (rather than recognise that secret discussions are inappropriate) double down and defend his 'blue sky thinking' in a safe space. I view Mr Connell's actions as shameful.

"Working hard' for our profession does not excuse poor judgment or bad decision making and the leadership of the BVA should rightly expect robust criticism for not challenging the college and their harmful proposals. The senior leadership team of the BVA knew this was coming (they had representation on the working party) and that they were not ready to condemn it outright is again to me shameful.

I agree that it is important to be consistent and I am quite prepared to make the same criticism face to face as online.

Rather than seek to defend their position they should accept that they have cocked up. Hold their hands up, apologise, retract the proposal to consider a change in the standard of proof, front up an explanation as to why they can't hit their own targets (and who is going to be held accountable if they can't meet them), reduce (near eliminate) the secret parts of council meetings and recognise that the most important part of the veterinary profession is the veterinary surgeon. Perpetuating harm on veterinary surgeons harms the profession and the council should stop doing so.

Finally I am of the view that the mantra of be kind is just an excuse to avoid unpalatable truths. I'd far rather being accused of being unkind and truthful than sit on my hands and let this sort of thing pass without comment.

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Mark Hedberg — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 06:18:51 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28912/be-kind-to-veterinary-leaders/219698"]Meantime, what do you think about increasing accountability? In other words demanding that anyone who wants to criticise must display a full profile: real name, photo, name of practice and telephone number?[/quote]

Not sure this would change anything, Alastair was using his (I assume) real name when he called Niall a lickspittle. A photo wouldn't change a great deal, would it?

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28912/be-kind-to-veterinary-leaders"]My first thought was: "Are they talking about us?"[/quote]

Probably not too surprising I thought the same thing - the forums here aren't kind to people in positions of responsibility. But it's by no means confined to here.

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:14:51 GMT

[quote userid="5869" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28912/be-kind-to-veterinary-leaders/219697"]Arlo Guthrie , I had no idea I activated a ‘reaction’ . Totally unintended![/quote]

Oh - OK, thanks for clarifying

I seem to be getting lots of agree and disagree notifications now, which are not appearing on the page ... suspect the bug we are still working on.

Meantime, what do you think about increasing accountability? In other words demanding that anyone who wants to criticise must display a full profile: real name, photo, name of practice and telephone number? I think that might level the playing field and change behaviour, whilst still allowing fair and reasonable criticism.

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Niall Connell — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 21:03:19 GMT

Arlo Guthrie , I had no idea I activated a ‘reaction’ . Totally unintended!

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Arlo Guthrie — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 20:43:21 GMT

[quote userid="8958" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28912/be-kind-to-veterinary-leaders/219693"]

Arlo Guthrie said:
Whilst I sympathise entirely with the letter, I am also slightly troubled by the idea that those in authority should be placed above criticism, robust criticism even, in the greater aim of 'being kind'.

What's the difference between a politician and BVA/RCVS member?

[/quote]

I think there is a world of difference between running a cycling club and regulating a profession. And when it comes to regulating a profession, the question of whether people are paid or not is really neither here nor there. In bald terms, I am not going to be nice to an elected official who did a bad job, just because they volunteered.

But don't get me wrong, I DO believe people should be polite. For me, that is a better word than 'being kind'. Perhaps I'm just getting too old, but a leader asking me to 'be kind' doesn't sound very leaderlike. I prefer #bepolite, or (if you like) 'show a bit of effing respect'!

I see I have picked up a 'disagree' from Niall Connell. What for, Niall? Are you disagreeing with my point that those in authority should be open to robust criticism? Or do you disagree with my drawing a difference between being kind and being polite. They are not so far apart, surely. Or is it because you faced criticism (and praise in equal measure, I thought) the other day regarding the changes to DC standards of proof? I reflected on that criticism at the time and felt it would have been wrong of me to censor it. But it really is a difficult call.

As I said in the news story, I think this IS an issue. Everywhere online, not just the profession. I don't think the answer is just to ask people to be kind, or polite for that matter. I think the answer is to make the internet more accountable.

RE: Be kind to veterinary leaders

Neil Wheadon — Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:52:21 GMT

[quote userid="2100" url="~/001/nonclinical/f/life-in-practice-discussions/28912/be-kind-to-veterinary-leaders"]Whilst I sympathise entirely with the letter, I am also slightly troubled by the idea that those in authority should be placed above criticism, robust criticism even, in the greater aim of 'being kind'.[/quote]

What's the difference between a politician and BVA/RCVS member?

Representatives in our profession are volunteers, they give up their time. Sure they enjoy the kudos of it all but at the end of the day they give their time freely.

I volunteer and have organised over 100 cycling events/holidays. I occasionally get flak if something goes wrong, but my stock answer is there 'If you don't like it. organise it'

In any organisation there is a surprisingly small number of people willing to give their time, yes comment, but you need to Be Kind in how you do it

Neil