IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Job Sharing Chief Executives- ' 3 off '.What are the legal and practical implications?
Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Aidan Toner
Prior to an amalgamation of local authorities, a local authority has decided NOT to immediately replace it's retired Chief Executive but rather fulfill the function on an ongoing rotational basis with 3 Directors. Each Director holds the position of Acting Chief Executive for 3 months. Your thoughts on legal and management implications please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Extremely dodgy. I like CEOs to take and state personal responsibility for H&S and I can't see that happening with a rotating chair.
But it could prove to be a neat legal get out if a policy, practice or procedure established by one CEO proved faulty during the reign of another. "it wasn't me, it was her" or alternatively "I was not, at the time, the controlling mind. Sue the other bloke"
The whole thing sounds to me weak, cowardly and indecisive.
But I bet they get paid a lot of money. (any vacancies ?)
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Aiden
It is certainly an unusual set of circumstances to say the least. I shall not go down the insidious route, however, I will draw your attention to 'Directors' responsibilities and corporate governance issues. From a legal standpoint, I don't think there is a 'cop out' as each will have liability, shared or otherwise.
Forgetting safety for a moment, what about leadership? My previous company had joint MDs who were brothers, but both had their own areas of responsibility. Strange indeed.
Ray
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stupendous Man
Hmmmm...
Tough one to balance.
Yes I agree with the postings here that question the commitment and continuity of management.
But
If the three-month stints by each of the acting CEs form part of a process to see if there is a suitable internal candidate for the permanent role, then surely there is a benefit in following this route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Its not going to make much difference is it?
LAs possibly kill more people than the railways, but a LA CEO has never been punished yet.
These people say they should be paid on par with private industry, but walk away from the equivalent responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason911
True words indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ian milne
Agreed, this could be an internal 'sussing out whose best for the job' until a better candidate is found...and saves them some salary. Unless they all agree to sign off documents, I believe the authority would be fined rather than any individual, as usually happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charley Farley-Trelawney
Agree with Ian's comments, I would imagine that this is a chance to look at alternative methods and see if one shines out.
Dodgy practice indeed and most unprofessional.
(In my humble opinion)
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
Eh? What, apart from the obvious short time period, is different than any change-over of CEO? Why can't 3 people work as a team? Why should it be a hidden agenda exercise?
Whilst in office the responsibility is as defined in whatever organisation and arrangements exist for all the key executive control areas of the "business".
If they have chosen this method, they are also responsible for ensuring that risks, of any ilk and not just H&S, are adequately controlled during their tenure.
To suggest that this is unprofessional seems a little harsh to me. Will this period have a positive or negative impact? Depends on how well they do their job just like every other executive manager whether in post for 3 months or 3 decades.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Aidan Toner
Thank you for the assorted responses. I will possibly get back to you and give you an update as to how it all worked out-Was the cell big enough for the 3 chief execs and the safety advisor??? Stuff like that. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Zyggy Turek
fao Jim
As a Local Authority Adviser I am interested in your comment that "LA's possibly kill more people than the railways..."
Please could you qualify this statement?
Thanks,
Zyggy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By JPK
I would assume the reference is trying to get anything done by the LA, or at least a time scale for it!
And I quote 'Do as little as possible for as much as possible!'
An employee of a LA laughing as he told me, that is what his boss told him to do, when he kept meeting his department targets in his first year at the LA!
He was told 'You are going to cause us financial problems next year, and besides you dont need to do that much work, it's the council for god's sake!'.
Just what I was told, so please don't shoot the messenger!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Les Welling
Who will sign the Policy Statement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Why not all three of them to sign? Would show a level of commitment that I would be happy to see.
In terms of working for them, it could be advantageous - you put in a proposal, you don't like the response, wait three months and try again ...
It is possible that these people actually wanted the responsibility and are going to be happy to accept the chance of doing some good.
It also makes me think that three months could mean that things get approved faster - each CEO would want to be seen as the person who 'gets things done'. Presuming they are the same as the rest of us and already thinking of the next job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Job Sharing Chief Executives- ' 3 off '.What are the legal and practical implications?
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.