An Exemplary CEO & Absolute Role Model of Responsiveness

Some weeks back, I wrote a detailed account of my experience with an operational area of Wellington’s Bowen Hospital – a private hospital that’s part of the Evolution Healthcare stable of hospitals and specialist centres around the country.

While it was an unpleasant experience in its own right, my greater concern surrounded the way in which Bowen Hospital’s management handled it . . . or, rather, didn’t handle it; since all my attempts to communicate with whomever was at the top of the hospital's totem pole, were summarily ignored.

But worse than that, when I went down the “who owns this outfit?” rabbit hole, and found a corporate entity’s website with absolutely no means of making contact with anyone at that upper-level / parent body entity (no phone, no email address), my concern escalated as I contemplated the situation a patient or anyone needing to advocate for them, might have been in, in a truly serious situation.

Finding email addresses for several of their subsidiary operations, however, I sent each of these a request to on-send my concerned email to their parent organisation’s (i.e. Evolution Healthcare’s) Group CEO.

A Role Model-Worthy CEO Springs Into Action

And it was here that a highly responsible and role model-worthy CEO responded in a manner that should provide a flawless template for any corporate leader – or indeed, a senior operational-level manager – when faced with an escalated complaint from a customer, client, or member of the public.

Indeed, hats off to the example set by Evolution Healthcare Group Chief Executive, Professor Simon Keating – who swung into action immediately upon receipt of my email via whichever of his subsidiaries lost no time in forwarding it to him. (Thank you to those specific subsidiary enterprises.)

CEO/Prof Keating's actions, both individually and collectively, were impressive in their own right. Additionally, though, whether by sheer personal responsibility or whether by some pre-existent knowledge of the basic principles of media and crisis management, his response was truly "best practice":

1) He phoned me personally. I use only a landline and wasn't home, so he left a voicemail, with his personal mobile phone number, for me to return his call.

It takes a big person to do that, given that he might well have assumed he would be faced with a very angry complainant (I wasn't; rather, I was impressed at his responsiveness . . . but he wasn't to know that prior to picking up the phone to me).

2) When I hadn't yet gotten to returning his call by circa late morning the following day, he called again, personally. He immediately apologised unreservedly for my experience with his subsidiary enterprise. He advised that he was launching a full investigation into the various different aspects of my complaint. He advised that, in the interim, a particular staff member who had acted (very) inappropriately was being severely spoken to.

Acknowledgement of Customer's Concern Is First Step in Resolution Process

He was also quick to acknowledge the need for his corporate-level, parent-body website to have a phone number and a point of email contact - and advised me that he had immediately instructed his corporate marketing department to address the matter.

He thanked me for drawing this to his attention, and further, told me that he and the appropriate staff members would be putting in place a timeframe to advise anyone using said new email address, that they'd be responded to.

He also invited, and thanked me for, my suggestion as to the best wording for that first-level acknowledgement email. (NB: To be noted, strategic writing, marketing, media training and crisis management are all part of my professional skillset, while customer service is simply my personal passion.)

3) Shortly thereafter, Prof Keating followed up his phone call to me, with an email. He thanked me for my time spent with him on the phone, and he expressed genuine appreciation for my feedback. And to be noted, NOT some PR-verbiage template-style wording; no, he expressed his genuine appreciation for the value of both my (negative) feedback and my subsequent discussions with him. (It takes a big person to do that, too, when the original "feedback" had been nothing short of scathing.)

In that, the first of his several follow-through emails, he confirmed that his Group Corporate team had already now addressed the issues regarding phone and email contact points, adding that the website would, in time, feature specific wording encouraging customer feedback.

Follow-Up & Consistency Makes for Believability

4) In a further email, he advised that not only had he instructed that proper contact details be added to the Group Corporate website, but that now, each and every one of the Group's individual business units had also had more comprehensive contact details added to their websites.

"These have been tested and are working correctly," he wrote, adding that "the next phase of this is to develop a dedicated process for 'feedback' rather than simply via email enquiry." He even advised the specific role within the organisation that he'd tasked with keeping all contact details updated and functional.

Impressive.

The Prof's email also advised that, the following week, there was to be a meeting held with the executive in charge of the relevant hospital division, regarding all aspects of my complaint. He undertook to get back to me with the outcome of this.

True to his word, that is exactly what he did, within the general timeframe promised.

His next email advised that the executive responsible for looking after the Group's Hospital and Day Surgeries business, had identified and spoken with the staff involved in my "negative experience". He advised that my experience had also served to highlight some gaps in communication at an operational level, and he was glad that these had, as a result, been identified, in order that they could be addressed - with corrective processes put in place to ensure against any repeat thereof.

Finally, he conveyed to me, an apology from the specific staff member that catalysed the whole chain of events and my subsequent complaint - stating that said staff member now understood the "gravity" of his actions.

He concluded by once again thanking me for my detailed feedback, stating that, "I always take these opportunities as a way to improve our organisation, and feel on this occasion it has certainly done so." He added a particular specific that demonstrated just how seriously he really had taken my complaint.

A Case Study in 'Best Practice' Customer Complaint Response

It always astounds me that a corporation will apportion large amounts of marketing budget to all manner of consumer / customer base research initiatives (that aren't really underpinned by much "initiative", actually) . . . but completely ignore the no-cost feedback / complaints sent into them from their actual (real life, not hypothetical) customers! Or, at best, they'll have some mid-level-on-the-totem-pole staffer respond (often belatedly) with some intelligence-insulting PR correspondence template about how "seriously they take customer complaints / product / service quality blah blah blah" . . . demonstrating, effectively, that they don't take it particularly seriously at all.

Which is precisely why the response, actions, and sustained follow-through by the Evolution Healthcare Group Chief Executive deserves to be held up as the template for responsible and respectful customer relations and complaint handling.

Again, whether through prior training, or through common sense and a personal modus operandi based on responsibility (I suspect the latter), the manner in which Professor Keating responded was a demonstration-in-real-time not only of good leadership, but also of all the principles I learned decades ago during my time working in New Zealand’s then-largest public relations agency, and later, during my years in my own marcoms consultancy (which, in turn, were informed by my prior career as a reporter and journalist).

The Fundamentals of Media & Crisis Management (which should also apply to customer complaint handling)

I’ll lay out these basic, overarching principles here:

'Who' Matters

Provide a non-templated, personally-signed response from someone in an appropriately senior position - as a sign of respect to the injured / affronted / inconvenienced party.

And don't even consider being tempted to use only a first name (with no surname) in a response. That's downright disrespectful to the complainant and plain cowardly.

Immediacy of Response

Even if any immediate response can be only of an interim nature, RESPOND. Even if it’s only to say that you need time to gather all the surrounding facts.

Provide a reasonable timeframe within which you will respond - and do so.

Acknowledge the Severity of the Complainant's Concern & Their Feelings About the Matter

Never minimise, debate, or sweep over any aspect of a complainant's concern . . . most especially where he or she has taken the time to outline the detail of these. (I strongly recommend downloading my free ebook, 'The 5 Most Infuriating Things You Could Ever Say to A Pissed-Off Customer'.)

Commit to Investigate Thoroughly

Commit to investigate the complaint thoroughly - and do so with genuine neutrality. Err on the side of never justifiably having the "blood is thicker than water" criticism levelled at you for "closing ranks" or even appearing to close ranks on the customer / complainant.

If the investigation will take some time, explain why, and when you'll get back to the customer or complainant with your final conclusions. And you should step on the gas, too . . . don't drag the process out unnecessarily. That's not in anyone's interest: yours, your staff's, and certainly not the customer's. Nor that of your broader customer base, other members of which may also be experiencing whatever it is the complainant / customer has taken the time to draw to your attention.

Convey the Detail - Both of Your Findings and of Your Intended Corrective Action/s

Don't spare the detail in your correspondence, and most especially in reporting your findings and the corrective action you intend to take - both within your organisation for its own improvement, and by way of a remedy for your customer.

One of the key differentiators between a value-less, template-style response that does nothing more than further disappoint or aggravate the aggrieved customer, and a customer whose business and goodwill is retained (and who is potentially even turned into a raving fan), is the detail and degree of personalisation you demonstrate in your correspondence.

Express Sincere Gratitude for the Value of the Customer's Feedback (no matter how scathing)

The best and most effective leaders often employ the strategy of "leading from behind".

Exercising the humility to learn from your customer base and their expressed negative experiences is actually an opportunity to adopt practices and policies that stand to position your organisation way out in front of your competition. Chances are that, short of an extremely serious incident, your competitors are receiving similar types of complaint. Your opportunity lies in addressing these in a manner materially superior to those competitor organisations . . . the "turn them from a vociferous enemy and into a raving fan" strategy.

Indeed, a true leader understands the value of negative news-you-can-use.

Don't Make It A War of Correspondence

Put a face and a name to it by picking up the phone.

Why wouldn't you? Why shouldn't you?

Of all of the impressive actions that formed the Evolution Group CEO's response to my article here in The Customer & The Constituent, first and foremost was the fact that he wasted no time in picking up the phone (twice), even leaving his personal mobile number on my voicemail.

He had me right there. The rest was icing on the customer complaint-handling cake.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Massey’s Vet ‘Hospital’ Staffed by Unqualified Juniors Administering Drugs At Will, Committing Serious Animal Cruelty, Falsifying Diagnoses, Records & Coercing 'Euthanasia'

by Jordan Kelly • 15 March 2026

Editor’s Conclusion : Unqualified. Unsupervised. Unaccountable. And Still Accredited.

UPDATED 10.3.26: WAITING, MASSEY . . . Are You Going to Comply with Your Legally Required Information-Release Obligations?

by Jordan Kelly • 10 March 2026

UPDATED: 10.3.26 Will This Badly Behaving Institution Finally Allow the Full Truth to Be Revealed?

FOLLOW THE MONEY: The Compromised Veterinary Regulatory & Accreditation 'System'

by Jordan Kelly • 8 March 2026

Hidden in Plain Sight: Unashamed Conflicts of Interest to Make Your Head Spin

IN PROGRESS: How Massey 'Training' Produces the Low Vet Care Standards & Outright Contempt NZ Pet Owners Have to Tolerate

by Jordan Kelly • 4 March 2026

Time for Change : New Zealand's Pet Parents Say NO MORE to the Poor Standards, Compromised Care & Outright Contempt We Put Up With from the 'Products' of the Massey Veterinary Degree Factory

MASSEY VETS FALSIFY RECORDS: POLICE REPORT FILED

by Jordan Kelly • 27 February 2026

Readers following the coverage of my attempts to get to the bottom of what happened to my beloved little papillon, Harry, with whom I was extraordinarily closely bonded, will know that: (A) The rot in Massey University’s Companion Animal “Hospital” (CAH) runs deep. (B) Honesty and transparency is not their policy. Denial, dismissal, stonewalling, legal threats and intimidation are. (C) Animals aren’t safe there, with cruelty embedded in “care”, and your property (as your pet legally is) not considered your property at all, as far as Massey, its CAH staff and management are concerned. Your pet is theirs ; to do with as they please, according to their mindset and their modus operandi. And if that involves catastrophic levels of unauthorised, contraindicated, convenience sedation to facilitate their use of your pet in monetised student video collections (including on private cell phones, and to which you will be given no access), this too, according to Massey, is its own God-given right and “best practice” Standard Operating Procedure. (D) “Informed Consent” has a very different meaning in the Massey playbook to that which is generally deemed its accepted definition. (E) “Accountability” is a foreign concept and not one with which they have any intention of becoming acquainted. (F) Laws – including those governing animal welfare, property conversion and more – are not only optional, in Massey’s case, they simply don’t apply. In fact, they appear blissfully ignorant of them according to my (and Harry's) experience. You know all that. You’ve read about it here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here and in most of my other now 30+ articles covering the numerous different sub-atrocities within the overall atrocity that was the demise and disposal of my precious little Harry. Actually, "atrocious" doesn't come anywhere near to being an adequate adjective. Despite having been a professional writer since I was 16 and having upwards of 25 published books under my belt, I don't actually have an adjective that's adequate for the pure evil that was perpetrated upon Harry . . . and, by extension, me . There is not one word or one phrase that can sufficiently convey the depth and breadth of the sheer, unadulterated wickedness that festers without restraint within the walls of Massey University's Companion Animal "Hospital". What you, my readers (or those of you not on Massey's massive legal team payroll) didn’t yet know – because I didn’t yet know – is that record and evidence tampering (which, for any other New Zealand citizen would attract jail time of up to 10 years under the Crimes Act 1961 Section 258 (Altering document with intent to deceive) or Section 260 (Falsifying registers) , and/or a $10,000 fine under the Privacy Act Section 212(2)(b) - appears also to be included in the “we’re exempt” culture of Massey and its veterinary “hospital” staff. Note to Readers: The above laws aren't some hypothetical, bottom-drawer, dusty old legal tracts in archaic library textbooks. They're real, "living" laws that apply to every individual in our country. And today, they are being made to apply to Dr Stephanie Rigg and her "colleagues" who falsified Harry's records to create a cover-up of what they did to him . . . and to me. I will, duly, see Dr Rigg and her associates in Court. Dissecting the Cover-Up: Massey’s Metadata of Deception But back to what readers do know for a moment: You’ll know that I’ve been in the battle of battles for the past two months to extract Harry’s full records (or anything approaching them) from Massey’s Legal and Governance department. HOWEVER . . . there was one thing I hadn’t known how to decipher that they actually had finally drip-fed to me. It was File Name: Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) . I’ve been learning a lot about veterinary science, record-keeping, and law in general lately. Not because I wanted to. But because if you want to figure out how deep the rot really runs at Massey, you kind of have to. So I’ve learned a bit about how to decipher clinical metadata. Just e nough to realise that this Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit) is exactly where the digital fingerprints of a cover-up are hiding. Despite the fact that this document has as much redacted as it shows (probably more), with ALL staff names and positions blacked out, for example -I still found four distinct “smoking gun” entries in these otherwise heavily-redacted metadata logs. BIG. FAT. SMOKING. GUNS. that amounted to one undeniable overall conclusion: This document isn’t a clinical record so much as it’s a literal crime scene . There were already so many dodgy inconsistencies in the few items I'd managed to pull out of Massey to that point (as I've documented in various of my preceding articles). But this document is where, undeniably, the bodies are buried. You just need to know which clod of dirt to look under. Hidden in Plain Sight . . . In A Little Thing Called the Metadata (That the Average Pet Owner Wouldn't Even Know Existed ) There are four hidden but key findings demonstrating that the entire timeline of Harry’s “experience” in that hellhole were was orchestrated, and the sudden "neurological event/decline" exit strategy planned for him were a total fabrication. And that fabrication had a start time. (For this start time we will initially revert our focus back to Massey's previously-supplied "Clinical Summary" (in all its dodginess) . . . We will then lead from the immediately below into the afore-mentioned "Patient Change Log (Field-Level Audit)". Bear with me. I promise not to let this get boring). Well, one of two start times. Either: (1) The 8.38am disconnection of his (with, by-then, the TWO 750% overdoses of the renally contraindicated convenience sedative with which the "crying dog"-sensitive ICU staff had plied him overnight) now life-essential IV fluids (8.5 hours into the prescribed 24-hour protocol that they charged me for). And/or: (2) When the day shift ICU "vet" arrived at 9am and decided a THIRD 750% overdose would be a strategic way do deal with a clearly already massively overdosed little 3.8kg, 15-year-old, dehydrated dog. Now WHY would any vet take such a decision? Well, for legal purposes, of course (remembering that the Venerable Dean Jon Huxley and the obviously not- so-new-broom Vice-Chancellor Pierre Venter, have all the money in the public purse to pay their top-tier external legal counsel . . . and by gum, there are enough of the buggers, if this site's analytics are anything to be guided by), I will precede the following by stating that these are my conclusions, made on the basis of the collation and evaluation of the information before me. That said, what I know of my readers is this: You are no intellectual slouches. Feel free to let me know if you can come up with any other conclusion from the information (complete with now numerous "receipts") that I have thus far presented, most especially here and here , and most tellingly of all, in today's expose. R emember, though, I held the ultimate evidence in my arms at 6pm on December 1 . . . and, some 45 minutes later, I let them take it (safely, for them) away from me, just like Harry's (the literal body of evidence) life had just been taken from him. Little Numerals that Tell A BIG Story The plan for Harry's manufactured exit is not so much written into the records, as it is revealed by the tampering with the logs. They lay bare the lead vet’s apparent plan that his life would come to an abrupt end by the pre-scheduled time of (well, they couldn't quite get consistency in the logs regarding the exact minute, but by the absolute latest time of) 17:00 hours i.e. 5pm . . . assumedly, the end of the day shift on December 1. Just in time to mark him "Deceased" and seal off the records of this catastrophically overdosed patient, before the next shift came on, saw his records, and someone started asking the immediately necessary, and certainly appropriate, questions. And those questions would (0R SHOULD ) have included , but would certainly not have been limited to: How long has this dog been in this state? Why hasn't any rescue and remediation protocol been undertaken? Why was he given yet ANOTHER administration of 50mg of Gabapentin at 09:00 hours after the preceding two during night shift? Why is he disconnected from his IV fluids? Who approved that and why? (And if they knew he'd starred in a multi-video student film festival that morning): Was he taken out of his cage and handled in this state? When did he last drink? Was he given any food before he entered this near-comatose state? Does the owner know of the overdoses and the state he's in? Have you filled in an incident report? Have any emergency specialists been called in for advice? and, no doubt, many more questions. OR . . . maybe not. It depends if the rot in that ICU is fully immersive, or if it's concentrated on Dr Stephanie Rigg's day shift and the ICU shift staff of the preceding (November 30) night. But none of those questions could be asked and none of that could happen. The day shift - led by "Dr" Rigg ("Steffi") - wasn't about to let it happen. Thus, the pre-timestamped, just before end-of-shift, Time of Death entered into the "Euthanasia Authorisation" form that they had all queued up for me long before I ever arrived at that Godforsaken facility that fated December 1 afternoon.

(UPDATED) PROOF: Massey Vet, Teaching & ICU Staff INTENDED Harry to Die & Were Actively Facilitating It . . . & the VCNZ Has A MASSIVE Conflict of Interest

by Jordan Kelly • 17 February 2026

Harry WAS A Marked Dog. I Had Hoped Massey Vet Staff Couldn't Have Been Any More Wicked Than They'd Already Been Caught Out Being. But YES , Actually, They COULD .

CATASTROPHIC 750% OVERDOSING & DEATH . . . Gross Malpractice, Deception & Management Malfeasance at Massey

by Jordan Kelly • 15 February 2026

This Is What Happens When Massey Thinks THEY Own Your Dog & Can Do With Him As They Please (You Just Pay the Invoice) At This Appalling, Unaccountable Veterinary House of Horrors (LATEST PROOF OF 'LAB RAT' TREATMENT HERE )

NOT ‘Euthanasia’: A Cover-Up & A Coerced Termination Under False Pretences

by Jordan Kelly • 12 February 2026

FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS: GO HERE . My Precious Little Boy Died Needlessly, In Intense Physical, Mental & Emotional Agony . . . After Massive Overdosing, Intense Cruelty & Intentionally False Diagnosis by Massey 'Vet' (So Called) to Enable His 'Disposal' After Lab Rat-Style Experimentation

Massey University's Upside-Down Prioritisation of Taxpayer Funds: Fiscal Malfeasance & the TRUE Cost of Institutional Arrogance

by Jordan Kelly • 11 February 2026

While my focus is on the 750% overdosing of my precious little dog, Harry, with an unauthorised, contraindicated convenience sedative, his conversion from patient to live specimen, and the subsequent destruction of evidence (HIM), Massey’s focus is on deploying a taxpayer-funded legal hit squad to 'profile' me.

ICU Vet, Massey Neurologist & Dean of School: Dangerously Deficient or Just Plain Dangerous?

by Jordan Kelly • 8 February 2026

An Expert Contributed Commentary (FOR LATEST INVESTIGATION FINDINGS, GO HERE .)

If I Had to Formulate A Template for Managing Public Complaints, or Managing A Media Crisis, This CEO's Actions Would Be My Case Study for A Situation Well Handled