Osiris Training

Two high profile sports commentators are dismissed for making sexist remarks when they thought they were off air. Evidence is subsequently shown that they were serial offenders. So how come their bosses didn’t take action before? In failing to do so were they not guilty of collusion? Is management not about challenging inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour? Is leadership not about setting the tone within an organisation promoting the right culture?

Are there parallels here with management and leadership in all organisations including local government? These offending comments and behaviour may have been made off air but they were made at work so wouldn’t senior management expect line management to take action to make it clear this was unacceptable and will not be tolerated? As a senior manager I would have but I have chair enough grievance hears and disciplinary cases to know that some line managers either do not have the confidence to challenge , don’t want the hassle or don’t believe that the organisation really wants them to act despite what it says in the policy and procedures.

So how should managers show effective leadership?

Blair McPherson is a former director of community services in a large local authority and author of An Elephant in the Room an equality and diversity training manual published by www.russellhouse.co.uk              

The philosophy of central government this one and the last could be summed up as all things private are superior to the public sector. The obsession with measuring everything was imported from the private sector, the focus on efficiency over effectiveness was from the private sector, the idea that management consultants could benefit the public sector was based on their use in the private sector and it was those in the private sector who promoted the idea that what the public sector needed was more “business people”. If the salaries in the public sector were too low to attract these business people into management posts then they could be offered positions on the board. NHS Trusts have embraced this model from the private sector with great enthusiasm and have as many non executive paid part time board members as they do Directors.

This preoccupation with all things private has its origins in the public sectors desire to improve the quality of management. Things are changing but initially this involved sending senior managers to business schools where it quickly became apparent that things were done very differently in the private sector. This became the public sector could learn a lot from the private sector and then the public sector needs to become more like the private sector.

Whilst it would be ridicules to say the public sector has nothing to learn from the private sector it would be equally short sighted to claim the private sector has nothing to learn from the public sector. So this is my attempt to start to redress the imbalance and say what we do that the private sector may wish adopt.

1.      Openness about pay-everyone knows what everyone else is paid. Thus avoiding a situation where two people doing the same job are paid vastly different amounts. Not only is this good practise it is against the law to pay women less for doing the same job.

2.      Equal opportunities in recruitment-have targets and monitor progress and have a workforce that at every level reflects the local community.

3.      A sense of responsibility to the local community-buying local and being green.

4.      Accountability and openness-freedom of info

5.      Ethics-“greed is not good” and you should pay your taxes however clever your accountants

6.      Disciplinary processes- no getting rid of people just because their face no longer fits.

7.      Good employer-annual leave, sick pay and pensions.

8.      Recognition of trade unions

9.      Socially responsible-job opportunities for disadvantaged school leavers and people with a disability.

10.   Staying within budget-Local authorities are particularly good at this and one has never gone bust!

Of course it is important to recognise that the public and private sector are different and so not every business model or management technique is transferable nor should every business be expected to assume a community leadership role. And of course the public sector is not about making a profit but making a difference.

Blair McPherson is author of Equipping Mangers for an Uncertain Future published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

Ambitious managers are like sharks. They need to keep moving or they die. This is why they change jobs so frequently. Eighteen months is not too short a time and three years long enough in one job.

 Managers on their way up are expected to be dynamic and energetic and the evidence of this is the amount of change they introduce.

 If you want to get a head you have to be dedicated and hard working to give the appearance of being very active whether or not all this activity leads to any improvements.

Restructuring is an excellent way of demonstrating big changes and for creating a huge amount of activity. This is the equivalent of shifting the office furniture around. After much discussion and a few sweaty hours things look different. The opportunity may even have been used to have a bit of a clear out but nothing has really changed. A few people may had changed seats one or two may have a slightly different view but the reasons given for change greater efficiency and a better way of doing things are not much in evidence.

Leaders are judge by their ability to make change happen and managers by their enthusiasm for change. Change is very much on the agenda driven by the demands of making budget savings and what better way to make those saving than by a management restructuring. But will the latest management restructuring make the savings claimed? Will this be enough or will most of the saving still have to come from services cuts? Will the costs of management early retirements and voluntary redundancies make this an expensive exercise? Will the disruption to services caused by distracted managers and the loss of management expertise be justified by improved services?

Ambitious managers won’t hang around to find out the answers to these questions.

Blair McPherson author of Equipping Managers for an Uncertain Future published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

The President of the association of directors of adult social services (adass) had a go at hospital managers and the cheers could be heard across social services throughout the land. Richard Jones used to be my boss so I know he doesn’t like publically criticising colleagues in the NHS believing it to be counterproductive. So what provoked him to stick the boot in via a national news paper (Guardian 19/1/11)?

He was responding to a front page story that thousands of older patients are being forced to stay in hospital after they were fit enough to leave due to cuts in social services. He pointed out that the cuts haven’t yet happened they will come in with the new financial year in April. He pulled no punishes and stated that bed blocking was down to NHS inefficiencies not cuts in social care. He rammed the point home by stating that it was easier for hospital based colleagues to blame social services rather than look at their own actions. He followed this up with a volley of well aimed examples including closing hospital wards to save money, delays in transferring patients from one ward to another and hospital pharmacies being closed at weekends. If he had wanted extend his range of targets he could have targeted OT and Physio departments that are closed at weekends whilst hospital social workers have been put on 12 hour, seven day a week contracts to clear beds. He could have referred to the anecdotal evidence of consultants not being around on certain days to agree a discharge due to ” other commitments” and he could have said that some ward staff don’t help colluding with relatives in resisting sending a frail patient home because they think they should transfer to a care Home. I am remind of the case I was asked to look into where a doctor was incensed that a patient was still in one of his beds when he had said they were fit to be discharged a week ago only to discover the ward staff were holding on to the patient till a bed became available in the Nursing Home of her choice near where her family lived. But Richard is too nice a guy to really stick the boot in.

The announcement that Steve Jobs is to step down as chief executive of Apple for health reasons had an immediate impact on share prices and has prompted discussion about whether it is good for a company to be so identified with one individual. The so called cult of the chief executive is also recognised in the public sector. These are individuals who are credited with turning around failing organisations or for making mediocre organisations great. Some come in at a point of crisis work their magic and go on to bigger and greater things others build over a many years and go only reluctantly when retirement beckons. Whichever type they are they present the problem of what happens when they leave. 

I am sure even Steve Jobs, credited as he is for making Apple a globally successful company, has a very competent team of senior managers backing him up and that Apple has some of the brightest and most innovative people in the industry working for them. So why is the stock exchange so nervous? Put another way why does any successful organisation, service or team worry about the impact of a high profile leader leaving unless they think what has been achieved is all  down to that individual. Some of this can be explained by natural anxiety along the lines of what if the replacement isn’t any good or wants to change everything? There may be a concern that some of the most able and experienced managers will see this as the time to go, their loyalty was to the individual not the organisation. New chief Executives like new senior managers want to surround themselves with their own appointments, people who think like them and don’t keep referring to how things were done under the predecessor. So some closely associated with the old order may be encouraged to go. There may be concern that these changes of key personnel will adversely affect the organisation all be it in the short term.

It could be that this high profile highly regarded charismatic leaders achievements were down to their sheer force of personality, people at all levels in the organisation believed in this person and were prepared to go along with their vision and their decisions because they liked and respected them. Nothing wrong with that you say we want and need leaders who inspire their staff. Well in my view we don’t. This type of leadership may be very effective in a crisis but this” cult of the leader” is very damaging for an organisation in the longer term. To use a sporting analogy this would be the difference between a great team and a great club. A great team goes a whole season without losing, a great club is one that has a succession of successful teams even though the individuals change the philosophy behind the way the club is run doesn’t. In organisational terms the culture is not follow the leader the culture is based on a shared set of values, a shared vision of the future and an agreed way of doing things. This will not change even if the leader does.

Blair McPherson author of Equipping Managers for an Uncertain Future published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

Equality for women in the workplace has gone as far as it can go. So there is no need for further legislation. A target of 50/50 is hopelessly unrealistic because fewer women than men want to be senior managers. So says Catherine Hakim a sociologist at the London School of Economics in a report to be published by the Centre for Policy Studies.

Of course this doesn’t fit with the evidence on equal pay produced by the Human Rights Commission which can be summed up as the gap is closing so slowly that without further legislation it is unlikely to have closed for our great grand draughts never mind our daughters. There is evidence that some women, partially those with family commitments have the ability but not the desire to be senior managers but this is also true of a growing number of men. This lack of ambition should in its self prompt questions such as what is it about senior management that is turning some very able people off? Then there is the anecdotal evidence that women are losing   out in management restructurings designed to reduce the overall number of management posts. Its middle management posts that are being cut the very areas women have successfully occupied in the public sector.

Restructurings results in redundancies but also opportunities. In my experience men respond to these opportunities by banging in an application if nothing else it will show them I am ambitious. They are not put off by the range of responsibilities, gaps in their experience or the significantly higher salary. The thinking seems to be why not me and if they appoint me then obviously they think I can do it after all no one is expected to know everything from day one. Typically when I have asked able female colleagues why they did not ably for a senior post in the new structure they have been put off by the high salary. One such colleague summed this up by saying for that sort of money they will expect too much. The women I worked with as a coach and mentor had a tendency to focus more on their lack of experience in some aspects of the job and have unrealistically high expectations about what someone new in the post ought to know and be able to do from day one.

 The current wave of management restructurings involve merging services resulting in fewer managers but with greater spans of responsibility won’t inhibit the over confident from applying but might put off those concerned about their lack experience and knowledge of services they would be responsible for.

So has equality gone as far as it can? No clearly not. Do we need legislation to speed up change? Clearly we do. Is a 50/50 profile of senior management teams an appropriate and realistic target? No because in areas like local government the workforce is 80/20 in favour of women so why would the target be 50/50?

Blair McPherson is author of An Elephant in the Room-an equality and diversity manual and Equipping Managers for an Uncertain Future both published by www.russellhouse.co.uk 

.

They don’t blame you for the cuts, the redundancies or the pay freeze. They believe you when you say there is no choice. You smile, you sympathise, you share a glimpse into your family life, you’re not so different from them. But you are, you’re well paid with a very generous pension you don’t need another job but if you want one it will be offered.

You truly believe what you say when you say it, your sincerity is delivered with well practiced conviction.

 You’re friendly, approachable with a easy smile and a good memory for names and a total lack of integrity. Everyone agrees you’re a charming man.

You don’t take sides and you don’t take a stance. You’re every ones friend who could possible dislike such an agreeable you. Sometimes unpleasant things do have to be said in this harsh financial climate but you will get someone else to play bad cop to your good cop. Your values are unstated; your vision adaptable, your nick name is Teflon because nothing bad ever sticks.

You look good in a suit, your shoes are always shinny, your hair well cut, you look the part. You say the right things, you know the right people, you’re comfortable in the presence of the powerful and at ease with your own elevated status. With your winning smile and affable nature everyone agrees you’re a charming man.

Those who have followed your career known you did not get where you are today without a ruthless streak to go with that easy charm. After all the ends justify the means and the name of the game survival.

You may think I am talking about a particular political leader but in fact I’m describing a style of management and leadership increasingly to be found in the public sector. A management style that would be recognised by chief executives in hung councils or ones prone to frequent changes of the majority party.

You won’t see it on the person specification or job description, you won’t see it in the advert, charm is an unspoken requirement for senior management. 

Blair McPherson author of Equipping Mangers for an Uncertain Future published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

The BBC was not being ageist in its attitude towards Miriam O’Reilly. It is happy to employ older male presenters to add gravitas and younger women to provide eye candy. This is not ageist it is sexist. Is the distinction important?

Would you be surprised if I said there was an Italian late night news show in which the weather is presented by young women in sexy bathing costumes, bikinis if it’s going to be hot and one piece if it’s going to be cold? Would you consider the fact that by adopting this type of approach Italian TV has more female presenters than British TV a step forward in equality or a step backwards?

So it is not just about numbers. It also not just about the BBC they are reflecting what they think audiences want which of course is exactly what Italian TV producers would say. Television is reflecting widely held attitudes in society it is just that they are less subtle about it in Italy. It is also not down to unenlightened men as a significant proportion of people making decisions about who is right for their shows are women. 

Not only does this tell us much about attitudes to women it has parallels with other areas of equality. For example the number of black people working in local authorise was increased by creating posts specifically to work with ethnic minority communities. Subsequently these staff found it difficult to move on even to other posts in policy and training as they were considered too specialist. A bit like being the” weather girl” gets you into TV but could work against you getting a post as a serious presenter.

The desire to increase the number of people from Ethnic minority groups within the local authorities’ workforce was genuine but by focusing on numbers not attitudes the result was unintended and ultimately unhelpful. Like the BBC, local authorities have a responsibility not just to reflect public opinion but to lead it, to challenge attitudes not collude with them. So local authorities should lead by example in employing people with a learning disability, not creating jobs specifically for people with a disability to increase the numbers, hit equality targets and look good but challenge and change attitudes of managers and colleagues.

This is not easy and is even more difficult in the current financial climate with cuts to training budgets and redundancies but this does not excuse us from thinking more clearly about the roots of discrimination and how best to tackle them.

Blair McPherson author of An Elephant in the Room-an equality and diversity training manual published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

I’m not talking about romantic novels I am referring to the transcripts of dicsiplinaries. As a senior manager I regularly chaired disciplinary hearings. Wickedness, ignorance or incompetence, managers have to decide.  Chairing a disciplinary hearing is all part of being a manager.  Fiddling expenses, favouring family or friends and accessing pornography on the works computer is wrong but abusing vulnerable people in our care is wicked.

Abuse is rarely straight forward physical assault.  In residential and nurseling homes abuse is often psychological and emotional. It’s about power. It starts with organising the work around the convenience of staff rather than the needs of residents and it leads to individuals withholding help from residents /patiants who are seen as too demanding.

If someone needs help to go to the toilet, if they can’t feed themselves or if someone else looks after their pain killers then they tend to be compliant, uncomplaining even grateful.  If they’re not the next time they need to go to the toilet they may have to wait a little longer.

It takes a brave resident to complain.  Usually it is a new member of staff who blows the whistle.

As a chair of a disciplinary hearing you will need to decide what is ignorance; lack of training, lack of insight.  What is down to poor management; a failure to promote good practice and challenge bad practice.  And what is just wickedness.

Place a drink just outside of the reach of a profoundly disabled person and then removing the untouched drink with the words ‘not thirsty then’.  Making someone wait so long to go to the toilet that they soil themselves then make loud comments about the smell and ‘why didn’t you say you needed to go to the toilet’. Such cruelty is not something that additional training can address.

Caring for very dependent people; toileting, dressing, washing, feeding and lifting heavy people in and out of bed and on and of the toilet is physically hard work. But it shouldn’t lead to people being treated like objects.

 Not everyone is appreciative of the help provided; some people are angry and frustrated about their disability and dependency. Caring for vulnerable people can be emotionally draining. This may explain why some staff react the way they do but it’s not a reason to give such staff a second chance.

 Hard work, antisocial shifts and low pay mean it is often difficult to recruit staff but that’s not a reason to tolerate lower standards.

  If you dismiss this member of staff they are unlikely to get another job, they have a family, a mortgage.  But what sort of manager would you be if you didn’t.

www.blairmcpherson.co.uk