Osiris Training

Redundancies and redeployment present a challenge to the over 50’s. One minuet you are fielding phone calls from head hunters for top jobs the next you’re trying to demonstrate you still have the drive and energy for a post in the new structure.

If your post doesn’t exist in the new structure and early retirement is neither desirable nor an option then how do you go about getting a job somewhere else in the organisation? If you work in the public sector the current harsh financial climate will mean job losses for managers but as well as losers there will be winners. The new slimmer management structure may have fewer managers but there will still be good jobs to be had for the right people. Why shouldn’t that be you?

Some of your colleagues will take early retirement and a few will take voluntary redundancy, the rest will be the competition. The winners get a new job title and may be more money but defiantly a bigger work load. The losers get redundancy. Being in the public sector you are unlikely to be in competition from outside the organisation, not at this first round stage anyway. The public sector doesn’t like to make people redundant then advertise new higher paid post, it looks bad.

So what is likely to be your biggest obstacle to getting a plumb post or at least a comparable one? New structures are usually announced in a language which refers to the need for dynamic, enthusiastic and energetic leadership with an emphasis on innovation and new ways of doing things. Subconsciously both those applying and those appointing may hear this to mean “young” managers. The stereotype is that older managers (50+) are set in their ways, not as ambitious, less likely to be up for a new challenge and lacking the energy to drive the changes required. Of course this may well be true of some older managers just as it is true of some much younger managers. It not really an age thing it’s an attitude. Never the less if you’re over 50 you will have to challenge the stereotype and demonstrate you’re up for the challenge.

Start with the personal statement section on your job application, list your top ten achievements in relation to bringing about change. Use all that experience to evidence your transferable skills and how you have used these budget management, people management and information management skills on previous occasions when there were budget cuts, service reductions, redeployments and restructurings. This is not the cynical “seen it all before, try it, found it doesn’t work” attitude but the “I have faced these challenges, know what to expect and am therefore confident I can lead staff through a period of change”.

The next task is to demonstrate your creativity. Why not start by referring to the proposals you submitted for achieving the efficiency targets and delivering the budget savings not just the ideas that were accepted but the ones that were considered too radical or politically undeliverable at the time. This will help convey your enthusiasm for looking at new ways of doing things and provide the opportunity to show that you appreciate the political climate has changes and councillors and staff are now willing to think the unthinkable.

This statement should be about 2 sides of typed A4, short, sharp and punchy not long, repetitive and irrelevant. The interview is your chance to build on this so prepare accordingly. You will have a lot more examples to draw upon than your less experienced colleagues.

As a former Director who chaired many interview panels I was always looking for   someone who could inspire staff and take responsibility for getting things done but I also wanted evidence of wisdom to go with all that drive and ambition.

Blair McPherson author of Equipping managers for an uncertain future and People management in a harsh financial climate both published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

It has been the buzz word in social work and adult social care for at least the last three years. Personalisation was to be the vehicle for transforming Adult Social Services. The idea was simple enough just give people who had a disability money to buy their own support services rather than have a whole industry around telling people what they could have from a very limited ”take it or leave it” local authority list.

The news that a recent survey has found that social workers believe Personalisation will fail and that only a minority believe service users will benefit from individual budgets is hardly a big surprise.

Personalisation was never championed by social workers but by service user groups, politicians and senior managers. It was always in danger of over promising and under delivering all the more so now it is finance driven rather than practise led. The brave thing to do would be to retain it as an option but recognise it has been oversold and scale the whole thing back.

In reality this is what is likely to happen but not likely to be ever stated. Personalisation fits with the Tory party ideology on choice and control and it shifts service away from the public sector but giving people the money isn’t very attractive when budgets are being cut and what you’re likely to be given isn’t likely to buy you what you need never mind what you want. So targets for personalisation are likely to be quietly dropped which is how government indicate to senior managers and local politicians that they have lost interest and moved on to something else.

Not much point in introducing it into the NHS them.

Blair McPherson author of People management in a harsh financial climate and Equipping managers for an uncertain future both published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

On the news yesterday and in the papers today was a highly critical report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).The report details the repeated failure of Leicestershire police to recognise that a single parent with a daughter with learning disabilities was vulnerable and was a repeat victim. Fiona Pilkington and her daughter suffered 10 years of abuse, threats and vandalism until in a state of utter despair she locked herself, her daughter and the family pet rabbit in the car and set it alight.

This was not just a failure by the Police it was a failure by the housing department,  by the social services by the community health services her neighbours all failed to act. This collective failure is now being repeated by the media who continue to fail to recognise and describe this for what it is- Hate crime.

This is what I wrote at the time of their deaths unfortunately it is need saying.

We know that people are abused, assaulted and even killed because of the colour of their skin.  We know that people have been the subject of violence and death threats due to their religion.  We know of people who have been kicked to death for no other reason than they were believed to be gay.  We know of people with a learning disability whose lives are made hell by local children shouting abuse and throwing stones at them in the street.  We know from a survey carried out by Leonard Cheshire Foundation which found that one in ten disabled people have been the victim of hate crime.

To abuse and assault someone simply because of their colour. religion, sexuality or disability is a crime motivated by hate. Whilst such crimes are recognised in law as different and more serious because of their motivation do public sector services and the general public see it this way?

If you work with people who have a learning disability your aim is to help them have a job, a home and a social life but the more you succeed the greater the risk of exposing them to the ” hate” of some in the community. Those people who don’t want “them” living here.

The abuse can get so bad it drives the individual to suicide. It happened in Leicestershire recently a mother killed her self and her disabled daughter by dousing her car in petrol and setting it alight with the two of them inside. They were driven to this level of despair by a local gang of youths who had terrorised them for years.

Why was this allowed to happen? The main reason seems to be that those who should have offered protection did not recognise this as hate crime dismissing it in stead as anti social behaviour. I am sure this will not be the only place or the only example of the public sector services failing to recognise hate crime.

How do we get agencies to recognise hate crime?

Clearly there is much that can be done through raising awareness. Police, housing, schools and social service staff can gain an insight into the experience of those who have been the subject of prolonged and ongoing abuse and violence by hearing their stories. Agencies can adopt a more sympathetic response and challenge their own attitudes in much the same way as police and housing officers have done in relation to domestic violence. And like domestic violence this is not just about getting agencies to treat these offences more seriously and use the law more effectively it is about changing attitudes in the wider community.

This starts in schools and involves recognising the difference between bullying which is unpleasant and unacceptable and homophobic bullying or racism which is a crime. It means being able to defend this position against the popular media’s cries of political correctness, in much the same way as treating this in the wider community not as anti social behaviour but criminal behaviour.

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

I had a dream in which I visited a great management guru high on a windswept snowy mountain top. “Oh wise one how should I go forward as a manager” I said and she said “the answer is you must care and not care at the same time”. I am still trying to work out what this means.

Does caring about work involve being passionate about your job? Is it about being involved and having high standards, caring about the quality of your work? The major part of the role is about managing people so is it about caring about your staff? What form should this take, showing an interest in them as individuals not just workers? Does this involve getting involved in their personal problems? What about when you have to increase their workload or reduce their hours, tackle them about their attendance record, turn down a request to go on a course or say it is some one else’s turn to have time off in the school holidays. What if there are no jobs for some of your staff in the new structure it’s not very caring making people redundant.

Is this what is meant by not caring, as in not caring if your decisions make you unpopular and not caring what others think of you as long as you are true to yourself.

Blair McPherson author of People management in a harsh financial climate and Equipping managers for an uncertain future both published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

Management must be one of the best examples of the triumph of hope over experience. We are always trying to improve services, make savings, better performance and reduce costs. In local government we are forever coming up with new polices and new strategies. Why? Basically because we never quite get it right. Yet we believe it can be got right and we see the task as persuading others that this policy will address the concerns and that this strategy will deliver, all we need is for everyone to believe in it. The fact that they so often do is surly a triumph of hope over experience.

It’s like your average football supporter no matter what happened last season even if their team was relegated they believe at the start of every new season that this could be their year. With a new manager and a couple of significant additions to the team they could enjoy success .In the Public Sector the equivalent is service reorganisation and management restructuring. This is always over sold and inevitably under delivers which is why it is so often quickly repeated.

Staff frequently complain that there is too much change taking place too quickly but the response of those leading the way is that the reorganisations and restructurings in the past were not bold enough what we need is a more radical approach, a cultural change, a transformation of services. As managers our job is not to question the policies (not in public any way) our job is to help devise the strategies to deliver the policies and persuade staff that this is the right thing to do. This often involves persuading our selves first, emphasising the positives because it is more difficult to sell something you don’t believe in.

Managers therefore need to be able to focus on the positives and see the possibilities which is why you would never knowingly appoint a cynic to a management post. It may not say it in the Job Description but managers are required to be eternally optimistic.

Management may be an example of the triumph of hope over experience but then isn’t most of life; it has to be or we would never get out of bed in the morning let alone fly to the moon.

Blair McPherson author of Equipping managers for an uncertain future and People management in a harsh financial climate both published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

Birmingham city council was yesterday found to have acted unlawfully in it plans to cut services to people with a disability. The decision was based on a test case brought by three people but will certainly have caused concern in social service departments across the country. Birmingham’s proposals were not significantly different to those made by most Local authorities face with the need to make very big budget savings. So what does this decision by the courts mean?

This is not the victory for people with a disability or vulnerable people that some would like to claim. Whilst it is another reminder to Local Authorities that they must pay careful attention to the consultation process rather than just lip service it really doesn’t mean that cuts to services to vulnerable and disabled people can be prevented by legal action. Yes, L.A’s must demonstrate that they are fully aware of the implications of their decisions particularly with regard to race, gender and disability. However members’ calculations will inevitably be bases on whether budget options are politically deliverable this is exactly how it should be in a democracy. The remedy is not to be found in the courts but the ballot box.

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

Do you remember the debate on what it means to be British? Do you remember Norman Tebbit’s cricket test (who do Asian youths support when England are playing Pakistan?). Do you remember the outrage when a Scottish politician said that as Scotland weren’t in the world cup he would be supporting Brazil? Well sometimes you have to listen to this type of debate in another country to get a real insight into the links between race and identity. France has just provided us with this opportunity.

The story dominating the French media not just the sports pages concerns some leaked tapes of a discussion at the French Football Federation (FFF). On the tapes leading figures including the manager of the national team can be heard discussing quotas to limit the number of non white players entering the National Football Academy. The outrage was such that the French government had to intervene, suspend officials and promise an independent enquiry.

Race is a sensitive issue in France as it is in Brittan but the reaction was so strong because the French Football Association was considered one are of French life that seemed to have come to terms with a modern muli racial society. After all the French won the world cup  in 1998 with a team full of black footballers  whose parents came from French speaking African counties. The star player the very symbol of this “rainbow team” was Zinedine Zidane born in Marseilles but whose parents came from Algeria.

Initially the FFF claimed it was all a misunderstanding that it was nothing to do with race but a concern about players who held dual nationality who were learning their skills in the French Academy only to opt to play for another country at full international level. The argument was this was undermining the French national team. The solution being discussed was to limit the number of young people with dual nationality entering the academy. Of course all those with dual nationality were black.

What the ensuing national debate revealed was that people born in France of African parents don’t consider themselves French. Ask a young black person in the street what country do you come from and they will say Morocco, Ivory Coast or the Congo even though they were born in France.  Young footballers are no different to the rest of the population and the FIFA rules mean the can opt to play at full international level for the country of their parents even if they have played for France at youth level.

So the question is not was the FFF being raciest in even considering introducing quotas for young black footballers but why do people born in France not consider themselves French? The answer appears to be that they don’t feel accepted or made to feel they belong in France.

 So for the rest of us the question is what does it take for all sections of the community to feel they belong.

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

What does increased efficiency mean in practise? What does a more flexible workforce look like? What changes when jobs are out sourced? The move to cut costs in the public sector started long before the current financial crises. It started with year on year efficiency targets, a belief that services were being run to suit the convenience of staff rather than the other way round and the knowledge that the private sector did it cheaper. The times have become more austere but the thinking remains the same. Initially it was services like cleaning that were out sourced or contracted out to the private sector to save money now it is admin, personnel, training, finance and IT. In the public sector where 80% of the workforce is female these changes have disproportionately affected women. You can also add to “back office” jobs care work as local authorities closed their Homes for older people and contacted out their Home Help services to the private sector.

Now is a good time to look at what happened as a result of those early out sourcing initiatives as an indication of what is likely to happen on a much bigger scale as Public Sector organisations are forced to make saving of up to 30% over the next 3 to 4 years.

Money was saved because the private sector paid staff less, offered less generous holiday and sickness entitlements and spent less on staff training so they could do the work cheaper. Now staff worked when the job required it not to fit in around the school day, a more flexible service but one that would rely on supportive grandparents or expensive child care for low paid staff no longer getting enhanced rates for evening and weekend work. In fact at one time the hourly rates for care work were so low that private sector homes for older people said they were losing staff to supermarkets that paid more to shelf stackers. The extent of this problem may have varied from one part of the country to another but it was certainly an argument used by homes owners in their negotiations with local authorities to get an increase in fees. Of course the general job market is now such that there are dozens if not hundreds of people chasing every job even those that pay the minim wage.

 The other trend to emerge is the casualization of work. This is where people are not offered a permanent job with the benefits that go with it like sick pay and holiday entitlement but “as and when “work. This means that workers never know from one week to the next how many hours work they will have which in turn means they may have two or three jobs to ensure they can pay the bills. It also means they are at the mercy of supervisors and managers who set hopelessly unrealistic time scales for completing tasks, threaten dismissal for the tiniest mistake and expect staff to be “cooperative”. The scope for bulling and abuse is obvious. In fact casual workers don’t need to be dismissed with the bureaucracy that might involve they simply are not offered any more work.

The simple message is that efficiency initiates, the clamour for flexible working and the drive to outsource work in the public sector leads to bad jobs and that is bad news for a predominantly female workforce.

Blair McPherson An Elephant in the Room an equality and diversity training manual and People management in a harsh financial climate both published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

I recently responded to an enquiry from a housing officer who was seeking good examples off policies and strategies for dealing with domestic violence. A few days later I read about the “slut walk”. What these two things have in common is that they are both about tackling violence against women. They come at a very serious problem from very different perspectives one is an organisational response the other a grass roots reaction, one is about policies and strategies the other is about anger and protest. Both are needed yet both caused me some disquiet.

Violence against women is a serious problem. On average two women a week are killed in this country by their male partners or ex partners. This is a worldwide problem the slut walk protest originated in Toronto University and spread to USA cities tapping into the anger felt by female students. This is not just a problem in western societies recent articles in the press have highlighted the abuse suffered by women in Indian travelling on public transport and there was the shock when we learnt of a female T.V. reporter from a US news channel who was set upon by a mob during the recent street protests in Egypt.

The fact that a housing colleague wants to learn of best practise in this area is of course to be encouraged however what first struck me about this request was the reference to ”domestic abuse” I may be being over sensitive but this seemed to be down grading the issue. My second concern was that the way the request was phrased made me wonder whether the individual just wanted to take a short cut and lift a readymade policy complete with key performance indicators. In some respects there is nothing wrong with identifying some recognise best practise documents and adapting them to fit locally. The risk is that production of the policy document will be seen as an end in it own right  .My experience is that the process of developing such a policy, engaging the widest interest group, providing opportunities to share experience, exchange ideas and challenge assumptions  with the result of changing thinking that is the real product not the document.

My unease about the “slut walk” was that the intension of reclaiming the word “slut” so that it was no longer a derogatory word was in danger of distracting the wider audience from the initial issue which was that of blaming the victim for the crime. What happened was a police officer gave a talk to a group of female students at Toronto University in response to concerns about assaults including rape that are alarmingly high on student campuses. The students were understandable out raged when the officer advised that” women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to become victims”. Hence protests centred around a number of university towns in which some dressed accordingly resulting in the photos that accompanied the reporting of the “slut walks”.

No doubt those who organised these protest walks would say that they have managed to get people talking about a serious issue at a time when simply quoting the appalling statistics no longer shocks or grabs the headlines.

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