Osiris Training

Doing a Richard and Judy is an expression coined by the spin doctors. It means sitting on the sofa looking like a friendly, normal person, talking about every day things and deflecting the occasional tricky question with a smile and a joke at your own expense.

In the current harsh financial climate it is an approach increasingly used by chief executives and senior managers when addressing audiences of front line staff on tricky subjects like budget cuts, redundancies, changes to working practices and charging for staff car parking. The idea is to show your human side and that you understand the concerns of staff. In the communications jargon it is called “reconnecting”.

The style of the meeting is set at the outset by the chief executive removing their jacket, hanging it over the back of a chair and then rather than standing behind a lectern perching casually on the edge of a table at the front of the hall. The “conversation” starts with a story about a recent family holiday, taking the youngest at the weekend to their first football match or dropping them off at the Take That concert. The story involves a little humour at their expense.

Having established their warm caring side the idea is to explain that difficult times require difficult decisions, that doing nothing and carrying on as before is not an option and whilst can understand why people will be unhappy about some of the proposals the aim is to implement them in the fairest way. They personally appreciate the hard work done by staff and value their views.

 Rather than have questions from the floor the fairest way of ensuring everyone has a chance to have their say is to divide into groups facilitated by HR and spend the next 40 minutes coming up with the top three concerns and  top three suggestions. The feedback will be shared with the senior management team and a detailed response posted on the Chief Executives blog.

There is nothing wrong with this approach. As a genuine way of getting the views of staff it can be very effective provided of course the chief executive hangs around to hear the feedback and doesn’t rush of to an important meeting, the feedback goes to the next senior management team meeting and is not postponed because of very full agendas for the next few meetings, the blog comes out quickly and adopts in part at least some of the suggestions. Otherwise staff are likely to become cynical and view the Richard and Judy sessions as just another way of management avoiding difficult questions, deflecting criticism and diverting opposition.

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

A recent round table discussion of high profile local authority chief executives and representatives from the big name management consultancies analysed the current position and identified what local government organisations would look like after the current financial storm.  They agreed that when they came out the other side they would be smaller, leaner, more collaborative local government organisations.

So what type of managers will these organisations need?

 From the discussion they will need good people management skills to motivate and retain skilled staff who have seen their pensions, salaries and terms and conditions eroded. They will need to have the leadership skills to inspire or “unleash the creativity of our people”. Managers after the storm will need to be better at getting “staff participation and ownership” and be able to develop new partnership ways of delivering services with the private and voluntary sector whilst showing tough negotiating skills in getting better deals from those they contract with. So it is a bit surprising that there is no reference to the implications for management development.  How will these smaller organisations with their reduced training budgets equip managers for this uncertain future? May be this will be the topic of a future round table discussion. In the mean time can I recommend the case study in Equipping managers for an uncertain future published by www.russellhouse.co.uk..

The case study shows how executive coaching, management learning sets and mentoring were used in a large local authority to equip managers with the skills and confidence to be effective in the new look public sector. This in house management development programme was completed by large numbers of managers each year for little more than the average cost of sending two managers on a traditional MBA. The programme had a number of features which combined to give a unique twist to some tried and tested methods. The management learning sets were led or co facilitated by senior managers, the same two external executive coaches were contracted over a number of years, the organisation’s intranet was used to share the learning material across the organisation in the form of a” management guru “site, learning material was developed based around 500 word discussion papers on topics that were hot in the organisation. Following executive coaching and participation in a management learning set an individual’s ongoing development was carried out through mentoring. Ongoing support was provided to managers via management surgeries by which a manager could book an hour for a one to one with one of the executive coaches.

Blair McPherson is a former local authority Director and author of a number of books on management including People management in a harsh financial climate and Equipping managers for an uncertain future both published by www.russellhoues.co.uk

They call it ethical fading you and I call it going along with something you know is wrong. We are not talking about one weak or fearful individual who fails to blow the whistle on bad practise. We are talking about the type of organisation where acting unethically is acceptable, where such behaviour is no longer considered wrong but has become the way of doing things. Well it is still considered morally wrong but it is clear that “everybody does it, it’s expected”. It could be fiddling your expenses, massaging the figures, over charging, omitting unhelpful information, offering or accepting inducements, putting profits before the health and safety of the workforce or cutting corners when it comes to protecting the environment. Today it is paying the police for tip-offs and hacking people’s phones to get a scope.

The Public Sector is not immune especially as it seeks to adopt private sector business methods to compete in the “market”.

A new book called Blind Spots by Max Bazenman and Ann Tenbrunset refers to this deterioration in ethical behaviour in an organisation as” ethical fading”. When thing go wrong rather than simply identifying someone to blame and putting it down to greed or incompetence they attempt to look at how people actually make decisions under pressure, against tight deadlines, budget cuts and worries about their own future .It would appear that when the business is target obsessed and bonus driven most people just go along with how things are done and don’t ask too many questions.

So how should an organisation guard against this erosesion of ethical behaviour or “ethic fading”?  The tone is set from the top of the organisation and passed on through the day to day behaviour of managers. The organisations leaders must model the behaviour they want other to copy. Ethical fading starts when employees suspect that those at the top say one thing and do another. When leaders make statements that contradict the experience of staff and when managers choice to ignore or deny the contradiction. It could be a statement about valuing staff, a commitment to consultation, a promise that budget cuts won’t affect front line services or that safety is the top priority. All of which are undermined by a macho management style and a finance led target driven culture. Put another an early warning sign of ethical fading is a lack of integrity from the leadership.

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

The Americans think they do it better, no surprise there, but would you be surprised if a European research team concluded that American firms were the best managed in the world? A group including professors from the London Scholl of Economics has found that American firms make more money, grow faster and survive longer. The global survey of 10,000 firms in 20 countries found that whilst all countries had some world class firms American came out on top not only for the number of brilliantly managed firms but more significantly for having fewer badly managed firms.

The finding of the World Management Survey published on the Harvard Business Review web site on June 13^th under the heading Why American Management Rules the World stated that this excellence extended across a range of industries including health care.

According to Professor Rebecca Hankes and Professor John van Reenen of the LSE and other members of the research team the reason for this success is

 “American firms are ruthless at rapidly rewarding and promoting good employees and retraining or firing bad employees”

They go on to say that the main reason for this is that “It’s much easier to hirer and firer employees”.

Interestingly even in America some people don’t believe this. Some comments on the HBR site questioned the research methodology, others complained that a world survey was not able to compare like with like whilst others suggested that American firms better performance was more likely due to access to technology and a highly educated workforce. This was countered in typically robust language by a commentator who said if American firms could pay the same wages as Indian or Chinese firms they would “kick everyone’s arse”.

May be its cultural differences or the fact that I have always worked in the Public Sector but I found my reaction was to focus on the words “ruthless”,” rewarding” and “firing”..

 To me the report said American firms make more money and grow more quickly because they are ruthless in the way they firer people and reckless in the way they reward people. Basically American firms are target obsessed and bonus driven and we have recent dramatic evidence of where that leads.

This does not surprise me but it doesn’t fit with my idea of being well managed or evidence of superior people management skills. This model of management seems like that in professional football, hugely inflated transfer fees being equivalent to hiring and promoting, dropped if your performance dips or you stop scoring but huge bonuses for winning. And we all know about the massive debt and financial mess professional football is in.

May be it is because where I come from success is measured by staying within your given budget yet improving services, whilst being more efficient. Offering huge bonuses to those who meet targets and firing those who don’t really doesn’t require much in the way of people management skills. Motivating staff whose wages have been frozen, who have been told they must work longer for less and whose prospects of promotion have disappeared in the management restructuring that requires some people management skills.

The worry is not that the Americans think they do it better but that politicians, policy advisers, management consultants and Business schools in this country believe 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

.

We all know health care can be expensive. People may joke about having to rob a bank to pay for it but in America that is just what someone did. Not only that he told the local newspaper, radio and TV. what he was going to do and when. This wasn’t a protest against USA private health insurance system or the companies who had refused to insure him and 51 million other Americans. Richard James just wanted treatment for his tumour. He told the media he would be stealing just one dollar. He even informed the local police of his intension because he wanted to be arrested. In prison he would receive free health treatment.

As he had an existing medical condition no one would insure him. He was neither poor enough or old enough to qualify for Medicare the government safety net programme for low income families and the over 65.

Is this what we have to look forward to in this country? The radical changes the government seems determined to impose on the NHS are about introducing choice and completion to create a health care market just like they have in America.

Blair McPherson commentator on health and social care and author of management books www.blairmcpherson.co.uk

Every organisation has its stars, people who stand out, people with a cause, people who have a reputation for speaking up, for making things happen and getting things done. Others talk about them, stories are told about them, they make an impression. Some times their challenging attitude leads to the sack, sometimes their ability to deliver leads to promotion. They don’t stay too long but when they go they leave a legacy.

 Most of us think we could be a star. Sadly some of us are as deluded as those who audition for Brittan’s Got Talent. Others feel it is within them but are too lazy, too afraid or just too happy as I am thanks. Some would argue the secrete of a happy life is to be satisfied with your lot. After all being a star may not be all it is cracked up to be , a lot of effort, a lot of disappointment, the risk of failure and of course a target for criticism.

If you seek stardom how do you obtain it and are you prepared to pay the price? You must shine, get yourself noticed, standout from the crowd. To do this you must challenge, stick your head above the parapet and risk getting it shot off, you must offer your opinion even if it is not requested or wanted, you must be critical but have ideas about how things could be done better. This will not make you popular. You must seek every opportunity to show off your talents. This means you take on extra work and responsibility. You must have a cause something you believe in strongly, something you wish to champion, something to focus on because you can’t be effective if you spread your energies too thinly. You must have confidence in yourself even when other doubt your skill, wisdom and integrity.

Still want to be a star?

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

What managers want, particularly new managers, is practicable advice on how to deal with tricky situations involving staff. Rather than wait till the problem arises and hope they can turn to HR or their line manager for help wouldn’t it be better if the in-house management development programme prepared them for personality conflicts, harassment complaints, attendance interviews, performance reviews or how to challenge a team member about the way they dress for work. 

I was involved in setting up a management development programme that used  management learning sets, mentoring sessions and coaching to discuss real live issues. At one stage in the programme absence management was a hot topic across the organisation as was recruitment practises. As the budget problems became clearer redeployment, redundancies and service cuts were what managers wanted to talk about. Certain topics regularly featured on mangers worry list, personality conflicts between team members, complaints of harassment or bullying especially if they involved gay or black staff and disciplinaries or rather the fallout from them.

Managers were well aware of the organisations policies and procedures in these areas but some lacked confidence in tackling these issues others had bad experiences. The absence management procedures would tell you the triggers for referring a member of staff to occupational health and an attendance panel for dismissal but everybody knew there was a lot more to it than that. It was a bit like the procedures for changing working practises in essence they boiled down to a requirement to consult with staff but of course success would depend on your negations skills, your ability to explain why the changes were necessary, your ability to explain what these changes would mean for different individuals, whether you were viewed as acting fairly and responding in a reasonable way to issues and concerns raised. In short success would depend on your leader ship skills.

Throughout the programme these issues and topics were logged. To assist future discussions whether in learning sets or mentoring sessions a series of short topical papers were produced and posted on the organisations intranet under the heading “Management Guru”. The articles were a quick read, no more than 500 words, topical, thought provoking and occasionally provocative. The idea was that managers could dip into and out of the material as and when. The aim was to get people talking and thinking about was it is to be a manager and a leader.

A detailed case study of the programme including the  discussion articles from the “management Guru” site have been published in Equipping managers for an uncertain future published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

I am regularly asked how I can get a better job by those who feel trapped in basic care posts or those who are in a low paid unsatisfying job who want to have a career in care.

With an ageing population someone who wants to work with older people should have plenty of job opportunities in the future. For some time now people in the Housing and Care world have been saying very sheltered housing or extra care housing is the future. Older people are encouraged to stay in their own home or move to sheltered housing rather than institutional care. Of course they will need help and support and this is where the jobs will be.

People suffering from dementia are particularly difficult to support in their own home due to their short term memory loss, their disorientation and in some cases disinhibition. There is a growing recognition of the need for specialist residential care for people suffering from dementia. Dealing with people who are confuses and as a result agitated requires a high level of patience and understanding. The main requirement for all these jobs is a positive attitude to old age.

If you’re ambitious and willing to train then I would be setting my sights on a management post. In career planning you have to think a few steps ahead not so much the next job but the one after that and you have to think a bit laterally and not be too narrow in your view of which jobs to consider. For example don’t just restrict yourself to one client group like older people, there are some excellent opportunities in housing and care working with people with a learning disability. 

You might look at day care if due to family commitments you can’t do shift work. Day care for people with a learning disability is very different these days lots of activities take place away from the centre and staff accompany people on leisure activities or help them learn to use public transport. Some service users have physical as well as learning disabilities and need one to one support whilst others live independently and need help to manage their household bills, plan meals and keep on top of household chores.

I would be looking to work for social services or a large well recognised voluntary organisation initially this is because they tend to offer more training opportunities and private sector organisation like to take people into management who have already got qualifications and  experience with a quality provider. NVQs in care and then in management are the standard qualification in care and will make you very employable to the private sector.

Armed with experience and qualification don’t be afraid to change client groups, move into health or work for housing, the core skills are the same, the good practise values are the same and the qualifications and experience are relevant.

Blair McPherson author of Equipping managers for an uncertain future published by www.russellhouse.co.uk

I don’t want to sell my house to pay for my care because I want to leave it to my grandchildren. As an assistant director of social services I frequently heard of an elderly person living alone who was struggling to cope but who didn’t want to go into a “home” once they realised they would have to pay for it. Even more disturbing was the number of times we came across a son or daughter who was determined not to see their inheritance spent on their parents care. When you work in social services you are often exposed to the unpleasant side of human nature (greed, cruelty and indifference)

Why should the tax payer pay for the care of someone who has a quarter of a £million in the bank or the equivalent in capital resources? With the average house price, even in the current depressed market, worth over a £100K why should the individual not be expected to use their resources to pay for their care? If someone has savings or an occupational pension why should they not be expected to contribute to the cost of providing help in their own home?

I thought the whole idea of contributing to a works pension and paying off your mortgage was to provide for your old age. So how come when old age comes people   are so reluctant to spend their savings? The blunt answer is people just don’t like the idea of having to pay for something that other people who have not saved get free. Another comment on human nature!

So the answer is everyone needs to be required through a compulsory scheme to make provision for their old age.

Blair McPherson author of People management in a harsh financial climate published by www.russellhouse.co.uk