Copy Cat Failures:
Copy cat reorganisations of Services and Institutions usually fail to resolve the problems that they have been experiencing. The problems continue and often worsen, in spite of 'modelling' on best practices found else where, and despite 'appearing' to follow the guidelines established, often as a result of repeated failures in the provision of services. The reasons for these failures are explainable and actually simple to understand. Changing and renaming the 'structure' and 'processes' does not change the underlying attitudes and misunderstandings. More often, the changes are undertaken on duplicitous basis, saving money being a key feature. Staff usually resent and become distressed at these changes, which often impact upon the established good practices as well as the bad. Any Institution that fails to bring its staff along with the changes and fails to gain their confidence, runs the risk of 'alienating' them. Even attempts to retrain staff, without their adequate understanding and full appreciation of underlying principles, often makes things worse. The argument that 'all our professionals are adequately trained' (in some important respect), is sometimes used as an excuse for not proceeding with a complaint, or grievance further. Training, of itself, does not necessarily change attitudes, remove prejudices, or even ensure the acquisition of appropriate skill and insight. It can lead to convincing mimicry, by indifferent and sometimes, even by abusive professionals. The obviously inadequate professional is no real danger to service users (hopefully). At least they are identifiable. It is the subtle, knowledgeable, incompetent, dishonest, negligent and abusive professionals and managers, that present the greatest danger to service users. Just to take one representative professional example. To teach, with in-depth knowledge of the subject, but no teaching skills; or acquiring good teaching skills, without knowing anything of the subject, are both poor positions to start from. The former may be a good resource for those that teach and the latter may be a good mentor for those that know their subject quite well. Knowing how to teach and the subject being taught, has to be the best teaching style for most situations. Knowledge, for its own sake, in any service profession, is not a good basis for practice alone. There have to be the underlying skills, appropriate attitude and ethics, by which to effectively implement that knowledge. The acquisition of high level social skills and appropriate attitudes, like those of teaching and social work, are often relatively more important, being transferable to other subjects, disciplines, organisational structures and professional objectives (these are the generic public service skills). The inappropriately introduction of changes, or changes introduced for the wrong reasons, without adequate consideration of the above issues, often gives rise to 'cliques' of aggrieved staff, and managers, who sometimes will act against the Institution's declared changes to objectives, methods and purpose. This is often by 'interpreting' new policy and practice guidelines, in accordance with their particular, historically established, attitudes and practices. These are the 'spanners in the works' described by Professor Elliot Jacques in his (xxx). For example; in prioritisation of identifying the needs of the child, the needs of the family are often neglected. Alternatively, prioritising the needs of the family can sometimes be shown to be detrimental to the child's immediate needs and risks. The correct laid down procedures may be followed in each case but the outcome can lead to a failure of duty in either case, because of 'prescribed' prioritisations. Good professional practice takes a balanced and equitable account of, and integrates the needs of children, parents, wider family, carers and vulnerable adults, sometimes recognised as an extended part of the identified problems and also part of the potential resolution. This is not always possible without some legal recourse but legal recourse is never the 'least restrictive', or 'best practice' option, especially for the longer term needs of any child (or family). Remembering our simple maths: both sides of the equation have to balance. The professional's job is not just to follow prescribed procedures and institutionally determined, generalised priorities. It is to make constant judgments, based upon the evidence collected and then prioritise according to this evidence; of often competing needs and risks, peculiar to each situation. Pre-set prioritisations of professional practice are often a failures of the Institution, attempting to 'tie down' professionals within tight budgets, or seeking to reduce risks of being 'seen to be negligent'. This has often resulted in volumes of policy, attempting to prescribe just about every professional action. It often is used, but more often interpreted, as a way of providing a 'standard' of service. What usually happens is, the service is 'averaged' down, or reduced to the minimum level that institution can be 'seen to get away with', unable to respond adequately to individual needs and risks. The 'professional discretion' of staff is often restricted to 'stressful' levels, where staff are required to compromise professional judgment, in order to attend to fiscal constraints and administrative procedures that are designed to 'protect the institution'. This 'dynamic' interaction of conflicting demands detrimentally affects individual staff, the institution and eventually the service user. In addition to any 'prescriptive' directives for practice, there are assumed, or interpreted criteria for prioritisation of services, by managers and professionals, based upon their interpretation of this avalanche of Institutional policy. This often results in further failures of 'duty'. Sometimes this happens out of professional naivety, but it is more usually in response to institutional pressures; sometimes explicit and open, but more often divisive and reactionary. Lets be clear here; It is the professional assessment that should set priorities, in each particular case and at any particular point in an intervention, in the best interests of the child and wider family. Professional supervision is provided to help ensure that this is in keeping with 'broad policy' which is kept consistent with legislation, human rights and ethical practices. Prescriptive policy is an indication of the institutions failure to recruit &/or appropriately supervise, train and support competent professionals, capable of making competent assessments and take effective and appropriate evidenced based decisions that meet all the 'human rights' based guidelines for practice. | NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
