No, I don't think it is a storm in a teacup. I was proud to work for a service that was prepared, subject to the obvious limitations, to "put its money where it's mouth was". I benefited from an organisation that was prepared to be open minded and not dismiss my application out of hand because of a criminal conviction. I committed that offence over 30 years ago. I disclosed it, of course. It has never held me back or prevented me from doing my job. I hope well. I have not been civil service or Visor vetted since TR. My Visor vetting needs renewing next year. Theoretically, I should have nothing to worry about as presumably once cleared and assuming no change in circumstances the vetting should be a straightforward decision. I will let you know!
I think this is really interesting debate. I was taught to be a reflective practitioner. Is it any wonder we are met with 'resistance' from those we work with to our conditions and stipulations? They would say obstacles and downright jump, do as I say or else, hoop jumping punitive sanctions. And I would say that is where the art of Probation lies, managing those poles within a range of contesting demands, in a responsible and empathetic way. For me that is why Probation deserves its professional status and high regard. A difficult task but not an impossible one. I empathise with all those Probation staff who are now faced with their pasts being resurrected on the alter of 'past performance as a stable predictor of future performance.' Spare a thought.
What feels like a million years ago (how the time flies when your country and its moral backbone is being dismantled) a rather clever advisor to Probation Management said something along the lines of... this may not be verbatim but it made a huge impression on me at the time...
"You are a terrific organisation. You have enormous assets, in the main your staff and reputation, and deliver great value. You punch way above your weight. Your one weakness is that your corporate strategy appears to be to jump through every hoop that is presented to you. Without a strong and clearly articulated statement of your identity, purpose and values, you will have nothing to fall back on, to defend your organisation, and will be diminished by every hoop through which you jump. With a clearly articulated statement of your purpose and identity, good leadership would be able to embrace some demands, and refuse others, and every time this happened, the purpose and identity of your organisation would be strengthened."
My Trust paid a lot for that advice, and it was spot on, but not heeded. But still good advice.
--oo00oo--
Continuing this theme, twitter threw up the following piece published on the Medium platform and which rather neatly summarises my thoughts about being a probation officer and my growing irritation with managerialism :-
Ambition, humility, confidence and change
I have made no secret of the fact that this has been one of the most difficult years I have had in a work context. I have always struggled a bit, both professionally and personally with confidence — people meeting me may not realise it, but it’s the constant inner critical voice telling me I’m faking it and can make people think I’m competent and it’s all a facade which is going to be pulled away at any moment.
The year was difficult because it came off the back of having a deeply dysfunctional relationship with a previous line manager. I have now settled down to having a new manager who couldn’t be more different and with whom I not only get on well with but I genuinely like as a person, it has given me more time to reflect on management skills, styles and professional development.
But aside from that, it has made me think a lot about the importance of self-confidence in professional growth. I am not, I don’t think, an ambitious character. I don’t crave advancement. I have been in my current job for nearly six years and it has offered me incredible opportunities to learn and develop vast swathes of knowledge in the field of mental health particularly, when I came from having worked in a particular narrow field and for that I am very grateful. However, my lack of ambition has been interpreted as a lack of desire to advance or grow professionally. I have been told this repeatedly.
I have constantly remarked, to anyone who will pause to listen to me for a couple of minutes, that lack of interest in hierarchy and particularly a lack of professional ambition, shouldn’t be interpreted as a lack of interest in development but increasingly I see it to be the case. I look at the language around fast-track social work training which pushes the idea of leadership early on even when training and seems to imply the lack of desire to lead is somehow something to look down on. Leadership is all. Leadership is where the dynamism goes. You need to be a Leader — here, have some training so you can call yourself a Leader. Lead, Inspire, Put up a Wallchart telling people who come into your office what a good Leader you are. Nowhere does there seem to be space to learn about the importance of humility and yet, it is through humility that we both grow and learn — not just to listen but to change on the basis of what we have heard.
While I have never had much interest in management, I have constantly had a strong interest in professional growth. I don’t want career advancement based on a hierarchical model of climbing a structure and reaching a career ‘peak’ with a stream of underlings and a raft of powers. I have though, always sought and been ambitious to grow professionally within the role I have. I want to learn. I want to be the best I can possibly be in the current role I have because by being more knowledgeable, more understanding and more effective, I can make more of a difference — it might not be able influencing strategic directions of large organisations, but on a micro level it might make a difference to one or two people who might, in turn, go on to make a difference to others.
But this is not recognised as growth too often within organisations which are built on traditional power structures. We push people into feeling that they have little value if they do not constantly seek advancement through the structures that are in place professionally. We create leadership development courses and talent management programmes which define people by their ambition within organisations. And yet (while this isn’t the case for me), rely on those having the confidence to apply and put themselves forward for these courses or opportunities which filters out the potential talent that may not have the supportive line manager or self-confidence to challenge or push themselves into these roles. This means that those who have the necessary personal skills including humility, may not have the same opportunities to develop or grow.
Fundamentally the substantial changes which will come and are needed in this sector come by engaging with people who use the services which are provided or which are potentially provided and listening with humility in order to make changes. As staff, we are conditioned within the organisations and systems which train us. People who have gone from university into graduate training programmes can’t bring the changes if they don’t know what needs to change. Change projects which are internally focused at staff who are involved in them risk losing the purpose of why we are making these changes if they are not, from the start, co-produced with those who have experienced services which do not work, which exclude with too much vigour, which come from a position of arrogance of ‘me empowering you to give me feedback’.
So moving on from thinking about the way organisations value staff, to looking at the way the service-user/patient and carer voice is used in all changes which happen particularly around the development of strategic changes, we come back to the value of humility in leadership. I don’t want any manager of mine to flaut inspirational quotes or posters. I don’t want an inspirational leader. I want a manager who listens. I want a leader who has the humility to listen — not on the basis of hierarchical structures to those around them, but to those who are most affected by the direction of the organisation they lead. And I mostly want them to have the humility to push a change in direction based on this feedback.
Ermintrude
Guardian letter yesterday:-
ReplyDeleteNot enough homes for released prisoners
As a member of the Parole Board I am required to release a prisoner if it is “no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they remain confined”. Faced with a prisoner due for release and having decided that they have met that criterion I am then faced with the issue that they have nowhere to go. Investing in a £3m pilot scheme to provide officers to “equip inmates for life outside” (Scale of rough sleeping among released prisoners revealed, 14 August) will do nothing to help if there is no life outside other than the pavement. Investing in housing and decent single homeless provision rather than prison places for short-term sentences would provide the necessary revenue. We do not need a pilot scheme to equip inmates for life outside, but a reinvestment in what used to be called the probation and after-care service, which provided precisely the post-release support and supervision that is now being reinvented.
Denise White
Sale, Cheshire
We no longer have " leaders " , manager's who listen, learn from their staff team , value and respect them , what we have ( as this blog sadly highlights ) is a management structure of nodding narcissistic dogs who will do their masters bidding in a heart beat. The majority were PO's two mins before being actively encouraged to become so called leaders - we have experienced a great deal of this within CRC's with Probation staff being given new managerial roles in business /IT and we wonder why it's all gone tits up and for CRC's further in the more and then with all the craziness within NPS regards VISOR vetting - again we have management with no back bone unwilling to LISTEN to staff only to do as they're masters dictate.
ReplyDeleteYou could be talking about NAPO. Very clear that they don't care about us, let alone understand what the job and the issues are.
Delete"While I have never had much interest in management, I have constantly had a strong interest in professional growth. I don’t want career advancement based on a hierarchical model of climbing a structure and reaching a career ‘peak’ with a stream of underlings and a raft of powers. I have though, always sought and been ambitious to grow professionally within the role I have. I want to learn. I want to be the best I can possibly be in the current role I have because by being more knowledgeable, more understanding and more effective, I can make more of a difference — it might not be able influencing strategic directions of large organisations, but on a micro level it might make a difference to one or two people who might, in turn, go on to make a difference to others."
ReplyDeleteExactly so - this is the concept that so many wannabes, egoists & self-styled elitists who claim to be oh-so-bright just cannot grasp. The simplicity & joy of being a damn good professional. The competitive edge should remain in the gym, the name calling should remain in the village of Westminster & the bragging rights should remain in private enterprise. Probation & social work is not the arena for such self-serving abusive behaviour. I get so angry when I hear staff boasting about holding high-risk high-profile cases, as if its a badge of honour. Anyone behaving in such a manner should have the cases taken off them immediately.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic#ampshare=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/neoliberalism-economic-system-ethics-personality-psychopathicsthic
DeleteWe tend to perceive our identities as stable and largely separate from outside forces. But over decades of research and therapeutic practice, I have become convinced that economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our personalities. Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If you’re reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others.
DeleteThere are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is articulateness, the aim being to win over as many people as possible. Contact can be superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won’t really be noticed.
It’s important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a lot of people, you’ve got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel little guilt. That’s why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won’t be you who has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist by Robert Hare, the best-known specialist on psychopathy today.
This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it’s known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has aptly described as the “infantilisation of the workers”. Adults display childish outbursts of temper and are jealous about trivialities (“She got a new office chair and I didn’t”), tell white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings of revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults.
More important, though, is the serious damage to people’s self-respect. Self-respect largely depends on the recognition that we receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes to a similar conclusion when he sees the main question for employees these days as being “Who needs me?” For a growing group of people, the answer is: no one.
Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated, guilty and ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage of our social security system.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom. Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
DeleteThe sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: “Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless.” We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is, “make” something of ourselves. You don’t need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master’s degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy reflects changed ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us.
Paul Verhaeghe
So glad to have left Probation Management. I tried to work it according to my values and principles, but a bit of me was dying every day. Or, as someone (even) further up the grades said when she left after TR: "I didn't leave Probation, Probation left me"
ReplyDeleteThanks for this blog Jim. I hope the discussion catches on. If we don't nail down who we are and what we are for, then it will be defined by someone else, quite possibly someone else a)without a clue b) all the wrong motives
ReplyDeleteI think it was Crispin Blunt who turfed up to his first meeting with Chiefs and said aggressively "What are you for?" I wonder what the response was. I wonder if they knew.
ReplyDeleteWhen the TR wolf first appeared at the probation door, 'leaders' in probation were not making plans to fight TR. No, they were packing their suitcases, checking their getaway plans. They may have pontificated about probation's vital role, its values and beliefs, but they weren't going to make any last-ditch stand. People show their mettle in crisis: leaders in probation were of the hollow sort, stuffed with corporate conditioning, with nothing in common with those they controlled and managed. Managerialism requires obedience and so not surprising that those who had ascended the greasy pole by being compliant and on-message, were hardly made of the stuff that fights for beliefs and principles. We really should not call those who operate in rigid hierarchies leaders. Rather they are individuals who occupy privileged positions, get paid more and maybe get a psychological high from the added status – you find these characters in all organisations where power is part of the currency. But they are not leaders, their wills are in the service of those up the food chain. There are leaders, though, in probation. They are an endangered species: ringleaders – the true custodians of culture.
ReplyDeleteGreat piece from the medium platform, and I'm sure it will resonate with many from all walks of life.
ReplyDeleteIt is (as I see it), a process of control. A compliant society, all of the same mindset, all Winston Smiths. If you're not with us you're against us.
I find it quite sinister, especially when every thing seems to be getting dumbed down to allow more and more people onto the ideological programme. Everything broken up and compartmentalised, monkey see, monkey do, and once you can do, we'll move you up a rung, make you one of us. A special monkey. But you can only go so far, after all you'll always be a monkey.
And pleassssssseeeeee, don't damage your chances of becoming a special monkey with any of that free thinking stuff, you don't want to be labeled with being an individual do you? You can be so much more. You can be part of the collective if you really try.
Control and compliance, and a mechanism of spreading the neoliberal gospel.
'Getafix
As I have said before on this blog, our leaders do a great impression of First World War generals. ‘ Lions led by donkeys.’
ReplyDeleteBack I n prehistoric days, an SPO was a senior practitioner who you would respect because they had been there, done it and got the scars to prove it.
Now we have ‘ leaders,’ who have never had a case load but who can tell you how you should do things that they have never done, were not capable of or had to be rescued if they tried.
They hide behind their management speak and micro managing techniques, but we can see right through you. We know who you are, and you know that we know. You are fooling no one.
The fundamental of this debate is Probation does matter. We need to win the argument and as is increasingly obvious the emotional cry for the argument. Always been wary of calling people out, managers have not had a heady time of it, many are doing the best that they can given the mess that was created and is now patently evident for many to see. Sorting out the mess is where we are presently focussed. There is a window of opportunity and to coin a management phrase 'we need to get ahead of the curve' rather than riding the roller coaster that others are constantly creating for us. A little less dynamism baby ...
ReplyDeleteDynamism: the quality of being characterized by vigorous activity and progress.
DeleteOne without the other is not dynamism and I think, in many ways, this has been overlooked. Zip, zapping about with boundless energy and an exuberant personality is not sufficient to be referred to as dynamic. Slow down, engage brain.
So Rory Stewart has said on national television that he will stand down in twelve months if there is no improvement in the prison service.
ReplyDeleteAlready preparing his exit strategy!
DeleteHas anyone been attending the MoJ Consultation events for Probation. Not heard much in the way of outputs from them.
ReplyDelete