My approach to management has much in common with human relations theories on management in general but Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) in particular since she saw management
‘as a dynamic concept where power must go with responsibility. Authority should be vested in knowledge and experience wherever these are located in the organisation, not in mere position on a hierarchy (and) that management should be based on the ethical principle of human worth and dignity, not the emotionally sterile pursuit of efficiency at any cost.’ (Coulshed & Mullender, 2001:35-36).
Follett also argued that team work and participation in the decision making process were key factors in motivating workers and that management had to accept that it did not always know best.
Instead she advocated that
‘managerial vision should flow from the common purpose and from the shared work and aspirations of the whole group’ (Coulshed & Mullender, 2001:36).
All of which means that approaches to management that see people as cogs in the machine, regulated and controlled in a search for order and rationality, as is the case in a scientific or classical approach to management, which may well suit the needs of financial management, it is not appropriate in an organisations relationship with workers, where they seek to empower staff on the basis that
‘Workers can empower others only if they feel as empowered as possible themselves within their employing agencies’ (Coulshed & Mullender, 2001:2).
This does not mean that accountability is not important, rather it suggests that there are ways of working with staff that enable accountability to be used sensitively and ethically.
This does not fit easily with the principles of managerialism and new public management approaches adopted first by the conservative and lately by labour governments that currently lead statutory services. A preoccupation with rationality, targets, and the 3 E’s that demand we be ‘efficient, effective and economical’ (Coulshed & Mullender, 2001:4) echo the philosophy of scientific management since
‘a more rational approach to management is reflected in the high profile given to strategic planning, performance and quality management and use of performance indicators to measure efficiency and facilitate greater managerial control over resources.’ (Horton & Farnham, 1999:248).
New Public Management was built on the principles of private business and began to make its presence known during the Thatcher government of the 80’s. Thatcher transferred many state owned business to the private sector in the belief that they were better able to produce results because they were ‘more efficient and responsive to consumer needs’ (Farnham and Horton, 1999:247). Thatcher also
‘aimed to managerialise the public services and create performance management and quality management cultures, aimed at achieving greater efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of public services’ (Horton & Farnham, 1999:247).
This again does not fit Lawrie’s comments since it is a deliberate attempt to make organisations fit the management style.
Whilst no one would argue with achieving better and more effective services, Thatcher’s determination to change the collectivism inherent in union activity also led to new practices in human resource management that weakened collectivist approaches whilst emphasising and developing a more individualistic approach to employee/employer relations (Horton & Farnham). This is in direct conflict with principles of informal education that seek to promote a greater sense of community/group identity. As such
its continued use by a labour government that claims to be committed to principles of active citizenship, community and service to others is questionable, since it begs the question, aren’t employees in the public service sector also members of their communities? Unfortunately, just because we work in the so called ‘caring professions’ it does not mean that care is extended to the staff team, something I have witnessed time and again in my career. But looking after the staff team is not just a matter of respect for human dignity, it makes good business sense too, since
‘it is hard to give the best service to users when you are ill at ease, harassed or under unreasonable stress yourself in your own working environment’ (Coulshed & Mullender, 2001:70).
Thus there exist arguments that
‘the culture of public management, with its emphasis on performance, value for money, competition and entrepreneurialism, is undermining the public service ethic.’ (Horton & Farnham, 1999:252).
which results in a situation where
‘the public are no longer being treated equally or equitably but according to market criteria or local managerial discretion.’ (Horton & Farnham, 1999:252).
Coushed & Mullender also argue that labours new public management is not capable of coping with the constantly changing, unpredictable nature of work with people. They argue that rational management is
‘incapable of sorting out that untidiness of human difficulties or the uncertainties of direct practice in social work or social care – (since) social work organisations exist to serve messy, untidy and infinitely varied human beings and indeed all organisations - are staffed by them’ (Coulshed & Mullender, 2001:4/5).
This acknowledgement that direct work with people is unpredictable, requires a highly flexible staff team and thus a flexible style of management, needs to be brought alongside an understanding that workers regularly encounter situations of human distress that cannot help but affect them as people. In practice this means that when dealing with an emergency, I not only have to take into account the immediate needs of the clients but also those of the staff team. Not only to ensure that they have followed procedure, but also that they are not so emotionally overwhelmed by the situation that they either leave or go long term sick. The fact that we recently had to deal with the murder of a young boy is a case in point since I not only lost one member of staff, but also had to spend time going over our child protection procedures with all staff and had to combine this with emotional support. This balancing act in management, staff support and client needs is reflected in formal supervision.
Hughes and Pengelly say
‘At best the supervisory task is like undertaking a balancing act managing the tension between the need for space to think and the need to act, between proliferating tasks and limited time, checking through every case and detailed discussion of one or two, between exploring possibilities and making decisions, between ensuring agency policies are followed and attending to workers emotional responses to the work’ (Hughes & Pengelly, 2002:31).
They describe the overall purpose of supervision as
‘the service to users within the limits of agency task, professional knowledge and financial resources’ (Hughes & Pengelly, 2002:40).
Most managers including myself would agree that the practicalities of supervision concern the regularity of supervision, its priority, the need for privacy and uninterrupted space and time and a supervisory contract. Whilst I have used contracts in supervision in the past I have not used them so far in Nightstop. However, they would be a particularly useful tool in allowing both myself and the supervisee time to discuss in detail the purpose of supervision especially as at present I have several fairly new members of staff who are not familiar with this aspect of professional development. One such member of staff repeatedly says she does not need supervision and it is okay if it is only monthly, but she then rings me on a regular basis every week to check things out. It would probably be a much more beneficial use of our time if we met formally on a weekly basis until she was more established in post.
Coulshed and Mullender’s views on supervision echo those of Hughes and Pengelly since they describe supervision as combining elements of management, education and support.
They argue that
‘the organisation as a whole needs frameworks which encompass these same three elements, which – become performance appraisal, staff development and staff care’ (Coulshed & Mullender, 2001:162).
Achieving the most appropriate balance between these three potentially conflicting responsibilities is undoubtedly difficult but extremely important if supervision is to have any value. For example,
‘if support is treated as an end of supervision, there is a danger of a collusive focus on the workers needs for their own sake rather that a focus on the worker in order to promote a better service’ (Hughes & Pengelly, 2002:48).
In a recent supervision session, I had to combine informing an employee that her performance was not up to standard with support in enabling her to improve. Thus there were elements of both support and discipline within the same session and although this at first seems far from ideal, sensitively done it enabled me to go as far as possible in enabling her to leave the sessions feeling positive. In this way Hughes and Pengelly believe that supervision
‘can assist staff to accept accountability without resentment because it demonstrates the link between verbal aspirations and practical reality’ (Hughes & Pengelly, 2002:46).
The actual content of supervisory sessions depends to a large extent on which of the three factors mentioned above are given priority. However, since supervision is about people working with people, it is not surprising to find that there are different psychological theories concerning ways of implementing these. For example, Gerard Blair argues the case for ‘behavioural modification’ as a way of working with staff and uses a system of reward and punishment to elicit the desired behaviour.
He suggests that although
‘many people balk at the connotations of management directed mind control – we are simply recognising that staff behaviour is modified by the work environment’ (Blair, 1993 :24)
He is in fact, actually going much further by proposing use be made of that environment in order to manipulate people in to producing results. As such Blair’s approach is more concerned with the accomplishment of task and he advocates the use of power in getting it done. In this case it is ‘coercive power’ or ‘reward power’ as defined by Brown and Bourne as ‘power to require the supervisee to do something and power to offer or withhold rewards’ (Brown & Bourne, 2002:34). Whether this use of power is ethically sound could form the basis of an interesting debate, since at first it seems to represent an abuse of the power dynamic and a lack of respect for others, whilst at the same time being inherent in a system where pay or salary is in fact a reward that can be withdrawn if performance is not up to standard. It might not sit comfortably but it is inherent in the power of management.
Hawkins and Shohet on the other hand approach supervision from a predominantly psychoanalytical view point and much of their understanding of best practice with clients involves workers knowing themselves, their needs and desires, including an understanding of the psychological impetus for being in the ‘helping professions’. They say for example,
‘no one can act out of exclusively pure motives. The greater the contamination by dark motives, the more the case worker clings to his alleged objectivity. Focusing on our shadow we will be less prone to omnipotent fantasies of changing others or the world, when we cannot change ourselves.’ (Hawkins & Shohet, 2002:8/9).
In this way they argue we are
‘more likely to be of real help. In that way we do not use others unawarely for our own ends or make them carry bits of ourselves we cannot face’ (Hawkins & Shohet, 2002:15).
This is a particularly useful viewpoint when working anti-oppressively since it allows us to acknowledge those prejudices that we inevitably hold as a result of the dominant hegemony within which we were raised and acknowledges that we as workers get something out of helping others. What it also particularly useful about the work of Hawkins and Shohet is that they make the link between treating staff with the same consideration as clients and as such they propose that all of the above applies as much to supervisors work with supervisees as it does to workers work with clients. Thus principles of informal education can and are applied to staff in the same way as they are to the community. Hawkins and Shohet argue that
‘to be a supervisor is both a complex and enriching task. It is deceptively similar to and uses the same sort of skills as, one’s work with clients, but the supervisor must be clear about how supervision is different in content, focus and boundaries and entails a more complex ethical sensitivity’ (Hawkins & Shohet, 2002:48).
Ethical sensitivity and anti-oppressive practice should lead to a reflective approach to management and supervision that takes into account issues of power. Brown and Bourne say that
‘issues to do with power, and how it is managed, lie at the heart of supervision and the supervisory relationship. When one person is in a position of formal authority over another a dynamic is created that derives from that inequality of power’ (Brown & Bourne, 2002:32).
For my own practice this means bearing in mind the culture of the organisation and the effect this has in strengthening my power as a manager. This coupled with the expertise power that comes from my qualifications and experience combine to significantly affect the supervisory relationships with which I am involved. As a manager and supervisor, I need to aware that in one person I combine role power, cultural power and personal power and as Hawkins and Shohet point out
‘when all three different sources of power are brought together in the same person, the effect may be quite overwhelming – the power dynamics may be simpler but could well be insensitively misused or even overlooked as they are taken for granted.’ (Hawkins & Shohet, 2002:95).
Simpler power dynamics do have their positive side and provides a considerable advantage when working in partnership with other organisations, since I am able to make decisions, commit resources and participate in joint working initiatives without having to consult Nightstop’s Directors.
Partnership working has grown considerably in recent years, not least because of the Labour government’s ideological commitment to the benefits they bring. Sullivan and Skelcher sum this up,
‘the collaborative agenda has developed in the context of the changing institutional structure of the public sector and the emergence of new philosophies of public management and governance’ (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002:14).
They also point out that partnership working is not based on nor informed by theoretical, empirical research on the benefits of multi-agency work and that the ‘ideological environment is uncritically pro-collaboration’ (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002:8). Which leaves the question of why we get involved.
Three views on this, optimist, pessimist and realist, are proposed. For optimists, partnership working is about achieving a shared vision. For pessimists it is about holding on to power and personal and/or organisational gain.
For realists
‘it is the wider environment – that (is) critical in determining the incidence of collaboration. In this environment both altruism and individual gain can co-exist. What is important is how either or both can be achieved through collaborative activity that is appropriate to the changing context’ (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002:41).
Other theories talk about regime theory, exchange theory and resource dependency theory. Regime theory is similar to that of the optimists in that it suggests that ‘effective long term coalitions emerge in order to accomplish public purpose’ (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002:39). Resource dependency theory is explained in terms of one agency having resource that another needs which leads to situations where agencies therefore try to control and influence each other whilst exchange theory highlights the fact that
‘service users with multiple problems needed to engage with a highly fragmented and specialised array of health and social welfare providers. The difficulty users faced in negotiating the system prompted the drive to collaboration’ (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002:37).
The present Labour government suggests that the
‘major drivers for partnership are three R’s: the desire to find new ways to share Risk; the ability to access new Resources; and to forge new Relationships’ ().
In this paper published by the Department of Environment, Transport and Regions, Labour suggests that partnership working will lead to new ways of providing traditional services and innovative service delivery arrangements. However, the paper also acknowledges views that this does not sit easily with performance indicators.
‘the current performance measures from the government are not looking for innovative approaches, as there is too much focus on specific measures and not on the overall achievements. The cultural change needed is not helped by the Government’s negative messages on performance’
().
This echoes concern over new public management’s preoccupation with measurable targets.
When looking at why Nightstop is involved it is clear that we don’t work in partnerships for any one single reason, but with different partners for different reasons. My work with the Youth Action Panel is driven by a belief that we can provide a better service together rather than separately. My participation on the Drugs Forum, is based purely on an exchange of information and access to resources. My work with the local authority led, Homelessness Strategy Group is more complicated as we are involved for a variety of reasons not least the fact that, politically, we can’t afford not to be. In this way our ‘involvement in a partnership initiative is a survival mechanism’ (Wilson & Charlton, 1997:13) as in this case ‘those who do not play this inter-organisational game are destined to decline and eventually cease operations’ (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002:41).
This particular partnership is part of the governments overall strategy in tackling homelessness and as such its creation has been dictated. In a report produced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on tackling homelessness, they propose that
‘local authorities should consult with other relevant public bodies, voluntary organisations, homeless people and others and include action that they expect them to take’ (:5).
Which doesn’t sound like choice or partnership. We also have a management agreement with a local housing association and as such are also implicated in the same report’s expectation that
‘housing associations – work with local authorities to enable them to fulfil their duties to homeless and other vulnerable people. Housing associations should be able to demonstrate their co-operation with authorities’ ()
This means that political skills as a manager are very much needed as is a comprehensive knowledge of the homelessness sector. Involvement in partnership means that I also have to know on what basis other partners are involved and have a clear understanding of their motives. In order to work well this also involves an understanding of the theoretical frameworks within which differing organisations exist and where these complement or contradict our own. It is a delicate balance of trust and suspicion and an awareness of group work theories on forming, storming, norming and performing are very useful.
The governments insistence that we work in partnership has other important connotations for an organisation that is committed to principles of democracy since working in partnership with local authorities means that we have an active part to play in the way local services are delivered, to whom, when and where. The conflict is in the fact that we are not elected by any community to undertake this role. In terms of a relationship between citizen and democracy, this is weaker because
‘citizens are not directly involved in selecting the members of quangos and partnership boards – compared to the voting mechanism and constituency role which applies to MP’s and councillors and which gives a degree of democratic purchase on their activities’ (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002:19/20).
This does not sit easily if as an organisation we are committed to principles of social justice. However Himmelman argues that ‘the sharing of power amongst different stakeholders is the only way to achieve the vision of social justice’ (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002:38).
This can only be possible, I would argue, where members of the community are included as stakeholders. Himmelman (1996) believes that through ‘collaborative betterment’ agencies can create systems where the community is invited to play a part, as is often the case, but that ‘collaborative empowerment’ would lead to a
‘capacity to set priorities and control resources that are essential for increasing community self determination. The process starts with community organisation and then spreads out to engage public, private and other organisations in the collaborative activity’ (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2002:38).
Thus partnership working holds the promise of working towards a more inclusive agenda if we can involve members of the community in that partnership. In Loughborough and amongst the partnerships with which I am currently involved this is far from the case at present but the possibility is there for the future.
Being a good or effective manager is, I would argue, more than the simple learning involved in managing one organisation, even if skills are developed to suit that particular organisation. The need for organisations to interact with a wide variety of institutions, organisations, partners and individuals mean that a broader complement of skills are needed if the organisation is to exist successfully in a changing environment.
Thus at Nightstop, all aspects of management, including my own, need to reflect our values and commitment. Only in this way can we be sure that we
‘pursue not only (our) early values of respect for persons, but also new principles of equality, social justice and the highest achievable standards of service for hitherto marginalised and devalued groups within society’ (Coulshed & Mullender, 2001:10).
Our commitment therefore needs to be a tangible aspect of our practice including management, supervision and partnership working.
References:
BLAIR, G, M, (1993) Starting to Manage: A how to guide to communication, organisation and leadership, Chartwell-Bratt (publishing and training) Ltd, Sweden.
BROWN, A & BOURNE, I, (2002), The Social Work Supervisor, Open University Press, Buckingham.
COULSHED, V & MULLENDER, A, (2001), Management in Social Work, Palgrave, Hampshire.
DAWSON, T, (1993), Principles and Practice of Modern Management, Tudor Business Publishing Limited, Kent.
DRUCKER, P, F, (1999), Managing the Non Profit Organisation, Butterworth-Heinman, Oxford.
HAWKINS, P, & SHOHET, R, (2002), Supervision In The Helping Professions, Open University Press, Buckingham.
HORTON, S, & FARNHAM, D, (1999), Public Management in Britain, Palgrave, Hampshire
HANDY, C (1988), Understanding Voluntary Organisations, Penguin, London.
HUGHES, L, & PENGELLY, P, (2002) Staff Supervision in a Turbulent Environment: Managing Process and Task in Front Line Services, Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd., London.
PRATT, J, et al, (1998), Partnership: Fit for Purpose, Kings Fund, London.
SULLIVAN, H & SKELCHER, C, (2002), Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.
TAYLOR, M, (1997), The Best of Both Worlds: The Voluntary Sector and Local Government, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
TORRINGTON, D, & WEIGHTMAN, J, (1994), Effective Management: People and Organisation, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall (UK) International, Hertfordshire.
WILSON, A & CHARLTON, C, (1997), Making Partnerships Work: A Practical Guide for the Public, Private, Voluntary and Community Sectors, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Internet Sources
, accessed 2nd March 2003.
, accessed 28th February 2003.