The Credibility Gap – Good and Bad Habits

“I would like a pair of human shaped trousers, please”

Because they can get away with it Finding an alternative is difficult, or people do not know what the alternative is, or they lack confidence to seek it Because arguing back doesn’t change anything Because the person helping puts the company’s needs first Pot luck whether you get someone good on your case

The credibility gap applies in social care too…

Getting away with it How are challenges received culturally? Monitoring complaints and drawing out the learning from them? Competency in relating to people with challenging behaviour?

Finding an alternative is too difficult How much creativity is permitted in the front line? Are people we support blamed if they challenge?

Arguing back: What space is there for individual and collective voices? How are expressed views made known to the most senior people in the organisation? What external representation do people have?

Company more important: Behaviour matches mission and values? Or are all mission and values statements par for the course? What matters equally, or more, is whether good staff can see their own values mirrored in the organisation they work for Mansell et al 2006: managers mostly involved in paperwork

Potluck? Retention – motivational spiral, respect and continual personal development Consistency of approach Modelling behaviour from leaders Effective leadership in suggesting better ways to approach issues, attending to emotional demands of the work, offering constructive feedback and acting as a buffer and advocate against external pressures

Range of person centred approaches: Person centred planning Person centred thinking Person centred active support Positive behaviour support Total communication Intensive interaction

Good leadership underpins all person centred approaches Good leadership applies person centred approaches to staff too, but also bears in mind who we are there to serve Both positive and corrective feedback, coupled with good staff development practice

How can we produce predictable, good quality support at a time of resource constraint? Active support Person centred thinking Development of “house style” Peer expectation Effective quality assurance systems

Person centred active support

Engagement levels of people with learning disabilities are low in comparison to non disabled people The more disabled people are, the less engaged they are, despite the cost of their support being higher What are we going to do about this?

Every moment has potential (and, of course, staff support is already paid for) Little and often Graded assistance to ensure success Maximising choice and control Particularly important and beneficial for people with severe and profound learning disabilities

Habits Seeking out the moment Peer encouragement/coaching/ house style Less reliance on the spoken word Planning each shift to ensure engagement happens (positive rather than institutional structure) Graded support

Less of: Making people wait Getting drawn to people who are more able Negative expectations (“she simply can’t do that”) Leaving things to chance

Person centred thinking

Culture change Based on encouraging and reinforcing judgments based on assessment and collective observation Primary role on information on preferences, habits, inclinations Applies to staff too

Important to and important for - What have we tried? - What have we learnt? - What are we pleased about? - What are we unhappy about? - What does all of this tell us about what we should do next?

Looking for opportunities for engagement Person centred analysis Founded on effective planning (and helping change and develop planning) Positive view of risk Good leadership Optimistic discontent Habit

….And checking to ensure that what’s supposed to be happening actually is

Spontaneous, person centred culture Reinforced by good leadership Reality checked at all stages Allows learning when things go wrong Bob Tindall