>> Obviously I don't know Bromp's lot.
Interesting to see the perspective from the other side. To me, as somebody who's been through the process as an incumbent relatively junior staff member it looks a bit harsh and/or over cynical.
In 1999 I was a 'coal face worker' (there's a phrase you need to explain to youngsters) doing a form of casework that felt like a vocation. After a Quinqueniall review (QQR) many felt was a set up and a mauling from the National Audit Office Minsters decided something must be done. A Change Director was appointed over the head of the Chief Executive. Brought his own team of fast streamers with him. Set in motion a process outlined in QQR for radical change including idea that work I was carrying out could be better done by accredited outside professionals - mostly solicitors.
As I'm sure Mark will acknowledge responses to a change like that are a bit like grief or perhaps a terminal diagnosis. The start point is refusal to accept it followed by idea that something can be found to change or avert it. It's not about failing to be open so much as being convinced the change, which feels very threatening, is also far more problematic than its promoters believe.
Some of their ideas flew in face of solid evidence. The part of organisation that would remain had been organised in a way that allowed our clientele to deal with a named caseworker. That set up followed repeated feedback from clientele and their families that they were fed up with talking to somebody different every time. Technology would apparently solve the problem. No amount of explaining the complexity of the issues, and yes some resorted to technical language, could persuade them otherwise. I had several run ins with one individual who's view of the named caseworker thing was to smugly assert that one individual couldn't knoe 100 cases. No amount of responding that you only needed to be familiar with the 30 or so active at any one time and that 20% of them absorb 80% of your time would persuade him otherwise.
The Change Director scarpered before the full extent of damage he'd done was apparent. Took his extremely well regarded, later distinguished, sucessor another 2 years to put right.
And like Sooty I think you're wrong about picking stuff up from colleagues. Apart from his 'sponge' theory most people feel a need to fit in.
On Friday I finished a job I've been doing for three and a half years. Funder has taken work back in house. Nothing we've done wrong, it's a consequence of business objectives set by their regulator. We used a lot of benefit jargon - JSA, ESA, PIP, Support Group, SDP etc and a particular one of our own - EDI percentage. The latter is cost of reasonable use of a particular utility expressed as % of Effective Disposable Income (net household income after housing and standardised living costs).
Explaining to a client I'd use the full term and explain it. Putting it in case notes or discussing with colleagues I'd just use the shorthand.
New post next week. Up close and personal with Universal Credit. No doubt the project will develop a language of its own.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 16 Mar 19 at 17:21
|
