Management Skills in Social Care

A Handbook for Social Care Managers

John Harris, Des Kelly

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138335189
• eBook ISBN: 9780429813504
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

First published in 1992, this volume responds to the importance of management has been increasingly recognized in the personal social services but this recognition has materialized more slowly in some social day care settings. Staff in these settings who move on to management can face particular difficulties in adapting to their new role, especially if they have been promoted on the basis of their competence as practitioners.

Newly-promoted managers in social care settings are all too often ill-equipped for the problems and possibilities offered by their move to a management position. As a practice-based handbook, Management Skills in Social Care fills this gap by examining key areas of management expertise such as: managing self; individuals; groups; resources; change; and so on.

Above all, this book is concerned with maximising the contribution of management in day-to-day social care practice.

1 Social care management in transition

How to read this chapter…

Most of this chapter may be regarded initially as a ‘take-it-or- leave-it’ chapter! It sets the scene for consideration of the personal transition to management in social care settings in the context of a brief summary of historical developments and recent trends. It is intended that the reader who has experienced the rapid rate of change and its consequences will find the chapter useful in untangling some of the themes and issues. It is therefore a general introduction to which some readers may wish to return at a later point. However, unlike many of the following chapters, it is not for dipping into or using selected sections, with the exception of the final section ‘moving on to management’ (p. 7) which should be considered before tackling the rest of the book.

Contexts: past and present

The images of social care have their roots in the prison, the workhouse and the asylum (Parker, 1988). These images have proved remarkably resistant to change despite the fact that the functions of social care have altered substantially. The concept of the ‘total institution’ (Goffman 1968), for example, which has been so influential on the development of residential services, has probably been over-stated and yet it remains a powerful image which is often seen as typifying service provision. The institutional images of social care services in the public and professional mind impinge on the task of managing these resources. The images easily become stereotyped into a perception of social care as the poor relation within the personal social services. In addition, the status of social care work can be seen as simply reflecting the ambivalent attitude towards what is regarded as ‘women’s work’, of caring, nurturing and tending within the wider society. For managers this ambivalence about social care may form part of the context of much of their working life.

The pace of change within the personal social services in general quickened from 1970 onwards. Within social care the pace of change has been quite dramatic. The distribution of services has shifted across statutory, voluntary and private provision, culminating in the development of a mixed economy of welfare (Department of Health, 1989). A series of apparent alternatives to residential and day care provision have developed in response to a combination of perceived needs and economic constraints. Family placement now provides substitute ‘families’ for the full range of service users. Independent living, sheltered housing, changes in the functions of the home care service, core and cluster developments and group homes have given services a different complexion and have challenged previously sacrosanct arrangements. These changes have been accompanied by new thinking and new practices, particularly in relation to the management of services.

Social care services have developed in this contradictory climate. They have changed and survived. They have continued to be a major resource in local authorities. They have grown steadily in the voluntary sphere and they have expanded quite dramatically in the private sector. However, at the same time, criticisms of regimes, institutionalized practices and adverse effects on clients have continued to be researched and reported. (Wagner Vol. II, 1988). Residential care particularly, continues to be seen as essential and marginal at the same time - in demand and yet a last resort!

An examination of the development of social care suggests that the principles of social work advocated for the fieldwork sector have been taken over and rather loosely applied, with limited success. This has contributed to patchy and inconsistent services, with inappropriate practices and thwarted developments, as provision directed at resolving accommodation and/or social problems has given way to services attempting to meet a complex mix of social, emotional and physical needs. Developments in field social work, particularly in relation to the policy of community care, have not been realized to the full as financial restrictions have constrained growth, but the policy has nevertheless contributed to a fundamental questioning of the role of social care provision and has resulted in cuts in building programmes. Gradually staff have experienced the implications of these changes: child care has come to mean working with difficult adolescents; family centres are increasingly presented with multiple problems; day nurseries confront the sensitive and potentially explosive situation of child abuse in its many forms; the policy of deinstitutionalization in the field of mental health has placed additional stress on social care services; the growth in the numbers of older people and in the proportion deemed in need of care has increased in real terms, which has led to claims of greater levels of dependency in social care establishments; developments in community care, particularly the ‘staying put’ initiatives, have also led directly to substantial changes in the use and role of social care services. The result of these interrelated trends has been experienced by many social care staff as a process of forceful and rapid change to which provision is constantly having to adapt.

In this rapidly changing context, serious consideration of management activity within the personal social services developed slowly but is now well established at least in relation to senior and middle managers (Department of Health, 1990). The work of the Audit Commission in promoting the 3Es - efficiency, effectiveness, economics - has emphasized the importance of management expertise across the range of settings in the personal social services. The publication of the Wagner and Griffiths Reports (1988) and the White Paper, Caring for People (1989) served to reinforce the central contribution of management in social care settings in ways which are likely to ensure that it remains centre stage for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, many senior staff will have experienced their job title being changed in ways which attempt to reflect a new managerial emphasis. These changes in job titles symbolize an era of change. Matron, Superintendent and Warden have given way to Officer-in-Charge, Head of Home, Principal Residential Social Worker and, more recently, Residential Manager, Unit Manager, Centre Manager, with corresponding posts at deputy and assistant levels. Job advertisements have certainly reflected this change of emphasis, which is part of a process of trying to enhance the management of services.

Social care management has some unique aspects and makes particular demands. For senior staff it means managing ‘teams’ of staff who share day-to-day reponsibility for service users, often in the context of having shift patterns on a rostered basis. It is likely that managers will also work shifts which involve, in the residential sector, a mixture of early mornings, evenings, nights and sleeping- in duties. There can be few managers in other occupations who are expected to be able to weld together aspects of social care, social work, nursing, catering, hotelling, personnel practice, industrial relations, administration and finance. At the same time social care managers are also required to rise above the pressures inherent in these individual activities in order to generate values and attitudes which result in services being closely aligned to the needs of clients.

The impact of the changes we have outlined on management posts and the particular demands of social care settings have been amplified by a further extension in the manager’s role: managers have increasingly been charged with the additional responsibility of introducing and carrying out change. In many organizations this requirement has been accompanied by downward shifts in levels of managerial responsibility, so that much of the daily work of managers now involves the process of coordinating a range of diverse activities in the context of wider change.

The future promises to be equally challenging, as new tasks and responsibilities emerge. The National Vocational Qualifications framework, for example, will require social care managers to adopt a high profile in relation to training and assessing staff.

Social care managers should also be in the forefront of developing anti-discriminatory policies and practices over the next few years. Although within social care settings there are some examples of vigorous attention to equal opportunities and anti-discriminatory practice, much social care provision has been on the sidelines of attempts to> move forward on these fronts. This is beginning to change (see, for example, S.C.A. 1990). Some of the material in this book can be used to advance these issues. For example, we have worked with managers in promoting equal opportunities and developing anti-discriminatory practice using the material in the final chapter on Managing Change. Chapter 7 on Training can similarly be used to address these issues with individual staff.

What do we mean by management?

Drucker (1975) states that managers set goals and objectives, organize tasks to meet the objectives set, communicate and motivate, monitor and evaluate, develop people and teams and delegate. Lawrence identifies four key elements of management which we find useful:

• Getting things done with people
• Setting objectives
• Taking decisions about the means by which objectives will be reached
• Solving problems which frustrate the achievement of objectives.
  (Lawrence, 1986, pp. 2-3)

The problem with such definitions of management, as Lawrence recognizes, is that they can imply that management is an activity distinctly different from other activities. However, if we think about the way we use the term ‘managing’ in everyday speech - ‘managing to do the gardening/reading/cooking’ - the ordinariness of the act of ‘managing’ becomes immediately obvious. Similarly, if we take an example from a social care setting, a residential social worker in a children’s centre ‘manages’ the task of getting a group of children up, washed, dressed and off to school - and a great deal else besides! Therefore, in emphasizing ‘management’, all we are doing is stressing the content of a more explicitly managerial post with elements which may be every bit as mundane as those in many other jobs. This notion of management does not conform to the popular stereotype of management as a detached, orderly, rational activity of great authority and status, or worse, of management as the province of a macho elite. In this respect Mount’s (1977) distinction between to manage in French as manager, managing as in the running of a household, and in Italian as maneggiare, as in handling horses, is useful. Maneggiare has been the dominant conception of management. Unfortunately much of the management literature clouds the ordinariness of aspects of ‘ménager’ by obscuring the obvious and ordinary in exhortations to embrace a macho management style!

Is this book for you?

Despite more attention being paid to management, the popular notion that it is something picked up on becoming a manager is still much in evidence in social care settings. This notion is reinforced in the residential sector by the rapid movement of newly qualified staff into senior positions. There is a debate about whether basic qualifying training in social work should encompass preparation for management responsibilities. Within social care, basic training is often the only preparation for managerial responsibility and this reinforces the view that good practitioners make good managers - if you are good at a job you will naturally be good at managing someone else doing the same job! Although we are convinced that practitioners can carry over skills into managerial positions, we consider that it cannot be taken for granted that managing is something which comes naturally to good practitioners. Many of the people who become social care managers may not be comfortable with the traditional male-dominated image of management, which emphasizes competitiveness, aggression and authoritarianism. White women and black men and women may encounter particular barriers to the establishing of a style of management which is acceptable to them, especially if they find themselves isolated within a hostile management culture.

Nevertheless, the struggle to develop an approach to management is important. The rejection of a view of management as the arbitrary and authoritarian imposition of a manager’s will, and the failure to develop alternative approaches, has led some managers in social care settings to conclude that there is no room for ‘management’ at all. In some circumstances where managers have accepted the status of manager but abdicated managerial responsibility a vacuum has emerged which at best has been filled by a well-meaning, amiable chaos and at worst by a collusive, oppressive staff culture which has exploited users, as witnessed by a succession of scandals.

This book will fill some of the gaps a practitioner may discover on becoming a manager. It provides information and guidance on principles and techniques to which a new manager, or a manager wishing to review her practice, can turn. These principles and techniques are primarily applied to the management of social care services, although it is likely that they could be used equally effectively in other settings such as fieldwork. We hope that the book will also serve as a starting-point for people considering senior positions in social care, as well as enabling existing senior staff to reflect on their role, the tasks associated with it and the ways in which it has changed and will continue to change. The book, then, seeks to point a way forward in an area that has not been well signposted for social care managers.

Some readers may be preoccupied at the outset with our emphasis on management and in particular may query whether they actually are managers. Within social care it is possible to find many staff in senior positions who do not have the word ‘manager’ in their title. Nevertheless, the absence of the word does not necessarily mean the absence of the managerial role. You may be in charge of a group of staff. As their supervisor you will have the right to make decisions and to give guidance about areas of work in which you were previously a recipient of decisions. However you will not be entirely free to ‘do your own thing’. Yo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Social care management in transition
• 2 Managing yourself
• 3 Managing others: individual members of staff
• 4 Managing others: staff in groups
• 5 Managing resources
• 6 Managing external links
• 7 Managing to train
• 8 Managing to care: standards, quality and change
• Bibliography
• Index