How to Thrive in Professional Practice. Stephen J Mordue

come from a range of backgrounds and the social work role is to support a diverse range of people. The role is steeped in ambiguity and uncertainty as individuals, including you, are unique. We are right in among the ‘messy stuff’ as James et al (2019) put it. Yet despite this, social work, in local authorities at least, is organised and managed in what can be an inflexible, bureaucratic, hierarchical structure (Gibson, 2017). In contrast to this lack of flexibility, social work exists in a constantly changing environment, influenced by emerging theoretical ideas, the political ideology of the day and the nature of the ‘person-facing’ work it undertakes. It is often driven by crisis management and social problems (Deacon, 2017; Griffiths, 2017). These two realities are at odds with each other. Handy (1999) describes a ‘role’ culture that is reflective of the culture in local authorities. In a ‘role’ culture there are clear policies and guidelines, clear structures and clear lines of accountability. Role cultures are suitable in organisations that are not subject to frequent change and where there is predictability. While this may well have been the case for local authorities many years ago, it is not the case now. What is now required is openness and responsiveness rather than the traditional bureaucratic hierarchy (Hughes and Wearing, 2017). Where there is a mismatch like this between the organisational structure and culture and the needs of the wider environment in which people are asked to operate, there is a risk that employees may not thrive and may well experience stress due to competing internal and external demands. In terms of well-being, such an organisation may well have procedural responses to people’s well-being once they are unwell rather than an individualised, person-centred approach that tries to mitigate the problem before it occurs.

      The social worker ‘type’

      Luetchford (2015) observes that social workers are a particular ‘type’. He notes that in his time as a manager he has had to send staff home who were clearly unwell but had come to work out of a sense of duty. This may well be as a consequence of one of the very things that attracts people to social work practice: the desire to not leave people unassisted or excluded. He alludes to the fact that social workers find it hard to say ‘no’ and states that mechanisms to challenge employers are few. There is a risk here that social workers continue to accept unrealistic levels of stress as the norm and this makes them unwell. Sickness presenteeism (being at work when unwell, physically or mentally) can have both an impact on the quality of the work done by the employee and an obvious negative health consequence. Sickness absence, on the other hand, can be a time for physical and psychological recovery. The risk, however, extrapolating the idea that people are reluctant to be absent from work, is that people may not engage in dialogue about self-care as they may see this as weakness and not want to be perceived as ‘struggling’ with workload (Skagen and Collins, 2016).

      The demands of the workplace

      Marc and Osvat (2013) report that organisational challenges are predominantly reported as being the greatest source of stress, noting, for example, deadlines, hierarchies, insufficient time, high caseloads, excessive bureaucracy, insufficient resources and poor management as stressors. Interestingly, respondents in their research cite solutions to the problem of stress as being outside of the workplace – for example, movement therapy, family support, conversations with colleagues and friends, walks and unplanned vacations. Predominantly, people seem to construct the problem in the workplace yet solve it outside of the workplace. This seems to suggest that employees do not see their employers as having a role in mitigating the risks of work-related stress. This is reflective of the neoliberal agenda that seeks to place self-governance outside of the state and individualise responsibility for well-being (Crawshaw, 2012). But maybe this is the way it is. There is an inherent reality in this about how much an employer can actually do when self-care does indeed need to be initiated at an individual level. The answer is possibly a two-pronged attack, with employers raising awareness of self-care and mitigating some of the stressors as far as is possible, while people commit to taking personal responsibility for being organised, and for their own nutrition, exercise and sleep.

      Reflective task

      What type of social worker are you?

      What is the culture of the organisation you work in?

      What are the workplace demands that create stress for you?

      What do you do at work to mitigate the stress you feel?

      What do you do outside of work to mitigate the stress you feel?

      Leadership

      Sánchez-Moreno et al (2015) report that, alongside other factors, structures within social work organisations and the organisational environment, lack of clarity in role and lack of supervision are determinants in relation to burnout. This seems to be reflective of the tension between organisational culture and the requirements of the task environment. In order to adequately explore the impact of the workplace, a critical perspective is required which will ensure an understanding that reflects the employee’s position so that real attempts can be made to find solutions.

      Leadership style is important in achieving an understanding of the employee’s position. Echoing the practice development ethos of person-centredness, a leader should make decisions in collaboration, and motivate and lead by example. This ensures a sharing of decision-making power and ultimately a sharing of responsibility (Heyns et al, 2017). In relation to well-being this is essential as many of the solutions to promoting well-being can be counter-intuitive or go against organisational culture. Levitin (2015) observes that ‘the companies that are winning the productivity battle are those that allow their employees productivity hours, naps, a chance for exercise, and a calm, tranquil, orderly environment in which to do their work’ (Levitin, 2015, p 307). This goes against the ‘lunch at your desk’ philosophy that permeates many social work teams. Davidson (2015) reported in The Telegraph research from BUPA that stated that two thirds of British workers are not even able to stop for 20 minutes for lunch. This has an impact on well-being and productivity as we shall see later. Ultimately, self-care needs to be a joint responsibility.

      A word of caution

      I want to proceed with caution here but need to state clearly what I have already alluded to. It is not appropriate to place the onus to solve all of social work’s ills on the individual. There are clearly ideological, funding and organisational issues at play that are also worthy of investigation and transformation. It is apparent that social care resources and social work practice are underfunded, and it is felt by many that caseloads are too high. My concern, however, is that social work has created and is perpetuating a narrative that says that front-line social workers can do nothing about this. This is not true. There is a need to keep making our voices heard through our regulator and through the ballot box, but in the meantime, how do we keep ourselves well? That is the purpose of this book. We do not propose that the tools and ideas we present are a panacea for all of the problems in the profession but we do strongly feel that they have the potential to transform how we feel about ourselves and the work we do so that we can maintain a level of well-being.

      Karen Healy (2014), drawing on Foucault’s writings