Blog

How curious I thought, as latest figures flashed up on my online newspaper this morning. I almost dropped my tablet. The ONS had published their latest report on personal well-being in the UK. And who doesn’t like a stat or two? Well, these were sobering messages, I must say – our collective wellbeing is in big trouble.

I am not the first, not the last, to think things have worsened since the pandemic hit in 2020. Before then, I feel we knew there was a risk of such matters; our previous experience though had lulled us into thinking the worst wouldn’t actually happen. But in this case, it did. And some. What has changed since is everyone’s relationship with the concept of anxiety. Young people are thought to be under epidemic levels of unease. Over a quarter (27%) of women, according to the ONS, reported high levels of anxiety (up from 22% in 2016), compared to one in five men. Everyone is talking about it, anxiety that is, and the media and internet is saturated with these notions and concerns, without counter-balancing with useful solutions and support.

The good news is there are pockets of improvement. Apparently, from April 2022 to March 2023, inhabitants of the Outer Hebrides were less anxious than anywhere else, despite (as the newspaper said) “having to put up with dramatic weather, no internet, and lots of sheep”. Sounds ideal, I thought.

I began to wonder if it was sheep that were having a calming effect, or was it the elemental nature of notable weather, or indeed was it the lack of conspiratorially curated online content that was to be credited with such positive effects? Maybe it was heady cocktail of all three.

A huge 80% of the Hebridean population was reported to be happy, a stark contrast to the rest of the country who, it was reported have seen life satisfaction and happiness “plunging”, whilst anxiety levels have reportedly sky-rocketed. All of Scotland it appeared bucked the UK trend in general. Anything to do with the shifts in their politics? That’s for you to decide.

Improvements aren’t limited to the outer reaches of Scotland, however. There appears to be grounds for optimism in mid Sussex, the Malverns, and Colchester. I wondered how many sheep there were in these locations, what the weather was like, and how effective their broadband was. Estate agents should enlighten me. Could we be seeing a pattern here? In contrast, things have been decreasing in parts of Hertfordshire and Hampshire (where hurricanes hardly ever happen according to Professor Higgins) and Worthing in West Sussex.

Beyond location, agriculture, and climate, there is the matter of self-reported health – which looks like it has more impacts on life satisfaction than any other characteristic. And so, I also wondered if the length of NHS waiting lists was directly connected with happiness scales.

What to do?  Well, I am off to the farm, in the rain, without my tablet right now, and I shall let you know how I get on.  If, that is, I return!

I’ve been thinking about stigma.  Recently, I have been told colleagues have been reluctant to take targeted actions.  They have been concerned about creating or reinforcing stigma as a consequence.  I have been pondering the considerations and the possible ways forward, so we can improve on that position and enable, not stifle, positive action. 

It is widely recognised that targeted services have disadvantages as, by definition, they do not reach everyone, and have the potential to create stigma from the belief that services are only for ‘failing families’.  They are not unique as both targeted and universal approaches have risks and advantages to be considered in terms of achieving reach, outcomes and impacts. No one wants to bring shame upon children, young people, families, or communities associated with a particular circumstance, quality, or characteristic.  But we should sensitively consider how services are delivered and the intended or unintended consequences.  The ethical principle of non-maleficence requires us to do no harm. 

The nature of attempting to benefit those eligible requires consideration of how restricting services to ‘the few’ can provide greater benefit to less, and how targeting can make some people unhappy about not being able to benefit from access to services.  Universal strategies aim to benefit more people (everyone), yet they could make people less happy and create ‘general’ benefit because the overall effect of the support could be spread so thinly it is diluted.  It could be possible families who have low-income employment can feel stigma as much as, or indeed more than, families in non-working households.  In all events, access based on stigma cannot be a good thing, even if the eventual outcomes are successful. 

In their placement and delivery, past targeted services such as Sure Start children’s centres worked hard to minimise stigma as an unintended outcome.  Glass (1999)[1] described these approaches in terms of principles and values, those being:

• no single blueprint for effective (early) interventions
• two-generational (involving parents as well as children)
• non-stigmatising (not labelling families as ‘problems’)
• multifaceted (targeting a number of factors)
• persistent (lasting long enough to make a real difference)
• locally driven (based on consultation/involvement of parents and local communities)
• and culturally appropriate and sensitive to the needs of children and parents. 

Such ethical values remain highly relevant for the success of many public services.  In the delivery of which we are often charged with the responsibility of doing our utmost to ensure stigma is not associated with participation, as stigma represents potential harm.  But how could or should we approach things?

• we should not expect services to be delivered in the same ways everywhere
• we must support and encourage people to get involved
• we ought to promote and deliver services as positive and non-stigmatising
• we should look for multifaceted activities and connections with other services to situate the service in the space with others
• services should be persistent through its funding and by adding value via other funding and sustainable strategies – longer term, not shorter term, with the ability flex and adapt
• and delivery needs to be locally driven, based on consultation/involvement of local communities, culturally appropriate and sensitive to their needs.

Many service deliverers are already well-versed and experienced in many of these approaches, including learning lessons from previous delivery.  Sometimes, though, the service users’ reality can be they are made to feel different if service offers are segregated awkwardly.  In putting all of this into practice, there are some more considerations in the form of a checklist:

1. Remember, remind, and reassert the reasons why we have the targeted services in all appropriate plans and activities.
2. Carefully construct marketing and communications messaging to focus upon the benefits and outcomes, fun and enjoyment, and support to access. 
3. Help members of delivery teams who may struggle with reconciling the concepts surrounding targeting and stigma.
4. Support message givers, including partners, by providing material and ‘lines to take’ or ‘key phrases’ to effect better communications, reach and engagement. 
5. Consider methods and approaches that reach eligible communities discreetly and directly, with respect and dignity.
6. Enable service delivery to be seamless, inclusive, and not divisive.  The best services, in my view, are where there is a blend of targeted and universal provision, and you struggle to see the join.

---

[1] Glass N (1999) Origins of the Sure Start Local Programmes. Children in Society Vol 13. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

There’s lots of talk about experienced and qualified staff leaving the early education profession in record numbers.  In the workplace, and in simple terms, people generally leave when they feel unhappy, and when there is a sense of better opportunities being available elsewhere.  The sector and organisations in general cannot afford to clumsily lose workers and their unique skills, qualities, and experiences.  We must all consider outward workforce migration, work out its root causes, and do whatever we can to reverse the trend. We have a responsibility as leaders and managers to our teams, the individuals within them, and our organisations as a whole.

On a foundational level, we need to help workers to be happy, and fulfilled in their professional roles.  That requires leaders and managers to deliver on three key things.  All of which are achievable or have no or low cost. 

They start with feelings.  All staff should feel fully appreciated for their work, at all times, through regular meaningful feedback, thank yous, and enabling encouragement.  That needs leaders and teams to be vocal and present.

And it needs a sense of place. The physical and team environments should be positive and supportive – it is the little things that count here, and no stone should be left unturned, as unaddressed issues will fester and build until it is too late. 

And there should be fair flexibility. Because that breeds happiness, in contrast inflexibility results in the opposite.  There is no doubt that more staff are asking for greater flexibility in the hours and days they work, good for them. But that can be a real headache for leaders delivering an education or childcare service.  It is not impossible, and moreover it is essential.  Those settings I see that are cracking flexibility are the ones better able to retain and develop their happy staff, whilst reconciling the needs of the business. 

These three things helps the workforce to realise what a special place they occupy now, and how the grass may not always be greener on the other side of the fence.  Whenever I fantasise about getting another job, it is at those moments when I don’t feel appreciated, I don’t feel like I fit in, things seem just a bit too hard, or people aren’t being nice. 

There are three more useful approaches to help: 

Feeling the fit. Everyone needs to have a sense that they are suitable for their role and responsibility.  That is a big issue at the point of recruitment, but it is also one to consider as roles change, people are promoted, or they need to cover gaps in the team.

Cultivating culture. Workplace culture is a solution here, by creating a perfect balance for business stability (even when everything around is uncertain), growth and change (even when things feel unsustainable), and challenge (countering any sense of things always being the same or stuck in their ways).  And finally…

Involvement. One of the most effective ways of achieving that is involving everyone in decision-making or helping them understand the reasoning behind decisions.  Indeed research has shown this to be especially the case in early education roles.

For quite a while I’ve flinched every time I’ve said or overheard the word ‘empowerment’. I have felt uneasy that some might think the oppressed or disadvantaged should all be helped to be more confident.  I’ve been searching for and cogitating on an alternative.  Finally, I think I’ve got one.  For now, at least.

First, you may ask: why be uneasy with empowerment? Seems like a positive and helpful thing doesn’t it?  Well, my big difficulty with it is this. It assumes the person or subject of the empowering lacks their own power or agency.  To not have power does not mean their is a lack of capacity to have power, or to use it positively. The problem instead is those with power around them, if they are holding onto it with a vice like and un-sharing grip.  It isn’t equal. It is being controlled and restricted to the few.

Second, the whole process of empowerment suggests there is a giver and a receiver. The assumption is those that are to be empowered cannot assume power without the enabling facilitation and support of a benevolent power-holding expert. That’s just too simplistic, and holds echoes of colonialism, patriarchy, and patronage.

Third, we could argue those who don’t have their fair share of power have already done extremely well to achieve so far, against all the odds. They have a full range of skills borne from experience to date. In contrast, those with more than their fair share, may have built it themselves – I admit, or perhaps they were gifted it, or inherited it, or they were privileged enough that it arrived by default. their relationship with power runs the risk of being unconscious and incompetent.

What therefore could be more empowering than empowering? How about dispowerment?  That way we acknowledge the actual process required, it gives those in positions of inequity more agency and choices, and deconstructs the sense and feeling of the giving or equipping of power in the process. 

A sure way to shine a light on something is to cover it up.  After decades and centuries of evidence and examples have proven this to be true.  Nations have: hidden nuclear accidents, US Presidents have lost their job or reputations, and countless corporations have denied product failures.  All have been found out and had to face the consequences.  So, why haven’t we all learned to fess up and deal with the flack yet? 

Recent events, and there have been many of them, have provided clear examples of the pitfalls of cover-ups.  Celebrities, politicians, royalty, and business leaders have continued to seek to hide what they perceive to be inconvenient truths, to gloss over uncomfortable realities, to deny ill-judged relationships, or to erase moral or legal errors.  Think speeding tickets, workplace romances, HR process swerves, nepotism, abuse of power, tax-avoidance, lockdown misdemeanours – the list is easily endless. 

What appears to happen is these events trigger an instinct to retreat to virtual bunkers with a gaggle of PR and legal advisers.  New realities are constructed, and scripts of distraction and denial written and rehearsed.  Then the advisers release their client to the world, whilst they themselves prepare their invoices.      

Everyone makes mistakes, we aren’t infallible, we are human.  Mistakes are by definition not intentional.  That differentiates from deliberate and conscious choices, wholly different matters altogether. 

I follow the principle that it isn’t the mistake that is important, it is what happens next that counts.  The signs of cover up are numerous.  It starts with the feeling that stories simply aren’t adding up, that there are tongue-tied and unnatural scripted verbalisms, the body language disconnects with what is being said.  This all fans the flames of intense curiosity and scrutiny.  It multiples times ten what interest there would be if you had confessed right away instead.  A ripple of reactions of suspicion and doubt starts to build, with the potential to become a wave, and then an overwhelming and destructive tsunami.   

It is the emotional reaction that then causes all the damage.  A cover up’s wake destroys trust, nothing seems truthful or believable anymore, little can be taken on face value, and relationships suffer with all stakeholders (such as friends and family, colleagues and managers, clients and customers or end-users, advertisers, and the public).

So, what is the alternative?  Here are five suggestions:

1. Take responsibility for the mistake.  Own it.  You did it after all. 
2. Apologise.  You didn’t mean to do it did you?  Say sorry, express regret.  Acknowledge its consequences.
3. Make reparations.  Make sure you do what you can to repair some or all the damage or consequences you have caused.   
4. Prevent it happening again.  Identify the root cause and consider what can be done to ensure the mistake isn’t repeated.  And put in place that preventative action.
5. Do better things next time.  Those cringeworthy moments are things to learn from. “A person who never made a mistake never tried anything (Einstein).