Unfortunately too often though the aspiration doesn’t lead to action, and actions don’t lead to successful outcomes. We’ve all seen too many examples where affirming sentiments become merely platitudes or beautifully worded ornaments with no real meaning.
I recently listened to a speaker identify that 2015 was the “Year of the Lemming,” meaning that workforce analysis has predicted that 2015 was first time in modern Australian history more people were retiring from the workforce than there were people entering the workforce to take their place. Now the veracity of the specific date is not particularly important as we’ve all seen the discussions about the ageing workforce and heard the predictions about workforce shortages. In 2013 the Community Services and Health Industry Skills Council had already predicted a 77% growth in employment opportunities by 2025 in our sector. We’re half way through that period. ​

So clearly that means the “norm,” in which there are more people looking for work than there are vacancies seeking employees is not going to persist much longer. The consequences for our human service organisations are significant.

I started off this blog identifying how our sector aspires to “value its staff,” and I generally believe we think we do this well. In fact I have seen some organisations which are very good at putting their values into practice. They tend to be smaller, and simpler, leadership is based on values and vision and culture is a factor in decision making. Larger organisations struggle more, as traditional management based largely around relationships becomes management supported by systems, and eventually (unless we’re careful) systems mutate, become the end in themselves and come to drive management processes. We see this phenomenon play out in different ways, and my blog post, I heard them say, "We've lost our values..." discusses some of those.​

As we begin to operate in this brave new world the “power” balance shifts. Job seekers will begin to have more and more choice and employers will be less able to simply view job seekers as participants in the recruitment systems which organisations develop. Instead job seekers will become the stakeholders which will drive recruitment processes. The natural consequence will be that if our organisations cannot demonstrate during the recruitment process that we values employees then we will struggle to attract the right people to take up employment opportunities on offer. I believe we’ll probably find that the people we need to join our teams will abandon their exploration of employment with us organisation in favour of systems which do demonstrate they are value as people.

Lets consider a basic example. Organisations advertise vacancies when they want staff. Where and how they do this is important, but not for the purpose of this example. Most advertised opportunities invite potential employees to express interest in the role and eventually submit a formal application. Applications are assessed, candidates interviewed, referees are checked and employment offers are made.

Now consider what messages are given to potential employees in this basic process?

What is the language of the advertisement? Does it speak to a person or explain a position? Does it speak to the experience you will have as an employee in the position or does it provide a checklist of tasks you will have to fulfil? Does the job advert identify a person who can be contacted to discuss the role? How many times have you heard of people submitting applications only to be left with no response and no acknowledgement?

Whilst I’m fully aware that advertising means that organisations will be inundated with applications, many being generated by people using automated application apps, I am not sure that this phenomenon excuses us from acknowledging applications. With most applications being emailed, it does not take much to set up automatic responses to at least let people know their application has been received. I’m certain that the statement, “Only short listed applicants will be notified” does not send a message to candidates suggesting that they are valued as people, it can’t be too hard to collate email addresses and send out a notification when the process is finalised so that applicants can at least feel like they matter. Given the ease of email, notifying people that the position has been filled shouldn’t be considered an optional extra by organisations.

I remember one of the most significant ideas which I have picked up during my career is the notion that every application for employment which crosses your desk or hits your inbox represents the hopes of its author. By the time you have invited a potential candidate in for an interview they have invested numerous hours in a process with the hope of an outcome. Surely its reasonable that if they attend an interview, then we ought to be able to call them back and give feedback if they are unsuccessful. What if they are unlucky to have missed out this time around but we’d employ them if there was another opportunity? Do we conduct ourselves in a manner which would mean that they’d be happy to hear from us again if another opportunity arose? If we really want to value staff, then we need to remember to value them before they become staff.

Ultimately, in valuing applicants, I believe that every person interviewed should receive honest and meaningful feedback. At the end of this blog have a look at a few ideas given by others regarding feedback to unsuccessful candidates. Giving feedback to an unsuccessful candidate can be awkward for both the recipient and giver of the feedback, but if we have made a decision to hire someone, there must be meaningful reasons which guided our decision. Therefore there must be meaningful feedback which can be given to unsuccessful applicants. Statements such as “the other candidate had more experience,” or “they were better suited,” do not in my view constitute feedback. Feedback is useful to the person receiving it and should assist them to improve any future applications. Sometimes the feedback might simply be, “you were one of two candidates we were happy to employ, however in this case, the other candidate had slightly more experience working with our client group. We’d love to be able to call you if we have another opportunity and discuss any options that it might provide. Would that be okay with you?”

Unfortunately however, at the moment there are more instances where organisations see applicants as participants in a process and not potential team members. There is an underpinning principle which says, “you will be lucky to work with our organisation.” Soon generations X, Y and Z+ will be evaluating our organisations and deciding if we are worth their time and energy when we are seeking new staff. Similarly they have an underlying assumption that the organisations with which they are seeking to work will need to demonstrate to them that the organisation is worthy of their commitment, energy and skills.

And now the extra bits…

What do you tell unsuccessful job applicants? Five ways to improve your game. The Not For Profit People (Australian)

How to spot a bad boss — before you take the job. Alison Green, Ask a manager

How to turn down job applicants - [the] right [way]. Susan Healthfiled, The Balance

Ultimately his work appears (to my mind at least) to have made the justice system more just, more robust and enhanced its ability to investigate and address its own failings. He has been involved in widely publicised cases such as those of Henry Keogh (South Australia) and Sue Neill-Fraser (Tasmania), which you can easily research using your favourite search engine.

October 2nd marked International Wrongful Conviction Day.

There are a few reasons which have sparked my interest in Dr Moles and his work. Firstly, as a highly regarded practitioner and educator he has demonstrated a commitment to the values espoused by the legal profession. Justice is not a concept to which he pays lip service; his pursuit of justice has probably cost him reputation and potential employment or income. For interest sake a QC may earn up to $8,000 for your day in court should you ask her to represent you.

Secondly, many of us can give examples where Lustitia appears to have put on an extra thick blindfold and dropped the scales she carries, only to pick up a manual on the politics of personal advancement or how to win elections. I recall conversations I once had with a person who worked in SA’s correctional services system with many notorious convicted criminals and who through their own relational experiences was able to turn names and headlines into flesh and bone.

I am also reminded of how perversely our media, and by association we as consumers, engage with narrow and sensational presentations and sound-bites of matters in our courts. How for weeks we can be consumed with debating the ‘facts’ or otherwise of a person charged with a heinous crime, or a person, who upon admission of their own guilt faces execution in a neighbouring country. Less often are we challenged to speak out about injustice where our own judicial system has failed, or those who have administered the system have acted unconscionably. Maybe if we were vigilant monitoring our own legal system closely we might discover that our default view that our system is ‘fair’ is not supported by facts and reality. Maybe that challenges us as consumers of Lustitia’s portrayal in the media that we might be bystanders to, or facilitators of, injustice ourselves.

​A final thought to share with you. Sir William Blackstone (1722-1780) had his treatise Commentaries on the Laws of England published in 1765. This work has significantly shaped the legal system of England (and courts worldwide founded on similar principles). One of his significant legacies which is integrated into the rules, customs and practices of our judicial system is known as Blackstone’s Ratio, that is the idea that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. Unfortunately in modern "sound-bite" Australia I cannot imagine a politician or journalist advocating this significant principle if votes or advertising revenue were at risk.

After 35 questions are asked the participants find themselves staggered at different points relative to the starting line. Their relative placement providing an insight into their relative disadvantage.

I’d recommend you watch the video (http://goo.gl/ydYjzg) or if you’re pressed for time, the diagram gives you a visual description to compliment my description above.  Of course, at the end people are surprised by where they end up situated relative to those around them and provide some brief post activity comments as part of the video presentation.

If in your working or volunteer life you lead training, I can see how this activity might be a great way to demonstrate privilege and or disadvantage. It’s certainly not predictive as each individual experiences the events identified in the questions uniquely, but it gives a general idea how many factors which are not usually considered contribute to the relative advantage or disadvantage a person experiences.
The questions the video makers used are a little USA centric, but very interesting nonetheless. It made me wonder how this exercise might look if we had reliable comparative data which would enable each question to be were weighted (e.g. some questions moved a person two steps or more based on the impact of the issue) and if participants were asked more personal questions (e.g. whether or not they had experienced sexual assault). Certainly if informed with more reliable variables the exercise could be even more revealing, although I can imagine there are quite a few reasons one might not use it as a group training exercise.
With my interest piqued I undertook some research and came across a range of reliable Australian sources which discussed personal, structural and community disadvantage. One of the better definitions was published on the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Whilst I understand that I’m singing to the choir considering those who usually read my blog, it amazes me how often influential people in politics, public life and the media have not developed any understanding of privilege or disadvantage. Ultimately, this exercise doesn’t have to be scientific. The debrief following the activity is where there is great opportunity for learning and reflection. 

Each fortnight an employee collects my their apportioned salary for performing contracted obligations. Usually an employment contract will identify a number of hours for which the employee is expected to work. In many cases it may also involve meeting minimum performance standards. Should I fulfil these obligations each fortnight I can expect that I will be paid all of my salary. 

Each fortnight I authorise payroll for a number of employees. Some work hard, others less hard. Some have seem to have natural talent whilst others need coaching. Each person responds differently to their responsibilities, yet they all collect 100% of their salary each fortnight.

If 100% salary is collected then should 100% effort be expected? Have you ever known a person to contact payroll and make arrangements to pay back a portion of their weekly salary due to their own lack of performance? Alternatively, what about a situation where an employee can’t perform because of the action or inactions of the employer?

By signing a time sheet an employee is confirming that they have fulfilled their obligations in regard to attitude, effort and outcome. By authorising the time sheet the employer is confirming that they agree with the employee’s assessment of their efforts, and that the organisation has provided the resources, systems and support required to do the job well. Each signature represents an agreement that both parties have made, and remake every fortnight, to act in good faith and honour the employment relationship. 

How quickly, subtly and easily can the balance be shifted?

Scenario 1
I can avoid putting in full effort for the time I should. I can almost meet all of my targets and argue mitigating circumstances for the last 10% which remain unachieved. With the busyness of my supervisor I can slip under their radar with extra break time, late starts, early finishes, missing deadlines, internet searches and distracting conversations. I may even be able to behave in such a way that managing my performance becomes frustrating for my supervisor, who being ill-equipped with appropriate skills to manage non-performance, soon gives up and my recalcitrance becomes entrenched and part of the office culture and expectations. My non-performance is tolerated. Throughout this activity I put in less effort but collect 100% of my salary. And when finally my employer has enough and wants to correct my behaviour, the fact that it has been tolerated for so long with no action means that my employer’s sudden change in response toward me can be argued as unfair or unduly harsh.

Scenario 2
I am committed to my role, motivated by my values, a desire to be recognised, or a fear of losing my job. I work hard. I perform well above the expectations of my contract and I eagerly take on more responsibility. Role creep brings me new opportunities, or I create them for myself, which in turn leads to work satisfaction and further motivates me. I start early or finish late, or both. I work harder and I even compensate for the unsatisfactory efforts of others. It looks to those a little removed from my situation that me or my team are managing sustainably, but if I left the role I would leave a gap equivalent to another half of myself again. I achieve more and at the end of the fortnight I collect 100% of my salary.

Scenario 3
I attend work every day and strive to achieve that which is expected of me. The workload is relentless, either because of great demand (external) or unrealistic expectations (internal). To keep up I miss breaks, work longer hours, and even ensure that I keep on top of my emails by having them directed to me 24/7. I am compelled to donate a significant amount of extra time and effort above the expectations of my contract. Each fortnight I collect 100% of my wage.

How familiar are some of these statements, either as they have been part of your own thinking or you have heard them made by other employees or employers?

I am a graduate, and everyone understands in my field that I will need to work very long hours to secure my career. 

• I am a person who responds to human suffering and its presentation in my place of work does not end because my shift ends. 
• I am a person who began in a role which suited me and I did well, but the role evolved around me and I was expected to manage and make do and I don’t have the skills to perform the new role. 
• I usually perform well, but temporary circumstances have reduced my effectiveness and I need some flexibility and tolerance for a while until some other matters can be resolved. 
• I understand how busy we are because of this change and so for a while I will put in more time and energy that I am obligated to do, but please understand that I can’t sustain it.
• I resent the decision you made and feel hard done by, so you can forget about my cooperation. 
• You owe me because you have failed to recognise me.
• This employee is unmotivated / incompetent.
• We can’t discipline this employee because we are nice people / they are a nice person.
• We cannot challenge this person because our organisational values means that we treat people respectfully.

I worked with a remarkable colleague who was very clear about the obligations involved between employers and employees. She lived by the principle of 100% effort for 100% pay. What was also implied in this formula was a third variable, that of 100% support.

• support for the employee; 
  
• clarity of expectations; 
• adequacy of resources and systems;
• uncontrollable variables such as client demand;
• employee and supervisor attitude and outcomes;
• organic changes in the employee’s role;
• temporary changes (e.g. health);
• previous management approaches.

It is only after applying the 100% principle to these variables that an employer is in a position to fairly respond to changes in an employee’s performance and determine if coaching for improvement or performance management is required. Similarly, the employee can apply the same principles before determining if their employer is being unfair.

Ultimately, in the non-profit sector I hope we go the extra mile to value our employees, but in doing so we cannot forget that respect and fairness requires us to manage non-performance and to address circumstances where our colleagues are either under-resourced or over-worked.

Need assistance to work through workload or performance issues? Click CONTACT above..

There has never been any debate in my mind about the accreditation chicken and the quality egg. Clearly the egg must have come first: a mutated variant of the original chicken-like parents, a new progeny; an egg which will hatch and be the first of the chickens. Chickens which will go on to begat chickens and more eggs and roasts and omelettes. 

Just as the egg must have come first it is important that a 'quality' mindset precedes accreditation. Accreditation is the outcome of quality, never the other way around.

Often when I am asked by an organisations to assist them to "do quality" or "obtain accreditation" some sort of discussion will ensue about my experience working with a specific set of accreditation standards. It's at this point I wish I had the wit of Tom Lehrer and could recreate an accreditation oriented version of The Elements song (if you have 86 seconds enjoy this witty ditty). Can you imagine a response where I begin to sing, "There's ISO, BEF, QIC, and Mental Health; EQuIP, AUQU, ISQua, SEF and Disability; Employment Service; HACCP food..." etc.? 

If an organisation delivers its services using principles which promote a quality service then meeting accreditation standards will follow as a natural consequence. This is a good outcome. Most non-profits will have defined a mission and values which inspire or describe the idea that the organisation is wanting to provide quality services. Most boards have a vested interest in ensuring that the organisation does the right thing by its members, customers and stakeholders. In this sense 'quality' isn't a process, but rather a fundamental objective and outcome which should underpin everything a non-profit does.

So what is a quality service? In my mind there are five key principles. 

A review of this list will only reinforce its similarity to another iterations of the common pillars of an accreditation framework. 

A coherent service makes sense to the people who access it. The service fits them, rather than the other way around. It is logical, meaningful, valued, valid and relevant. Coincidentally during the Tom Lehrer era another thinker began to describe the concept of Model Coherency (Wolf Wolfensberger, late 1960's). 

Respectful services are just that: respectful! Valuing the individual, their rights, responsibilities, safety and opinions. Responsive services are able to bend and flex to accommodate the nuances associated with different people and contexts. Accountable services follow all those corporate and administrative processes associated with good management of resources and risk.

Systematic services are those which build into their processes mechanisms which enable the organisation to check that their daily activities meet their objectives and standards. Within a systematic service the concepts of Plan Do Check Act and DICED are integrated into normal operational activities.

I strongly believe that if you design and document organisational processes with the principles of quality in mind that accreditation will be a natural consequence. When an organisation takes a set of accreditation standards and develops policy and procedure to meet them the result is often superficial. The words in the documents indicate the correct concepts, but the activities of staff don't necessarily reflect that which is written on paper. When this disparity exists it sends a clear message to staff and stakeholders that achieving 'ticks' in the auditor's checklist is something we do on top of delivering real services. It shows that an organisation is not interested in the fundamental principles of quality services. 

Achieving accreditation is a valuable outcome, but the more important aspect of embarking on an accreditation pathway is that it tests whether or not our organisations provide a quality service. It allows agencies and stakeholders to systematically evaluate the organisation's performance and to be assured that it's leaders remain engaged with opportunities to improve.  

At the end of the day usually the people who access services from organisations are not interested in the accreditation standards which have been met, but they will be very clear about how well the organisation does or does not perform. They will measure performance against how well the organisation does in relation to their expectations. They will be interested in quality. 

Up until this point in time a quality outcome was guaranteed by the relationship that these professionals formed with each and every person for whom they advocated and provided services. The quality assurance system operated like this:

"How do we know we provide a meaningful and valuable service? We know because we know who our clients are not just what they need. And we know because they tell us, sometimes with words, sometimes with a particular look or even through a messenger."

The 'professional' barrier between service coordinator and client was very permeable. Under the auspices of providing a service my colleagues and clients shared aspects of their lives with each other. 

A number of years later another colleague who also lived in this relational (rather than institutional) human service environment quietly spoke the words, "...no one leaves transformed..." He too was reminding us about the importance of values manifest in human relationships as a cornerstone for holding human services workers accountable to the people they serve. He was quoting from the writings of Shane Claiborne, author, activist and leading character in New Monasticism movement. 

I think the message is clear, even for those who wish to put the faith or religious connotations aside. All three messages align to remind us of the importance of relationships and how they transform people, especially when we work with vulnerable or disenfranchised people and communities.

The challenge for leaders in the non profit sector becomes one where the organisation can meet its obligations to a range of stakeholders (especially in relation to contract management and compliance) without 'over-processing' intervention and service. By 'over-processing' consider systems which favour the importance of rapport over relationship; procedure over human insight; and policy rather than empathy and hope.