Sharon Spewsmith cant get a job

RiverStar

Hi Linzpower, some managers just don't know how to manage. Probably would come under heading interpersonal or social skills. Although as with any job, you don't know how people are going to react (although you made it clear that the lady was thanking her for her services). I worked with service users as well, found it very rewarding and most folk had a kind word to say, but there were also the ones (relatives, I mean) who were never satisfied with whatever we done. Getting a bit off track here, I know, at end of the day, you'd think that potential managers would be vetted for their actual ability to do the job (thinking shoemith here) and undertake personal development courses to encourage confidence etc in dealing with people. I realise some people are naturally shy but if you are capable of your job and know what you are doing, talking to relatives etc should be fine, you'd think.

Debt_Free_Chick

Most managers these days - in any business - manage budgets, reports, management information, risk registers (not the same as the "children at risk" register that SS use, for those that don't know), contracts with suppliers/service providers, appraisal reporting etc etc

I have to admit I assumed this was largely what Sharon Shoesmith's job entailed

There are few "man managers" now. Most experienced staff are expected to "get on with it" and most junior staff work in an atmosphere that resembles a classroom!

Money_Grabber13579

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

Most managers these days - in any business - manage budgets, reports, management information, risk registers (not the same as the "children at risk" register that SS use, for those that don't know), contracts with suppliers/service providers, appraisal reporting etc etc

I have to admit I assumed this was largely what Sharon Shoesmith's job entailed

There are few "man managers" now. Most experienced staff are expected to "get on with it" and most junior staff work in an atmosphere that resembles a classroom!

All those things that you mentioned will be the responsibility of middle management.

I'll go back to my analogy of RBS again. The middle managers at RBS were responsible for how everyone underneath them acted. However, Fred Goodwin was responsible for how the middle management acted, and in turn how the people underneath them acted. As you go further up the chain of command, the responsibility becomes greater, as you are not only responsible for your own actions, but of everyone below you. Hence why the salary goes up with promotion.

Since Showsmith was at the top civil servant in the social services in the area, she was the one that had to take the responsibility. While she couldn't attach monitor what everyone below her did all of the time, she still had to take responsibility for them. But that's just how the chain of command works. It's why CEO jobs are so stressful.

RiverStar

In other words, managers these days deal with paperwork sides of things, like you say, budgeting, appraisals, etc the hands on staff are left to get on with it. So therefore, you'd think that to Shoesmith, as I said before, baby P and others like him are just a number on a file she has had to deal with. Probably hasn't even met the boy/family and now has been sacked for it.
Another thought though, maybe those under her didn't raise their grievances about it loud enough, (am aware how loud/how oftern should you should to be heard) she didnt take enough notice/act quickly enough, had too much work on, (most managers I know would delegate anyway to someone able). Therefore somone has to seriously look at what are these people getting paid for/are enough people employed to cope (methinks this is the question), if there's not, then employ some, to hang with saving money/cut backs, children/young people/elderly are at risk. It's time as a nation we gave credit where due, got rid of incompetent people regardless of their middle class background and gave proper attention to those that need it most in our society. Sorry, having a rant here.

prowla

I think the issue was the reporting and checks within the department, for which she was definitely responsible.

Money_Grabber13579

RiverStar wrote: »

In other words, managers these days deal with paperwork sides of things, like you say, budgeting, appraisals, etc the hands on staff are left to get on with it. So therefore, you'd think that to Shoesmith, as I said before, baby P and others like him are just a number on a file she has had to deal with. Probably hasn't even met the boy/family and now has been sacked for it.
Another thought though, maybe those under her didn't raise their grievances about it loud enough, (am aware how loud/how oftern should you should to be heard) she didnt take enough notice/act quickly enough, had too much work on, (most managers I know would delegate anyway to someone able). Therefore somone has to seriously look at what are these people getting paid for/are enough people employed to cope (methinks this is the question), if there's not, then employ some, to hang with saving money/cut backs, children/young people/elderly are at risk. It's time as a nation we gave credit where due, got rid of incompetent people regardless of their middle class background and gave proper attention to those that need it most in our society. Sorry, having a rant here.

It doesn't matter if she never saw Baby P, or even heard of him before he died. But that doesn't absolve her responsibility for the actions of her staff.

RiverStar

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if she never saw Baby P, or even heard of him before he died. But that doesn't absolve her responsibility for the actions of her staff.

I understand what you are saying and it does make sense, she DOES have responsibility that goes with the job. I'd like to know if those social workers who were supposed to be looking after baby P lost their jobs?

lynzpower

RiverStar wrote: »

I understand what you are saying and it does make sense, she DOES have responsibility that goes with the job. I'd like to know if those social workers who were supposed to be looking after baby P lost their jobs?

Or thier line managers.

Debt_Free_Chick

Money_Grabber13579 wrote: »

I'll go back to my analogy of RBS again. The middle managers at RBS were responsible for how everyone underneath them acted. However, Fred Goodwin was responsible for how the middle management acted, and in turn how the people underneath them acted. As you go further up the chain of command, the responsibility becomes greater, as you are not only responsible for your own actions, but of everyone below you. Hence why the salary goes up with promotion.

I don't see this working in any business today. The further up the chain you go, the more removed you are from day-to-day operations and man management. The role becomes more about business strategy - how to make the business more profitable and how to deliver shareholder value.

If those at the top really are responsible for what everyone below them does, then the CEO/COO should be sacked whenever an employee is sacked

Oh and all the managers above Sharon Shoesmith should be sacked, right up to the PM!!!

RiverStar

lynzpower wrote: »

Or thier line managers.

Yes, exactly, not condoning Shoesmith at all here, but is she the only person (apart from the obvious - the parents themselves) who has been sacked ? I hope the others have as well or it begs the question that social workers (incapable ones) will not do their job properly as the higher up ones will take the flak for it!