Counting fish...

At a time of major cutbacks, services are being asked to do even more with less.  Ironically this has led to counting fish more assiduously, while still ignoring people’s individual potential to fish.

The world is changing at an incomparable rate - and so is the way we think about the purpose of our work. Furthermore, because our jobs have an impact on global resources, the imperatives of sustainability are becoming ever more critical to conversations about what we do and what this costs. Yet, it appears that conversations about money frame the success of organisations. This means that achievement is calculated in ways that strip outcomes of their social significance. In other words, the evidence presented to boards is that which will satisfy funders: in turn fearing cuts trustees remain guarded regarding innovation, the situation is more akin to stagnation than purpose drift. Innovation, the inclusive practice development that delivers on empowerment, has seldom anywhere to sit in the bogginess of existing procedure.

For those working in mainstream services consideration of people with disabilities is a must. However, for those delivering services or support to people with disabilities accountability is not merely advisable – it is of central significance.  Empowering people with disabilities, so that they may become equal partners, is a primary concern, both morally, but makes business sense.

Where leadership is understood as a shared activity in which we all have a part to play, then people with disabilities should also have a role. However, leadership is often viewed as status or role, and there is a widely held leader stereotype, a view that supports the notion that leaders require certain personal characteristics. The purpose of activity may have to be redefined so that people with disabilities can be viewed as equals – however different. For the moment, unfortunately they are often perceived as not to having the right to join in.

While shared leadership activity may be simplistic, and the reality is even less straightforward. The next 3 blogs will outline the workshops at this years’ unconference  that will support people’s thinking on these issues

From a governance perspective, an organisation using a directive method to achieve its purpose ultimately erodes people’s self-respect (Ledwith, 2005): funded activities imposing outcomes and indicators become oppressive because they distort the importance of what is valued (Craig, Mayo, Popple, Shaw, & Taylor, 2011). Perpetuating a needs-based transaction will not offer an alternative since the attention remains on individualism (Chapman, 2010). Directive activity may even come at the expense of what has greater worth when freely exchanged - the mutual gain derived from non-marketable contribution (Block & McKnight, 2010) and the binding and holistic nature of community exchanges (Diers, 2004).

This may be made worse where there is strong positive bias towards the tall white male, allowing for the positive prejudice that can help people fit into senior positions15. While business objectives impose financial considerations and management structures reinforce position and status, it will be difficult for alternative ways of including disabled people and thereby challenging current assumptions. However, left unchallenged they will stifle aspiration for all by allowing inequality to persist.

Where non-conformity calls personal skill into question, people will be forced to adopt organisational values and behaviours to fit in or withdraw altogether. Where they do stay many people may have to pay too high a price in order to fit in and deny their own capabilities, by turning down opportunities for personal development where they feel their contribution will not be valued1. In the short term an intentional process is needed to restore fairer advantage, otherwise different results will never break the habits that reinforce the stereotype13.

Because of its excluding nature, disablism has been easy to ignore, therefore the process taken to address it may need to be clear in its intention to restore belonging for this group until concern for equality is universally shared3. Training and research which continues to separate disabled people as a distinct and ‘other’ group is not helpful, as it entrenches a belief in their lack of humanity. Other routes must be considered so that remedy is possible, and different action is imperative to restore a greater sense of common ground3. Many argue that an emotional connection is important, as change is often catalysed by a meaningful relationship with a disabled person or increasing familiarity with their shared ideas13. In which case, movement thinking will offer a balanced solution as it provides a joint voice. It is a way of accessing disabled people’s unique contribution until such time that relationships are made easier. When rivalry emerges between individuals or (more insidiously) groups, the belonging that develops within groups may exclude others and it is the divisions which needs to be exposed as the problem7. Alienation by division can lead to perceived incompetence, such that ‘different’ experiences and skills may not be properly appreciated15. It may explain why some cultures can create a climate of threat for certain people. And why to address these issues involves wider factors such as trust and acceptance, which require a focus on both the personal and organisational level13.

From a social model perspective, seeking alternative ways of working may strengthen commitment and add opportunities for growth that impact positively on information and knowledge. However, ultimately power will need to be rebalanced. More importantly, working with disabled people may lead to the shared experience that inspires something very different, more akin to creation. Where ethical commitment has organisational purpose and the shared vision is grounded in a philosophy of social justice then other values may also emerge. As Cahn puts it:

On a societal level, Co-Production entails a simple but profound shift in relationships Co-Production may mean the active process of remedying or preventing whatever would violate our sense of social justice. A social justice perspective elevates the principle to an Imperative. (Cahn, 2000, p 34-35).

With the imperative clarified, the process is functional, bringing different groups together to work towards more ethical outcomes. In this sense, Co-Production, leads to different shared activity which in turn helps new understanding emerge5. Where policy and legislation are bureaucratic, here the focus is on the process and the different outcomes that bring about a change in belief. People working together contribute jointly, may be viewed less as a means to an end, but a community with capacity to share2. A process-orientated approach, therefore suggests that ‘to do anything collectively really well, especially in a service-based-economy, we need to engage employees as whole people and to invite their minds and their hearts as well as their bodies to come to work’13. This view enables all members to contribute to shared vision by enhancing their own knowledge and their own skills.

In contrast to the improvement perspective forced on us by legislation, movement thinking may offer a route to transforming our culture by enabling different contributions to add depth to the leadership debate4. Deliberately creating new ways of including disabled people by widening opportunities may lead to the exchange of ideas that can alter strategic thinking. By upsetting the status quo and questioning established norms, the disability movement is thus a significant contributor to wider social Change and increasing equality for all.