Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) policy

Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) policy Social Work as a profession is heavily influenced by political rhetoric and ideology albeit there has been a shift in governmental philosophy from the beginnings of the profession. Due to Neo-Liberal ideas commonly adopted by the main political parties in the United Kingdom, social work services are beginning to be based on free market principles. Social work and social care services have seen an increase in privatised quasi markets. The role of the social worker in all of this is one that can be contested and is certainly not static; it is a profession that I believe should attempt to be diverse and fluid. The aim of this essay is, to discuss too what extent there is a social work role beyond ‘the rationing of scarce services and managing of poor people’ (Ferguson and Lavalette 2013:108) This will be achieved by looking the Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) policy and what it means for social workers in a statutory children’s and families team before draw ing a conclusion. I intend to highlight the importance of early intervention as laid out in GIRFEC and what this means for social workers. GIRFEC also emphasises the importance of joint up working and I intend to highlight some of the failings of this and the tensions this creates for social workers on the front line. Finally, I will look at how GIRFEC is being put into practice by drawing on research from the Institute of Research and Innovation in Social Services (IRISS); Changing how we work: a case study in East Lothian. Firstly, however it is important to briefly explore the beginnings of policy implementation and how todays austerity measures effect policy being put into practice. Social work services go back over one hundred and fifty years but it was during the late 1960s that it became apparent that a framework of legislation was needed. This resulted in the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The Kilbrandon report 1964 was a major driver in this act along with the white paper Social Work and the Community 1966. The Kilbrandon report called for the introduction of children’s hearings and ‘introduced a new way of dealing with what were described as children who were in need of compulsory care’. (Fabb and Guthrie 2007:150) Smith and White (2008:21) add that ‘the thinking of the Kilbrandon Committee was strongly educational, reflecting longstanding views that social wellbeing and social cohesion through education should be the ambition of the system.’ The Kilbrandon report is still one of the most significant policies in relation to social work practice. Ferguson and Lavalette (2013) highlight how austerity measures and welfare reform mixed with the marketization of social work services is impacting on the social work task. Neoliberalism is an ideology now adopted by the main political parties in the United Kingdom and is a take on classic liberal beliefs such as ‘free trade and the free market’ (Hoffman and Graham 2009:) Neo-liberal theorists believe that the role of welfare should not lie with the state and they ‘question the need for the majority of publically funded, state delivered, or state regulated institutions that, taken together, comprise a welfare state.’ (Ellison 2012:) This can be seen in society today in many ways, for example, with the introduction of universal credit and benefit capping both making an attempt to reduce welfare costs. This could also explain the ever growing involvement and use of the voluntary or third sector in social work services. GIRFEC: The aims of the policy GIRFEC was introduced by the Scottish Government in 2008 in an attempt to improve the way in which work is undertaken by professionals working with children and their families. The policy was developed after a string of recommendations and reports surrounding child protection, one of which being It’s everyone’s job to make sure I’m alright Report of the Child Protection Audit and Review(2002: 1) which highlighted the importance of ‘a Scotland in which every child matters’. Another significant report was my turn to talk? (Scottish Executive 2006:), which highlighted that ‘child-related professionals and decision makers across Scotland have both moral and legal obligations to encourage and support children’s participation.’ I believe that this push for child participation will in turn promote active citizenship for children. From these reports and others it was clear that new policy guidance was necessary and so GIRFEC was adopted. GIRFEC aims to co-ordinate the services’ children receive as well as managing the consistency in the delivery of these services. The Scottish Governments guide to getting it right for every child (2012:6) states that ‘it is the bedrock for all children’s services’. Putting the child at the centre of the services they receive is high on the agenda throughout and the policy puts a high emphasis on multi-agency working and the importance of early intervention. The policy was created in respect to ten core components and has a strong set of values that were developed from the Children’s Charter 2004 which ‘reflects the voice of children and young people and what they feel they need, and should be able to expect, when they have problems or are in difficulty and need to be protected.’ (Scottish Government 2004) The wellbeing wheel, my world triangle and resilience matrix, together known as the National practice model, are assessment tools used within GIRFEC to effectively manage and analyse the information required for a child’s plan. The wellbeing wheel consists of eight indicators of wellbeing that ‘are the basic requirements for all children and young people to grow and develop’ (Scottish Government 2012:10). These are: Safe, Healthy, Achieving, Nurtured, Active, Respected, Responsible and Included. (SHANARRI). Deep rooted in this, is the four competences from the Curriculum of Excellence: a successful learner, a confident individual, a responsible citizen and an effective contributor. I consider the combination of well-being and the curriculum for excellence to be a strong indicator for the push for multi-agency work that is evident throughout the policy. GIRFEC: A drive for early intervention and multi-agency working and the tensions these bring. Early intervention is one of the key themes running throughout the policy. The Changing Lives Report of the 21st Century Social Worker Review illustrates a four tiered approach to early intervention, incorporating the social workers role. (Scottish Government 2006:31). It stresses how social workers are involved in the early stages of intervention and how as crisis situations develop, other universal services step back. I wonder how involved we really are at tiers 1 and 2 and believe this will vary between local authorities. The Scottish Government(2006:31) state that, ‘social workers have a significant contribution to make at tiers 1 and 2, supporting and informing the delivery of services both within social work and across partner agencies.’ However, McGhee and Waterhouse (2011:1097) contradict this by arguing that: ‘for social work, early intervention has taken on a different meaning from that at tiers 1 and 2 †¦ early intervention begins at tier 3 and concerns individuals who already present significant vulnerability and risk and who are beyond the remit and capacity of universal services.’ This points out that early intervention may frequently be the responsibility of health professionals and education. However, early intervention at tiers 1 and 2 is perhaps what social work should be about it with its professional values pushing towards social justice. The Highland ‘s children services practice guidance (2013:11) ‘emphasises the critical part played by health and education services in supporting the development of all children. Difficulties or concerns are identified at an early stage and steps taken to ensure that additional help is available when needed. Help is given as quickly as possible and in consultation with children and their families.’ This backs up what McGhee and Waterhouse argue early intervention is like for social workers; their idea that social workers are not involved at tier 1 and 2. Another Key theme to shape GIRFEC is that of the importance of multi-agency working. Although GIRFEC calls for a push towards a better system of multi-agency working it is not something that is new to the literature. (Wilson et al 2011) Multi-agency became high on the political agenda after the death of Victoria Climbie who ‘was slowly tortured to death despite the involvement of four social service departments, three police child protection teams, health agencies and voluntary agencies.’ (Marinetto 2011:1164) An inquiry into Victoria’s death highlighted the breakdown between professional organisations and called for better co-ordination between services and organisations. With the importance of professionals working together and sharing information stressed here it is no wonder that it is such a key feature in policy documents. The principle behind multi-agency working sounds simple; ‘professionals with different backgrounds, from different intellectual dis ciplines and with different roles work together to provide care and support to service users and people around them.’ (Payne 2007:146) However, for social workers there are tensions to be considered. Atkinson et al (2005) looks at research carried out into multi-agency working and highlights eight challenges; fiscal resources, roles and responsibilities, competing priorities, non-fiscal resources, communication, professional and agency cultures, management and training opportunities. Some of the problems identified within these areas were that there was no financial support and many workers did not know what was being asked of their individual role between them and the rest of the multi-agency team. There were often different primacies amongst the different professions leading to conflict. As a social worker it is imperative that I aim to overcome these tensions and difficulties. In regards to GIRFEC, I expect that the introduction of the named person will help coordinate the multi-agency approach although lack of funding and resources is something that is always going to be a threat to the smooth running of a statu tory children and families team attempting to work alongside other professionals under the GIRFEC framework. The Audit Commission (2009:3) states that ‘Effective joint workingneeds active leadership and purposeful relationship management.’ The report highlights how working together in multi-agency teams is not without risk and that difficulties can arise if the agencies have not developed effective relationships. Strong leadership seems to be a key theme throughout the literature. The Scottish Government (2010) states that ‘Partnership working requires leadership at all levels and across services. In order to make partnership working effective, leadership needs to be the responsibility of everyone.’ If this is adopted and everyone is clear on what their roles and responsibilities are it should enable an effective way of working. How can we implement GIRFEC into practice? In October 2012, IRISS worked alongside East Lothian Council to enable them to implement GIRFEC. The sub group working together involved social workers, police, child protection, the third sector, education and health. Collins (2013:) states that she had ‘initially conceptualised this project as a means to help an organisation reflect on and improve their use of evidence, however, as the project progressed it became evident that the lessons really centred around how a multi-disciplinary team can learn to work together well and change the way they work.’ So here we have a positive example promoting the practice of multi-agency working, however, arriving at this conclusion was not easy. The study points out that in the beginnings people were reluctant to the prospect of the group – ‘We don’t even have the same beliefs.’ (Collins 2013:5) The next problem to address was that when it came down to it, people didn’t fully understand the best way to comprehend GIRFEC- ‘The problem is interpretation of GIRFEC. Some people are putting ‘safe’ at the top of the pyramid. But safe is not the only thing. It doesn’t have to be the most important.’ (Collins 2013:7) These difficulties are only to name a few, but as the group moved onward planning strategies were implemented, based comprehensively on reflection which the group named ‘the action research cycle’ (Collins 2013:16), with successful results. Conclusion Going back to Ferguson and Lavalettes quote, it would be ethically undermining to say that social work is about rationing limited resources and welfare management and that the GIRFEC policy aims to tackle every aspect of a child’s well-being with a multi-agency approach. Although as previously highlighted, the importance of multi-agency working is not new to the literature, within GIRFEC there is a drive for a more effective method in which universal services can work together in partnership with a thrust towards early intervention, although it may be argued that social workers are being locked of this. To an extent, I agree with this and believe that austerity measures are influencing this and together with welfare reforms and an ever growing number of families living in poverty then at present social workers roles may be changing but I am uncertain at present as to say to what extent. What I am certain of is that the service users within a statutory children’s and fam ilies team will be effected whether it be through the ever increasing cost of living and proportion of them relying on low income wages or through local authorities having to cut funding to specialised services and protects.

Musik und ihre Wirkung in der Fernsehwerbung Essay -- essays research

1.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Einleitung Werbung begegnet und begleitet uns permanent auf unterschiedlichste Weise durch den Alltag, sogar in der Freizeit werden wir immer wieder mit Werbung konfrontiert, ob zuhause oder unterwegs, freiwillig oder unfreiwillig. Vermutlich fà ¤llt es daher kaum einem Menschen in unserer heutigen Mediengesellschaft schwer, Slogans aus der Fernsehwerbung wie „Nicht immer, aber immer à ¶fter.â€Å" oder „Die zarteste Versuchung, seit es Schokolade gibt.â€Å" mit dem entsprechenden umworbenen Produkt in Verbindung zu bringen, bei dem letzteren Slogan sogar die entsprechende Begleitmelodie mit zu summen. Ausgehend von dieser Vermutung stellen sich mir folgende Fragen, die im Verlauf dieser Arbeit beantwortet werden sollen: Warum prà ¤gt sich die Fernsehwerbung so stark in unser Gedà ¤chtnis ein und welche bedeutende Rolle spielt die Musik dabei? Wie muss die Fernsehwerbung und die Musik beschaffen sein, damit sie sich so gut einprà ¤gt? Bevor ich auf die Werbung im Fernsehen zu sprechen komme, mà ¶chte ich zunà ¤chst klà ¤ren, wie sich der Begriff „Werbungâ€Å" allgemein definiert und welche Formen von Werbung es gibt (Kapitel 2). Im anschließenden Kapitel geht es dann speziell um Fernsehwerbung und deren Entstehung, Verbreitung und Nutzen fà ¼r die Werbeschaffenden (Kapitel 3). Das vierte Kapitel beschà ¤ftigt sich mit allgemeinen und konkreten Zielsetzungen der Fernsehwerbung und ihre Wirkung auf den Konsumenten (Kapitel 4). Das nachfolgende Kapitel bearbeitet die Konzeption von Musik in der Fernsehwerbung. Bevor ich auf die Kompositionsformen entsprechender Musik und die Verwendung unterschiedlicher Musikstile im engen Zusammenhang mit Produktimage und Zielgruppe eingehe, werden eingehend die Bedeutung, die Funktionen und die Wirkung von Musik in der Fernsehwerbung dargestellt (Kapitel 5). Eine abschließende Schlussbetrachtung soll die Fragestellungen dieser Arbeit noch einmal aufgreifen und auf der Grundlage der einzelnen Kapitel beantworten. 2.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Was ist Werbung? Zum besseren Verstà ¤ndnis des Begriffes „Werbungâ€Å" sollen an dieser Stelle zunà ¤chst zwei mà ¶gliche Definitionen vorgestellt werden: „Werbung ist ein wirtschaftssozialer Prozess, bei welchem mit unpersà ¶nlichen Mitteln Meinungen und Entscheidungen beeinflusst werden, unter Wahrung des Gefà ¼hls freier Entschließung.â€Å" „Werbung ist Kommunikation. Jede, der ein Anliege... ...dere Formen der Werbung und erreicht viele unterschiedliche Zielgruppen in kà ¼rzester Zeit. Die Fernsehwerbung ist in Musikstil und Produktimage genau auf entsprechende Zielgruppen ausgerichtet, sodass sie fà ¼r den Menschen an persà ¶nlicher Bedeutung gewinnt und er sich mit dem umworbenen Produkt besser identifizieren kann. Durch immer wiederkehrende Slogans, Melodien und Jingles besitzt die Werbung eine hohe Suggestivkraft. Vor allem die Musik spielt hinsichtlich der Wirkung von Fernsehwerbung eine bedeutende Rolle, den sie spricht stets die Gefà ¼hlswelt an und là ¶st (im Idealfall positive) Emotionen aus, die mit dem angepriesenen Produkt direkt in Verbindung gebracht werden (sollen). Dabei besteht die Gefahr, dass der Konsument die Informationen nur oberflà ¤chlich aufnimmt, ohne sich kritisch mit den Inhalten einer Werbung bzw. den Produkten auseinander zu setzen. Produkte werden demzufolge meist unbewusst mit bestimmten Slogans und Melodien in Verbindung gebracht und abspeichert – laut Werbeindustrie die beste Grundlage und Voraussetzung fà ¼r den Kauf und Erwerb eines umworbenen Produkts – das Hauptziel der Werbeindustrie ist erreicht, der Konsument hat kaum etwas davon gemerkt.

The Mending Wall :: essays research papers

Walls and Borders Do â€Å"good fences really make good neighbors?†(666) Robert Frost’s poem Mending Wall examines this as a local issue. It can also be interpreted as a global issue. Frost writes about two neighbor farmers and how a wall between their property effects the relationship between the two. Taking a more global look at the issue, the conflict in the former Yugoslavia relates to Mending Wall. Perhaps â€Å"good fences† give people a false sense of security. Robert Frost’s poem, Mending Wall, is about two neighbors who meet every year in the spring to rebuild the wall, which borders their properties. The wall is toppled each year by hunters, weather, and time. The narrator of the poem doesn’t see the point of rebuilding the wall year after year. He sees no problem with just letting the wall alone. He doesn’t understand what he is â€Å"walling in or walling out.† (667) He calls it, â€Å"an outdoor game, one on a side†¦ it comes to little more.† (667) His neighbor, however, wants to build the wall, saying, †Good fences make good neighbors.† (667) These neighbors have a conflicting view of the wall. One doesn’t see any sense in the wall, and the other insists that it be fixed, without giving any sensible reason. In 1991, the European country of Yugoslavia, located in southeastern Europe, in the Balkan Mountains, split into eight different nations, due to an â€Å"ethnic cleansing†. The countries formed from the split are Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo, Vgivodina, and Serbia. The main reason for the split is the diversity of the ethnic groups involved. There are the Serbs, Muslims, Croats, and Bosnians. The civil war started when Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia incited a rebellion. Bosnia is the center of the conflict, being the most diverse. The Bosnian-Croat Federation occupies Western Bosnia, which includes the capital city of Saraj evo. Whereas eastern Bosnia is occupied by the Serb Republic. Sarajevo is the center of most of the fighting, because it is such a diverse city, torn by different ethnic neighborhoods. Many European countries and the United States tried to end fighting before it spread throughout Europe, creating World War 3. The Dayton Agreement was established to try to unify the city. It stated that Sarajevo’s Muslim and Serb neighborhoods are reunified under the Bosnian government, much to the disdain of the Bosnian Serbs, who want to divide the city.

Electricity Essay -- Electricity History Discovery Essays

Electricity The effects of electricity control much of our daily lives. Many of our gadgets and everyday tasks are run by this wonderful source of power. For example without electricity we would not be able to make a cup of coffee in the mourning, or even make a long distance call to family or friends. There have been several technological breakthroughs by many brilliant people throughout history regarding electricity. It has come from being discovered as a small current to being transformed into useful power to run such things as computers. Ben Franklin, Guglielmo Marconi, Thomas Edison, Paul Nipkow, and Charles Babbage have all contributed to the advancement of electricity, and all of their advancements have supplied society in many ways. Benjamin Franklin was a brilliant scientist who invented many useful things. Although throughout his experiments and inventions, he was curious about one special thing. "He was so curious in fact that his experiments toward electricity took up over four years of his life, and devoured over one half of his of profits of his printing business" (Fleming 4). After many trials and experiments, he discovered this power source while flying a kite during a lightning storm. "Through his loses he turned this new born curiosity into a full fledged branch of science." (Fleming 4) His findings led to many other scientists to test on this phenomenon and invent many practical and useful things that led to the expansion of human knowledge. Many of these inventions were used to better everyday human life. l Thomas Edison was another intelligent scientist that used the findings of Ben Franklin to invent a contraption called the light bulb. At the time of Edison?s findings, there was only gas and cand... ...othing like what are computers are today, it still started the ball rolling for the invention of many practical and useful computers today. Each of these men have contributed to our society in their own special way . Each of their creative minds brought something into this world that has changed it forever. Without men like these brilliant scientist our world would never prosper and grow like it has. Bibliography - Baldwin, Neil. Edison Inventing the century. New York: Hyperion, 1995 - Computer History. http://Encyclopedia.com/ - Dunlap, Orrin. Marconi The Man And His Wireless. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1932 - Fleming, Thomas. The Man Who Dared The Lightning. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1971 - Laas, William. Settel, Irving. A Pictorial History of Television. New York: Grosset and Dunlap, inc., 1969

Folly as the Narrator in Erasmus’s The Praise of Folly

â€Å"The Praise of Folly† Desiderius Erasmus In Erasmus' work â€Å"The Praise of Folly†, the narrator delivers a speech praising Folly with the following: â€Å"And to whom is it generally agreed life owes its beginning if not to me? For it certainly isn't the spear of ? mighty-fathered' Pallas or the shield of ? cloud-gathering' Jupiter which fathers and propagates the human race,†1[2496]. Here the narrator, who is Folly herself, tries to put herself above everyone else, even the Gods on Olympus. She says that she is the beginning of all life, and that she should be the most regarded person, while in reality, this is all a bunch of ‘folly'. She ridicules the Gods and strips them of their powers. She tries to convince the reader that they can never have â€Å"Self-Love† without the presence of her. In Folly's eyes, she proves these items as being virtues and not defects. Folly leads the reader into believing that all foolishness is, in fact, wisdom. While Folly continues her deception, she also criticizes the philosophy of Christian church. She sees the happiness of Christians as a type of folly. Paraphrasing Folly, the philosophy is ‘as long as the mind makes proper use of the organs of the body, it is called sane and healthy. But once it begins to break its bonds and tries to win freedom, men call it insane. ‘ Even so, according to Folly, this type of person shows a knowledge they had never previously learned, and giving clear indication of something divine. Knowledge, power and position don't, and can't, get you true happiness. It is only with a little ‘madness' that a person can truly be free and live an enjoyable life.

Leading Clever Perople

HBR Spotlight How to Manage the Most Talented How do you manage people who don’t want to be led and may be smarter than you? CLEVER PEOPLE by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones LEADING F ranz Humer, the CEO and chairman of the Swiss pharma- ceutical giant Roche, knows how dif? cult it is to ? nd good ideas. â€Å"In my business of research, economies of scale don’t exist,† he says. â€Å"Globally today we spend $4 billion on R&D every year. In research there aren’t economies of scale, there are economies of ideas. For a growing number of companies, according to Humer, competitive advantage lies in the ability to create an economy driven not by cost ef? ciencies but by ideas and intellectual know-how. In practice this means that leaders have to create an environment in which what we call â€Å"clever people† can thrive. These people are the handful of employees whose ideas, knowledge, and skills give them the potential to produce disproportionate value fro m the resources their organizations make available to them. Think, for example, of the software Stephen Webster 72 Harvard Business Review | March 2007 | hbr. orgHBR Spotlight How to Manage the Most Talented programmer who creates a new piece of code or the pharmaceutical researcher who formulates a new drug. Their single innovations may bankroll an entire company for a decade. Top executives today nearly all recognize the importance of having extremely smart and highly creative people on staff. But attracting them is only half the battle. As Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of WPP, one of the world’s largest communications services companies, told us recently,â€Å"One of the biggest challenges is that there are diseconomies of scale in creative industries.If you double the number of creative people, it doesn’t mean you will be twice as creative. † You must not only attract talent but also foster an environment in which your clever people are inspired to ach ieve their fullest potential in a way that produces wealth and value for all your stakeholders. That’s tough. If clever people have one de? ning characteristic, it is that they do not want to be led. This clearly creates a problem for you as a leader. The challenge has only become greater with globalization.Clever people are more mobile than ever before; they are as likely to be based in Bangalore or Beijing as in Boston. That means they have more opportunities: They’re not waiting around for their pensions; they know their value, and they expect you to know it too. We have spent the past 20 years studying the issue of leadership–in particular, what followers want from their leaders. Our methods are sociological, and our data come from case studies rather than anonymous random surveys. Our predominant method consists of loosely structured interviews, lever people is very different from the one they have with traditional followers. Clever people want a high degre e of organizational protection and recognition that their ideas are important. They also demand the freedom to explore and fail. They expect their leaders to be intellectually on their plane–but they do not want a leader’s talent and skills to outshine their own. That’s not to say that all clever people are alike, or that they follow a single path. They do, however, share a number of de? ning characteristics. Let’s take a look at some of those now.Understanding Clever People Contrary to what we have been led to believe in recent years, CEOs are not utterly at the mercy of their highly creative and extremely smart people. Of course, some very talented individuals – artists, musicians, and other free agents – can produce remarkable results on their own. In most cases, however, clever people need the organization as much as it needs them. They cannot function effectively without the resources it provides. The classical musician needs an orchest ra; the research scientist needs funding and the facilities of a ? st-class laboratory. They need more than just resources, however; as the head of development for a global accounting ? rm put it, your clever people â€Å"can be sources of great ideas, but unless they have systems and discipline they may deliver very little. † That’s the good news. The bad news is that all the resources and systems in the world are useless unless you have clever If clever people have one de? ning characteristic, it is that they do not want to be led. This clearly creates a problem for you as a leader. and our work draws primarily from ? e contexts: sciencebased businesses, marketing services, professional services, the media, and ? nancial services. For this article, we spoke with more than 100 leaders and their clever people at leading organizations such as PricewaterhouseCoopers, Electronic Arts, Cisco Systems, Credit Suisse, Novartis, KPMG, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) , WPP, and Roche.The more we talked to these people, the clearer it became that the psychological relationship leaders have with their people to make the most of them. Worse, they know very well that you must mploy them to get their knowledge and skills. If an organization could capture the knowledge embedded in clever people’s minds and networks, all it would need is a better knowledge-management system. The failure of such systems to capture tacit knowledge is one of the great disappointments of knowledge-management initiatives to date. The attitudes that clever people display toward their organizations re? ect their sense of self-worth. We’ve found most Rob Goffee ([email  protected] edu) is a professor of organizational behavior at London Business School in England. Gareth Jones ([email  protected] london. du) is a visiting professor at Insead in Fontainebleau, France, and a fellow of the Centre for Management Development at London Business School. Goffee and J ones are also the founding partners of Creative Management Associates, an organizational consulting ? rm in London. Their HBR article â€Å"Managing Authenticity† was published in December 2005. 74 Harvard Business Review | March 2007 | hbr. org Leading Clever People of them to be scornful of the language of hierarchy. Although they are acutely aware of the salaries and bonuses attached to their work, they often treat promotions with indifference or even contempt.So don’t expect to lure or retain them with fancy job titles and new responsibilities. They will want to stay close to the â€Å"real work,† often to the detriment of relationships with the people they are supposed to be managing. This doesn’t mean they don’t care about status–they do, often passionately. The same researcher who affects not to know his job title may insist on being called â€Å"doctor†or â€Å"professor. † The point is that clever people feel they are part of an external professional community that renders the organizational chart meaningless. Not only do they gain career bene? s from networking, but they construct their sense of self from the feedback generated by these extra-organizational connections. This indifference to hierarchy and bureaucracy does not make clever people politically naive or disconnected. The chairman of a major news organization told us about a globally famous journalist – an exemplar of the very clever and skeptical people driving the news business–who in the newsroom appears deeply suspicious of everything the â€Å"suits† are doing. But in reality he is astute about how the company is being led and what strategic direction it is taking.While publicly expressing disdain for the business side, he privately asks penetrating questions about the organization’s growth prospects and relationships with important customers. He is also an outspoken champion of the organization in its dealings with politicians, media colleagues, and customers. You wouldn’t invite him to a strategy meeting with a 60-slide PowerPoint presentation, but you would be wise to keep him informed of key developments in the business. Like the famous journalist, most clever people are quick to recognize insincerity and respond badly to it.David Gardner, the COO of worldwide studios for Electronic Arts (EA), knows this because he oversees a lot of clever people. EA has 7,200 employees worldwide developing interactive entertainment software derived from FIFA Soccer, The Sims, The Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter, among others. â€Å"If I look back at our failures,† Gardner told us,â€Å"they have been when there were too many rah-rahs and not enough content in our dealings with our people. People are not fooled. So when there are issues or things that need to be worked out, straightforward dialogue is important, out of respect for their intellectual capabilities. †Seve n Things You Need to Know About Clever People Leaders should be aware of the characteristics most clever people share, which collectively make them a dif? cult crew to manage. 1. They know their worth. The tacit skills of clever people are closer to those of medieval guilds than to the standardized, codi? able, and communicable skills that characterized the Industrial Revolution. This means you can’t transfer the knowledge without the people. 2. They are organizationally savvy. Clever people will ? nd the company context in which their interests will be most generously funded. If the funding dries up, they have a couple of options:They can move on to a place where resources are plentiful, or they can dig in and engage in elaborate politics to advance their pet projects. 3. They ignore corporate hierarchy. If you seek to motivate clever people with titles or promotions, you will probably be met with cold disdain. But don’t assume this means they don’t care about status; they can be very particular about it, and may insist on being called â€Å"doctor† or â€Å"professor. † 4. They expect instant access. If clever people don’t get access to the CEO, they may think the organization does not take their work seriously. 5. They are well connected.Clever people are usually plugged into highly developed knowledge networks; who they know is often as important as what they know. These networks both increase their value to the organization and make them more of a ? ight risk. 6. They have a low boredom threshold. In an era of employee mobility, if you don’t engage your clever people intellectually and inspire them with organizational purpose, they will walk out the door. 7. They won’t thank you. Even when you’re leading them well, clever people will be unwilling to recognize your leadership. Remember, these creative individuals feel that they don’t need to be led.Measure your success by your ability to remain on the fringes of their radar. Managing Organizational â€Å"Rain† Given their mind-set, clever people see an organization’s administrative machinery as a distraction from their key valueadding activities. So they need to be protected from what we call organizational â€Å"rain† – the rules and politics associated with any big-budget activity. When leaders get this right, they hbr. org | March 2007 | Harvard Business Review 75 HBR Spotlight How to Manage the Most Talented can establish exactly the productive relationship with clever people that they want.In an academic environment, this is the dean freeing her star professor from the burden of departmental administration; at a newspaper, it is the editor allowing the investigative reporter to skip editorial meetings; in a fast-moving multinational consumer goods company, it is the leader ? ltering requests for information from the head of? ce so the consumer pro? ler is free to experiment with a n ew marketing plan. Organizational rain is a big issue in the pharmaceutical business. Drug development is hugely expensive – industrywide, the average cost of bringing a drug to market is about $800 million – and not every drug can go the distance.As a result, the politics surrounding a decision can be ferocious. Unless the CEO provides cover, promising projects may be permanently derailed, and the people involved may lose con? dence in the organization’s ability to support them. The protective role is one that Arthur D. Levinson, Genentech’s CEO and a talented scientist in his own right, knows how to play. When the drug Avastin failed in Phase III clinical trials in 2002, Genentech’s share price dropped by 10% 76 Harvard Business Review | overnight. Faced with that kind of pressure, some leaders would have pulled the plug on Avastin.Not Levinson: He believes in letting his clever people decide. Once or twice a year, research scientists have to def end their work to Genentech’s Research Review Committee, a group of 13 PhDs who decide how to allocate the research budget and whether to terminate projects. This gives rise to a rigorous debate among the clever people over the science and the direction of research. It also insulates Levinson from accusations of favoritism or short-termism. And if the RRC should kill a project, the researchers are not only not ? red, they are asked what they want to work on ext. Roche owns 56% of Genentech, and Franz Humer stands foursquare behind Levinson. Leading clever people, Humer told us, is especially dif? cult in hard times. â€Å"You can look at Genentech now and say what a great company,† he said,â€Å"but for ten years Genentech had no new products and spent between $500 million and $800 million on research every year. The pressure on me to close it down or change the culture was enormous. †Avastin was eventually approved in February 2004; in 2005 it had sales of $1. 13 billion. March 2007 | hbr. org Leading Clever PeopleHaving a leader who’s prepared to protect his clever people from organizational rain is necessary but not suf? cient. It’s also important to minimize the rain by creating an atmosphere in which rules and norms are simple and universally accepted. These are often called â€Å"representative rules,† from the classic Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, by the sociologist Alvin Gouldner, who distinguished among environments where rules are ignored by all (mock bureaucracy), environments where rules are imposed by one group on another (punishment-centered bureaucracy), and environments where rules are accepted by all (representative bureaucracy).Representative rules, including risk rules in banks, sabbatical rules in academic institutions, and integrity rules in professional services ? rms, are precisely the ones that clever people respond to best. Savvy leaders take steps to streamline rules and to promote a cul ture that values simplicity. A well-known example is Herb Kelleher, the CEO of Southwest Airlines, who threw the company’s rule book out the window. Another is Greg Dyke, who when he was the director general of the BBC discovered a mass of bureaucratic rules, often contradictory, which produced an infuriating organizational immobilisme.Nothing could be better calculated to discourage the clever people on whom the reputation and future success of the BBC depended. Dyke launched an irreverent â€Å"cut the crap† program, liberating creative energy while exposing those who had been blaming the rules for their own inadequacies. He creatively engaged employees in the campaign–for example, suggesting that they pull out a yellow card (used to caution players in soccer games) whenever they encountered a dysfunctional rule. Recruiting People with the Right Stuff Clever people require a peer group of like-minded individuals. Universities have long understood this.Hire a s tar professor and you can be sure the aspiring young PhDs in that discipline will ? ock to your institution. This happens in business as well. In the investment banking world, everyone watches where the cleverest choose to work. Goldman Sachs, for example, cherishes its reputation as the home of the brightest and best; a bank that seeks to overtake it must be positioned as a place where cleverness thrives. For this reason, the CEOs of companies that rely on clever people keep a close watch on the recruiting of stars. Bill Gates always sought out the cleverest software programmers for Microsoft.From the start, Gates insisted that his company required the very best minds; he understood that they act as a magnet for other clever people. Sometimes he intervened personally in the recruitment process: A particularly talented programmer who needed a little additional persuasion to join the company might receive a personal call from Gates. Very ? attering – and very effective. Althou gh you need to recruit clever stars, you must also make sure that your culture celebrates clever ideas. In an effort to create stars, some media organizations divide their employees into â€Å"creatives† and administrative support staff.That’s a big mistake. It makes about as much sense as recruiting men only – you automatically cut your talent pool in half. The ad agency Bartle Bogle Hegarty doesn’t make this mistake. Many of its most successful executives started as assistants but were given the space to grow and express their cleverness. Not surprisingly, BBH has long been regarded as one of the most creative ad agencies in the world. At the heart of its corporate culture is the maxim â€Å"Respect ideas, wherever they come from. † Letting a Million Flowers Bloom Companies whose success depends on clever people don’t place all their bets n a single horse. For a large company like Roche, that simple notion drives big decisions about corpor ate control and M&A. That’s why Humer decided to sell off a large stake in Genentech. â€Å"I insisted on selling 40% on the stock market,† he told us. â€Å"Why? Because I wanted to preserve the company’s different culture. I believe in diversity: diversity of culture, diversity of origin, diversity of behavior, and diversity of view. † For similar reasons, Roche limits its ownership of the Japanese pharmaceutical company Chugai to 51%.By keeping the clever people in all three companies at arm’s length, Humer can be con? ent that they will advance different goals: â€Å"My people in the Roche research organization decide on what they think is right and wrong. I hear debates where the Genentech researchers say,‘This program you’re running will never lead to a product. You are on the wrong target. This is the wrong chemical structure–it will prove to be toxic. ’ And my guys say, ‘No, we don’t think so. â€⠄¢ And the two views never meet. So I say to Genentech, ‘You do what you want, and we will do what we want at Roche, and in ? ve years’ time we will know. Sometimes you will be right and sometimes we will be right. † Maintaining that diversity is Humer’s most challenging task; there is always pressure within a large organization to unify and to direct from above. Companies that value diversity are not afraid of failure. Like venture capitalists, they know that for every successful hbr. org | March 2007 | Harvard Business Review 77 HBR Spotlight How to Manage the Most Talented The Traitorous Eight Ineffective leadership of clever people can be costly. Consider the cautionary tale of William Shockley, a London-born research scientist who worked at Bell Labs after World War II.In 1947 Shockley was recognized as a coinventor of the transistor, and in 1956 he was awarded a Nobel Prize. He left Bell Labs in 1955 and founded Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, in M ountain View, California. His academic reputation attracted some of the cleverest people in electronics, including Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore (of Moore’s Law fame). Shockley was blessed with a brilliant mind. Noyce described him as a â€Å"marvelous intuitive problem solver, and Moore said he had a † â€Å"phenomenal physical intuition. But his leadership † skills fell far short of his intellectual brilliance.On one occasion Shockley asked some of his younger employees how he might stoke their enthusiasm. Several expressed a wish to publish research papers. So Shockley went home, wrote a paper, and the next day offered to let them publish it under their own names. He meant well but led poorly. On another occasion, Shockley instituted a secret â€Å"project within a project. Although only 50 or so peo† ple were employed in his laboratory, the group assigned to work on his new idea (which, according to Shockley, had the potential to rival the transistor) was not allowed to discuss the project with other colleagues.It wasn’t long before rumblings of discontent at Shockley’s leadership style turned mutinous. The situation deteriorated and a disenchanted group – â€Å"the Traitorous Eight† – left to found Fairchild Semiconductor in 1957 Fairchild revolutionized computing . through its work on the silicon transistor. It also threw off a slew of clever people who went on to start up or develop some of the best-known companies in the industry: Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore (Intel), Jerry Sanders (Advanced Micro Devices), and Charlie Sporck (National Semiconductor) were all former employees of Fairchild.Through his poor leadership, Shockley inadvertently laid the cornerstone of Silicon Valley. He brought together some of the best scientists in the ? eld of electronics, many of whom might otherwise not have remained in the region. And he created conditions that provoked his brilliant employees to strike out on their own. new pharmaceutical product, dozens have failed; for every hit record, hundreds are duds. The assumption, obviously, is that the successes will more than recover the costs of the failures. Take the case of the drinks giant Diageo.Detailed analysis of customer data indicated an opening in the market for an alcoholic beverage with particular appeal to younger consumers. Diageo experimented with many potential products–beginning with predictable combinations like rum and coke, rum and blackcurrant juice, gin and tonic, vodka and fruit juice. None of them seemed to work. After almost a dozen tries, Diageo’s clever people tried something riskier: citrus-? avored vodka. Smirnoff Ice was born – a product that has contributed to a fundamental change in its market sector.It’s easy to accept the necessity of failure in theory, but each failure represents a setback for the clever people who gambled on it. Smart leaders will help their clever people to l ive with their failures. Some years ago, when three of Glaxo’s high-tech antibiotics all failed in the ? nal stages of clinical trial, Richard Sykes – who went on to become chairman of Glaxo Wellcome and later of GlaxoSmithKline – sent letters of congratulation to the team leaders, thanking them for their hard work but also for killing the drugs, and encouraging them to move on to the next challenge.EA’s David Gardner, too, recognizes that his business is â€Å"hit driven,† but he realizes that not even his most gifted game developers will always produce winners. He sees his job as supporting his successful people – providing them with space and helping them move on from failed projects to new and better work. Smart leaders also recognize that the best ideas don’t always come from company projects. They enable their clever people to pursue private efforts because they know there will be payoffs for the company, some direct (new busine ss opportunities) and some indirect (ideas that can be applied in the workplace).This tradition originated in organizations like 3M and Lockheed, which allowed employees to pursue pet projects on company time. Google is the most recent example: Re? ecting the entrepreneurial spirit of its founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, employees may spend one day a week on their own start-up ideas, called Googlettes. This is known as the â€Å"20% time. †(Genentech has a similar policy. ) The result is innovation at a speed that puts large bureaucratic organizations to shame. The Google-af? liated social-networking Web site Orkut is just one project that began as a Googlette.Establishing Credibility Although it’s important to make your clever people feel independent and special, it’s equally important to make sure they recognize their interdependence: You and other people in the organization can do things that they can’t. Laura Tyson, who served in the Clinton admi nistration and has been the dean of London Business School since 2002, says, 78 Harvard Business Review | March 2007 | hbr. org Leading Clever People â€Å"You must help clever people realize that their cleverness doesn’t mean they can do other things.They may overestimate their cleverness in other areas, so you must show that you are competent to help them. †To do this you must clearly demonstrate that you are an expert in your own right. Depending on what industry you are in, your expertise will be either supplementary (in the same ? eld) or complementary (in a different ? eld) to your clever people’s expertise. At a law ? rm, the emphasis is on certi? cation as a prerequisite for practice; at an advertising agency, it’s originality of ideas. It would be hard to lead a law ? rm without credentials.You can lead an advertising agency with complementary skills–handling commercial relationships with clients, for instance, while your clever people wri te great copy. A man we’ll call Tom Nelson, who was the marketing director of a major British brewer, is a good example of a leader Beckham, to practice a particular maneuver. When Beckham couldn’t do it, Hoddle – once a brilliant international player himself – said, â€Å"Here, I’ll show you how. † He performed the maneuver ? awlessly, but in the process he lost the support of his team: The other players saw his move as a public humiliation of Beckham, and they wanted no part of that.The same dynamic has played out many times in business; the experience of William Shockley is perhaps the most dramatic, and tragic, example (see the sidebar â€Å"The Traitorous Eight†). How do you avoid this kind of situation? One highly effective way is to identify and relate to an informed insider among your clever people – someone willing to serve as a sort of anthropologist, interpreting the culture and sympathizing with those who seek to un derstand it. This is especially important for newly recruited leaders. Parachuting in at the top and accurately reading an organization is hard work. One leader weIf you try to push your clever people, you will end up driving them away. As many leaders of highly creative people have learned, you need to be a benevolent guardian rather than a traditional boss. with complementary skills. Nelson was no expert on traditional brewing techniques or real ales. But he was known throughout the organization as â€Å"Numbers Nelson† for his grasp of the ? rm’s sales and marketing performance, and was widely respected. Nelson had an almost uncanny ability to quote, say, how many barrels of the company’s beer had been sold the previous day in a given part of the country.His clear mastery of the business side gave him both authority and credibility, so the brewers took his opinions about product development seriously. For example, Nelson’s reading of market tastes led to the company’s development of low-alcohol beers. Leaders with supplementary expertise are perhaps more commonplace: Microsoft’s Bill Gates emphasizes his abilities as a programmer. Michael Critelli, the CEO of Pitney Bowes, holds a number of patents in his own name. Richard Sykes insisted on being called Dr. Sykes.The title gave him respect within the professional community to which his clever people belonged – in a way that being the chairman of a multinational pharmaceutical company did not. But credentials–especially if they are supplementary–are not enough to win acceptance from clever people. Leaders must exercise great care in displaying them so as not to demotivate their clever employees. A former national soccer coach for England, Glenn Hoddle, asked his star player, David spoke to admitted that he initially found the winks, nudges, and silences of his new employees completely baf? ng. It took an interpreter – someone who had worke d among the clever people for years – to explain the subtle nuances. †¢Ã¢â‚¬ ¢Ã¢â‚¬ ¢ Martin Sorrell likes to claim that he uses reverse psychology to lead his â€Å"creatives† at WPP: â€Å"If you want them to turn right, tell them to turn left. † His comment reveals an important truth about managing clever people. If you try to push them, you will end up driving them away. As many leaders of extremely smart and highly creative people have learned, you need to be a benevolent guardian rather than a traditional boss.You need to create a safe environment for your clever employees; encourage them to experiment and play and even fail; and quietly demonstrate your expertise and authority all the while. You may sometimes begrudge the time you have to devote to managing them, but if you learn how to protect them while giving them the space they need to be productive, the reward of watching your clever people ? ourish and your organization accomplish its mission w ill make the effort worthwhile. Reprint R0703D To order, see page 145. hbr. org | March 2007 | Harvard Business Review 79

South African Airways Case Analysis

South African airways Presented by: Hadeir Shahin Khaya Ngqula, the CEO of South African airways is facing a big challenge, which is the striking of SAA ground staff and cabin crews, this action won’t affect only the overall performance of the company and slows down operations, but it will have a negative long term consequences as well, it may affect the company’s reputation, and thus affecting it’s prominence and perceived quality in the mind of the public.The major problem of SAA is the lack of trust, justice, ethics and commitment in the company, as the employees don’t trust there mangers, they believe that the decision making process is not fair, and managers are always violating the accepted norms of morality within the company.Firstly the absences of the authority’s trustworthiness negatively affected the employees, as mangers failed to show employees there capability of taking over the helm specially that executive’s lack aviation back ground, also employees didn’t perceive the authority to be benevolent or to have integrity, and that was clear when Ngqula decided to cut his management stuff in half to control costs, and suspending four managers for misconduct and failure to prevent wasteful expenditure, at the same time he was criticized by the media for incurring luxury travel expenses, more over his strategy revolved around efficiency, growth and outstanding service, without emphasizing about being helpful, supportive or loyal to his employees apart from any selfish or profit motive, all those factors resulted in the fact that SAA’s employees lack of trust to their managers. Secondly the country’s history over the past years regarding the racial discrimination influenced the companies’ policies which resulted in the feeling of injustice and a biased code of ethics among employees, in addition to, the pay raise issue. Despite of the good performance and the growth of the company, mana gers are referring to the fuel price as a constrain that preventing them from raising the pay, as a result employees belief that the decision outcomes are not allocated using the proper norms because they have contributed to the company’s good performance and they deserve more outcome specially that the company had a year profit of $155 million and can easily afford the wage increase, also knowing that there managers are spending money on helicopter travels and luxurious hotel rooms made them feel that they are not receiving distributive justice. As a result of the former problems, employees don’t feel committed to the company, and therefore Ngqula has to fix those problems by regaining employees trust and treating them fairly, this can be done by: approving the 8% increase in wages and start to implement an evaluation performance plan, in order to keep track of employees performance, and lay a roadmap for planning and development.He should include employees training p rogram in his development strategy, this program should not only stress on their skills but, on the importance of positive communication and culture of kindness in the company as well; to increase SAA’s employees commitment. It’s known that integrity should come from the top managers first, that’s why telling the truth to the employees and sticking to promises will be a good start to regain their trust, also the company should introduces a solid code of ethics that prohibits racial discrimination, protects employees’ rights and preventing the misuse of the companies’ resources. Finally introducing different ways to keep employees motivated such as bonuses, pay raise and recognition, this way employees performance will increase, they will be more competitive, creative and committed to the work.