Developing Lunch Time Supervisors

We've approached by a number of schools to train their lunchtime supervisors. Hard working people who deliver a massively important thankless task at just above minimum wage. They tell us that they feel undervalued by the workforce and are subject to low-levels of co-operation from children and young people.

Where we've put some training in things have changed for the better. After using our systems the Supervisors have reported that they "feel better about their jobs" and this has had a significant impact on learners. The chief element of change seems to be to increase the worth and regard the supervisors are held in by the rest of the work-force and to get the message across to the kids that Lunch Time Supervisors should enjoy the same level of regard and respect as that given to other team members.

Assertiveness skills, handling your own anger and adopting a common approach seem to have made a difference in every case. Schools should be safe at lunchtimes, this sort of thinking does not come cheap-they need to consider the benefits of the investment. Safer schools, a reduction in bullying and intimidation and a better start to the afternoon session give some indication of the value of the investment in training and development. Trained supervisors have a greater sense of confidence, worth and value and can use their skills in other areas, allowing them to progress in their jobs with the Children's Workforce

Team Development. A Dignified Approach

“External consultants are free loaders on the make who have loyalty to no-one other than themselves. “ Now there’s a long sentence to communicate with just a glimpse or a reluctant handshake: I’m pretty certain I’ve heard it or something like it though.

• Fact, teams fall out.
• Fact, sometimes it gets better by itself.
• Fact, sometimes managers intervene and the situation may improve-there are others when their intervention may exacerbate an already difficult situation.

Having an insight into the nature of the conflict will help, there can be movement from Hot (overt) conflict to Cold (covert) conflict. In our experience, Hot Conflicts are easier to recognise, approach and are open to intervention. The overt nature of the Hot Conflict either isolates key players or causes them to join up with groups who share a similar view of what has happened and therefore what needs (in their view) to be done. Cold conflict presents us with a range of far more subtle and toxic organisational pathogens.

We have recently worked with a team to bring to an end a Cold Conflict that had begun with a typical (and as I write, sadly topical) re-organisation. Several experienced team members had left, their posts having been made redundant. A re-organisation and re-structuring meant that it was possible to replace them numerically with less experienced people in re-defined roles. Clusters and sub groups rapidly evolved accompanied by increasingly declining levels of cooperation and increased levels of mistrust generally and mistrust of managers specifically, From the outset, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the team had become absorbed in a purpose other than work and that, as a general view, management had lost its ethical right to manage. There were other rumblings as cliques grew more defined and felt free to comment on the performance of other team members, querying both their competence and their commitment.

We were commissioned to deliver a Team Building Programme. Our role was to enable the team to reach a point from which it could secure a better future in the context of a highly competitive internal and external environment.

We used the following approaches:

• A questionnaire that enabled us to communicate with the team (collectively and individually) about perceptions and beliefs with the aim of recognising “Where we are now”.
• 
  A questionnaire that enabled us to talk about the situation in Hot and Cold terms within a framework that supported discussion and openness.
• 
  A process of identifying the Team’s internal and external audiences and to take ownership of and responsibility for delivering “healthy and productive” messages.

Team members were required to complete a challenging exercise in developing a dialogue that defined their expectations towards and from each other and their managers-in short they have a right to be managed, management has a duty to manage.

We looked at “soft skills” in the context of emotional intelligence” and their impact on the dignity and regard with which they wanted to be treated as individuals and the reciprocal need to treat others in a similar manner. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

The process was spread over two sessions, each under “Chatham House Rules”. The first event was challenging participants were understandably defensive. They were nonetheless receptive to the pre-event feedback and provided some insightful, if occasionally reluctant contributions that enabled us to broaden the scope of discussions throughout the day. Our approach required us to ensure that quieter team-members had significant opportunity to register their views and observations. This would require more vociferous participants to accept the premise that they would sometime need to “take a step back” from their usual (preferred?) style of behaviours in meetings.

IT WORKED. The opportunity to reflect of the relationship between the team and its internal and external audiences provided sufficient focus to give a common purpose without too much introspective navel gazing, increasing a sense of helplessness or re-affirming dysfunctional positions.

We left a two week gap between sessions in order to create some space in which team members and managers could reflect on the issues raised. This “gave permission” for team members to talk to each other, consider their positions on long held beliefs and to consider their individual readiness to “shift their positions”.

There’s a risk: those with deeply entrenched views who are likely to witness a reduction in their power and influence have an opportunity in which to secure their power-base. We took a judgement call, my view being that we had in our first session, exposed and secured agreement regarding the need for change. Actions that may undermine this position may therefore be seen as contrary to the good of the team. Day 1 had given me an opportunity to sow the seeds that enabled team-members to consider the “ESSENCE OF HUMAN DIGNITY” as a significant contributory factor to team performance. The “gap” provided a space in which the seeds could germinate and grow.

There was a WOW FACTOR at the beginning of Day 2! It was apparent as we were setting up, that the conversations people were having over their “coffee on arrival” were energised, there was a lot of laughter and a tangible sense of purpose. The optimism experienced at the start of the day was an accurate indicator of what was to follow and remained present throughout.
Our “job” was to reflect to the team, the reality they had described on the pre-event questionnaires and during the first session. Our “challenge” was to enable the team to describe a new reality and acknowledge the changes required and individual and group stages in order to produce sustainable growth. Our role was to guide the team in its discussions, so that the risks and challenges associated with change were articulated and understood in the context of the perceived and actual benefits to the individual, the team and the organisation.

We were required to be bold and to engage participants in a process that required them to describe in precise terms how they should work together, address challenging issues, achieve consensus, deal with disagreement and accept that this takes within a context in which they have a right to be heard and management has a duty to manage,
Here are some of the benefits/outcomes participants shared with us:

Talk needs to be followed by an Action Plan – who/when/by given date/deadline

Be prepared to revisit the Action Plan to achieve consensus

Increasing levels of communication needed

Decisions not currently made by consensus

We have lost the ability as a team to achieve the targets set as there are not enough regular divisional meetings to make the team effective

Individuals need to be accountable

The sessions were very helpful

We need to remind others of the protocols of making a complaint; this teaches them professionalism for life

We need to take ownership of issues, not undermine when someone else takes ownership

We need to make time to talk to each other away from the work-place

This has raised our awareness of roles/responsibilities/pressures etc at every level – BUT this needs to be incorporated into the Induction process for new staff so that unnecessary/unrealistic expectations are not fostered.

“Open door” policy needed – to get to know each other

Mentor system in place, but not everyone aware of it

There is a physical divide to the team as they operate on 2 floors – previously a concourse system

On reflection – do not put all new staff in one office, they need to work alongside experienced staff

Admin sits apart from the rest of the team and as such feels apart from any team spirit which may be engendered.

We are now aware of the problems and are in a position to do something to improve it.

Perhaps the most satisfying recognition of what had been achieved came a few months later. The team had been required to produce a piece of challenging work for accreditation which if gained would mean increased job security and some growth.
The team was successful-it is the manager’s view that the outcome would not have been achieved without the increased sense of collaborative working, focus and purpose secured over the development programme and delivered in the context of the relationship between desired outcomes and human dignity.