Hi everyone,

Community Care is doing an article on compassion in social work and whether care professionals should be formally judged on how compassionate/ sensitive the care they deliver is. It's on the back of an idea by health secretary Alan Johnson that NHS nurses could be assessed in this way. Here's the link to the story on this: http://nds.coi.gov.uk/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=370990&NewsAreaID=2 

I'd be interested to hear what social workers think about this and whether such a scheme/initiative could ever work in social care? If so, what would be the potential benefits and risks for both clients and professionals? In today's target-driven public sector could such an initiative help social care staff connect better with service users? Or would it simply be used as another stick to beat social workers with? And anyway, how do you judge something as subjective as compassion?

Thanks

Dez

 I was a bit confused so i looked up the definition of compassion which is

 sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compassion

isn't this is how we should be as social care workers?

 That's a good point, Lizzer. I think I had an assumption of compassion without thinking to actually look at a dictionary. I'd probably replace sympathy with empathy..

As for judging it - I don't see how its possible apart from an impression and practical results - you can be as empathetic/sympathetic as you like but if you don't actually act on things and do what you say you are going to - or get confuddled by paperwork to the extent that nothing gets done, I don't think you are necessarily serving a purpose. I think it depends a lot on what branch of social work you are in as well - of course, something like care management it is easier to see practical results some of the time. 

Personally, I think targets have a limited place in the sector. I think the less there are, the better for the most part. 

Can someone be an effective social worker without being compassionate? I think it depends a little on the way that compassion is judged. I think it is impossible to do the job without empathy. 

It's an interesting point....................I know some managers who would consider compassion to be a handicap to doing the job!

It's actually a bit more complex than it appears. It is all very well to be compassionate towards the sweet natured youngster with an angelic face and relatively uncomplex needs; it's  bit more difficult with the spitting, snarling, kicking, punching gentleman with a profound antipathy towards the profession. It's also difficult to feel compassion towards others who see no good in you whatsoever and blame you for all the disappointments and little injustices that life has thrown their way. Throughout my career I have heard social workers who, having finished a difficult phone call or returned from difficult  visit rant about a variety of individuals who have upset them.

Should we be compassionate towards service users to the exclusion of others? Or  should we be eqally compassionate to all individuals, including those who pinch our parking space? Including those who subject us to the most appaling vitriol?

In my view, we should exercise compassion at all times to all individuals. However diabolical a service uesrs behaviour is, we should view it compassionately; however irrational a carers demands might be, we should view them with compassion; however intransigent a partner agency is being, we should view the individuals within it with compassion and however heartlessy managerial our own lords and masters are being, we should view them all with compassion.

'Compassion and love are not mere luxuries.
As the source both of inner and external peace,
they are fundamental to the continued survival of our species.'
His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama

Hmm. Your use of the word "Rant" about workers who exhibit annoyance at clients seems a bit unsympathetic to me. The skill lies perhaps in trying to be empathetic, realising that we are all human and not perfect and still doing the job well. I suspect that this might be easier in a team - where there is a chance of peer support and good supervision.  

 Hmm, my use of the word rant was appropriate to describe what I see and hear on a regular basis in social work offices.  Regardless of sympathy, a rant is a rant.

'Pete' - you advocate a standard of behaviour not far short of perfection! Our Offices also need to be 'safe' places to sometimes 'let rip' about some of the upsets and distresses we experience - as workers how can we fail to not be affected by some of the situations (and people) we encounter? I have had to deal with managers who I feel have been less than truthful, been downright oppresive (and not just to staff) as well as those who have been professional, caring, fair and sensitive. It is rather more difficult to feel 'compassion' towards the former group but you are right that I ought to try - after all they are not 'behaving badly' for no reason and so perhaps do deserve at least a little compassion.

I think that as a rule people do the best they can with what they've got. This is as true for coping skills and perceptions as it is for anything else.

If people behave badly toward us then they are doing so because they either don't know how else to get their needs met or because they think (mistakenly in my view) that it's appropriate to treat people badly. Therefore they are acting out of ignorance (in a literal rather than a pejorative sense). They are simply doing what they think is right for them in their circumstances.

If this is so (and I don't insist anyone agrees with me - just stating my own view) then they are just as worthy of compassion as anyone else. Lack of understanding is a very human condition.

However - as Rupert says - we are human too and a safe space where we can express our own humanity (ranting or otherwise) is vital to maintain our own equilibrium isn't it? Here's to the much maligned but very necessary rant: Hip, hip...... hurray!

I think that 'compassion' isn't what we're wanting from social care workers - but I don't mean that we don't need compassion, rather that 'compassion' isn't quite the right word... And whatever the quality is that we are looking for it isn't going to be something that can be measured in any kind of objective way (although we can easily see it and make subjective judgements about whether someone has it).

I meet all sorts of social care workers - from senior managers to cleaners - and there's something that just a few people have which is priceless. I'm sure that it (whatever we call this quality) can't be 'measured' - but I'm just as sure that it can be recognised (and should be rewarded), and that it can be grown in people if they are open enough.

For instance - in connection with people learning some specific processes - I have lots of experience training people to ask open questions... questions that don't lead a conversation... and to listen intensely... and to convey 'unconditional positive regard'... and not to convey judgements in what they say. Like with many things, there seem to be three groups of people:

• Group 1 are few in number - they take to this like a duck to water. They seem to be people who have a particular personality - but I wouldn't use the word 'compassionate' for them - vague words like 'human' or 'humble' and others like 'determined' come to mind. They are people who find it easy not to convey judgements about people because they naturally aren't making any - at least they are judging, but somehow conveying that they know that life is hard, we're all human, and that people are all of value - and very much they convey that they don't think they are any better than the person they are speaking to. They may rant - but even their rant has a particular quality. And they find it easy to show that they are listening intently, because they are naturally intensely interested.
• Group 2 is pretty big. They struggle more, but they can be very good at what they do because they know they are struggling, and they try really hard to get better. They can learn how to listen intently, they can learn how to demonstrate that they are intensely interested, they can learn to notice that they are unintentionally conveying a judgement in what they say, they can learn to ask open questions. They have some humility (maybe that's the word I'm looking for) and aren't too proud to see their failings. And they really care. So they either get better at their jobs by learning new skills and seeking real (difficult) feedback, or alternatively they find a place where their natural talents suit the work (perhaps they find a role where listening intently isn't required).
• Group 3 neither have the natural personality and skill of group 1, nor the type of character of those in group 2. They might not agree that they have anything much to learn. They may think that the problems with their service are someone else's responsibility. They may simply not be very interested in people (and yes I really do meet some social care staff who just don't seem to like people much). And here's the hard thing - I'm not saying that these people are all nasty or rude or overbearing - some of these people are compassionate people, or 'nice' or 'friendly' people, or people who lack self-confidence, or people who do care a lot about the people they support.

For people who use services and their families one of the most difficult challenges can be when they finally get a social worker who they like. When previously it's been clear that they were going to have to fight tooth and nail for any help because the social worker simply didn't seem to care all that much, suddenly they are confronted with someone they don't want to offend. This can be someone who is compassionate and sits and sympathises. Someone 'nice'. But when they are asking for help that doesn't tick boxes - something a little bit out of the box - something that will have to be fought for (like it or not) - then this compassionate social worker becomes yet another barrier to overcome - after all, it's nice to have someone listen at long last, and even though we know they will take 'no' for an answer without making much fuss they do come back and deliver the news gently. 

So what is the word then? 'Humility', 'a belief in our common humanity', 'openness'? Can it be one word? Is it possible to capture this in a few words, or do we need a long and rambling account of that quality like the one I've just written?

Do we need to know when people have it and when they don't - YES I'm sure we need that.

Can we measure it objectively - NO we can't. Can we look for it, see it, encourage it, reward it, and nurture it in the workforce -YES, but not through a simple training programme, or a workplace assessment, or through targets, or any other impersonal process. It's much harder quality to deal with than that. It's a human quality, and it the tools that help us grow it are human tools: great leadership or inspiring mentors or intense personal reflection or honest human feedback from people we really trust. 

RobertW,

I have nothing to add to the substance of your post. I just wanted to both congratulate and thank you for articulating what I could not (and I did try a couple of times but deleted the posts).

Hear, hear!

Stuart