Of course 'liking' is neither here nor there in social work, but as Peter Corser's funny blog says, we're all human...
click here

It would be interesting to ask the question the other way around - Peter starts to do this in the blog, but I'd like to expore further...

What is it like to have a social worker who doesn't like you?

We know that often the person who makes a difference to someone's quality of life is the worker (whether cleaner, social worker, or director of social work) who actually cares. I mean cares personally, not cares professionally. They are the person who works out how to do something that 'just isn't possible'. Those who just care professionally often stop at 'just isn't possible'.

I've seen quite a few things that weren't possible happen for people - but only after someone pushed - and pushed, and pushed, and pushed (and perhaps cried, or shouted, or ...). And do you know, once the not possible thing happened everyone wondered what all the fuss had been about - and why so much time (and therefore money) had been spent getting there (I'm not talking about expensive 'not possibles' either, just things which were a little tiny bit 'out of the box'). 

So when your social worker doesn't like you - and you know that they hold ALL the power (like it or not, that is the case for quite a few people) - then what is that like?

And here's a supplementary question... What reaction do we think that someone would get if they asked for a different social worker - just because they didn't feel that this person particularly cared about them? I know what I think they would be told - and I've a pretty good idea about the tone in which the refusal would be given. But is that reasonable - given how much power that person can have over someone's life? 

After all, I can change my doctor or dentist, I have a selection of councillors and MP/MSPs to go to, and I'm pretty sure that I could even ask to be dealt with by a different police officer if I put my question respectfully enough. And social workers can have more power over someone's life than any of these people.

Of course I'm sure that it 'just isn't possible' to have a situation where people get to have a social worker who likes them! 

I think both of these posts are pertinent. there are some clients who you warm to and some that you don't and i dare say there are some clients who warm to you and some who don't. I generally go with not everyone can like me all of the time and I guess it works the other way too. you see it in practice sometimes where some workers are more willing to do move for some families than others, even if its a case of dropping something off at a house instead of putting it in the post. I think its difficult becuase I know there are some clients that I'm not particularly fond of but you still have to your job and so I guess as long as you are willing to do the same for all your clients then there is nothing wrong with liking some and not others, although its probably best not showing your client that you don't like them!!  

Perhaps valuing the work we do and appreciating the fact that that value applies to every service-user might be more important than liking everyone we work with.

Stuart

Your answer supports the view of Robert and is highly insulting to the user with you as "provider".

What about providers who are directly jealous of the users education, car, children, home, income, religion and are outwardly racist?  If the user complains, they are deemed "difficult, unco-operative and (my favorite) 'unwilling to engage'".  The fact that no evidence to carry on involvement can be found, is irrelevant.  The user, if they complain is told, tough, I have the power.  Complain and the answer is either no action or "we will learn lessons from this".  Either is dangerous behaviours/attitudes of the provider (remember who's income is paid by the public) putting the user in a negative positon from moment one.

Was the personal tone of your reply strictly necessary millen?

millen:

Stuart

Your answer supports the view of Robert and is highly insulting to the user with you as "provider".

What about providers who are directly jealous of the users education, car, children, home, income, religion and are outwardly racist?  If the user complains, they are deemed "difficult, unco-operative and (my favorite) 'unwilling to engage'".  The fact that no evidence to carry on involvement can be found, is irrelevant.  The user, if they complain is told, tough, I have the power.  Complain and the answer is either no action or "we will learn lessons from this".  Either is dangerous behaviours/attitudes of the provider (remember who's income is paid by the public) putting the user in a negative positon from moment one.

 

Had you interviewed any of my service-users you would realise how inaccurate your wild assumptions about me as "provider" actually are.

It's interesting that you imply that my attitude supports racism, jealousy, religious intolerance and refusal to consider complaints. This is a wild assumption that has no correlation with the truth whatsoever. If you look at my responses to the 'respecting others' religion' thread you'll see that I draw a very clear distinction between my own views and the need to remain professional and non-judgemental. I detest racism and consider jealousy to be a particularly disreputable trait that says a great deal about the mindset of the jealous person.

 Interestingly I've spent the last couple of years training workers of many disciplines (including many social workers) on topics such as adult protection and the Mental Capacity Act among other things. There may well be some of my former trainees on this forum for all I know. One of the most consistent comments I get on evaluation sheets relates to my passion for the subject and my very real commitment to the human and civil rights of service-users and the need for services to take them and their difficulties seriously. In no small part this commitment springs from the acute awareness that for the first few years after qualifying I worked in an environment that did not take service-users' rights so seriously as we ought to have. Another common theme in my training sessions is the abuse of terms such as "resistant to nursing intervention" which is another way of saying "unwilling to engage".

Please do not make generalisations about me based upon such unsubstantiated assumptions.

However - to respond to your actual point (or at least what I think your point was):

Your argument essentially is a grand non-sequeter. I do not advocate or support any of the things you outlined above. Rather I am suggesting that professionalism means keeping awareness of the purpose and value of what we do regardless of any personal preferences. This is an acknowledgement of our own humanity and the subjective nature of that humanity whilst attempting to maintain professionalism.

Cheers, 

Stuart

Let me clarify.  I simply pointed out that your response, could be interpreted as 'proving' a point. 

You stated:

Perhaps valuing the work we do

RobertW's  post above stated:

So when your social worker doesn't like you - and you know that they hold ALL the power (like it or not, that is the case for quite a few people) - then what is that like?

And here's a supplementary question... What reaction do we think that someone would get if they asked for a different social worker - just because they didn't feel that this person particularly cared about them? I know what I think they would be told - and I've a pretty good idea about the tone in which the refusal would be given. But is that reasonable - given how much power that person can have over someone's life? 

Therefore, on a 'suface' interpretation, your answer implies "Yes, that is right, I hold all the power and how dare you not value my work."

I do not believe  I have said anywhere, YOU personally have that view/attitude....simply how the opening of your comment could be seen as dismissive of the concerns and point raised by the previous poster.

 And my 'generalised wild accusations' are generalised yes, but wild or accusation no.  These generalisations are based upon collating the experiences of service users across the UK in a variety of fields.  You even acknowledge the validity of my comments by stating:

 In no small part this commitment springs from the acute awareness that for the first few years after qualifying I worked in an environment that did not take service-users' rights so seriously as we ought to have. Another common theme in my training sessions is the abuse of terms such as "resistant to nursing intervention" which is another way of saying "unwilling to engage".

So no,my comments are not a grand non-sequitur.  The question is "do you have to like your clients?". As part of that, I via example, asked- and what if you don't and can't disguise this?  How should this be managed? Do you recuse yourself from the case? Do you seek counselling/advice from co workers?  Do you just carry on knowing that your bias may impact on the user? 

 As I have expressed elsewhere, I have collated the experiences of service users.  You will be pleased to know there are experiences of the professionalism,awareness of own humanity and personal subjectivity/bias being managed with a positive outcome/experience for both the user and the provider....regrettably, these are the minority.

I am sorry if you interpreted my comments as a personal attack.  They were not meant in that way.

OK - fair enough.

 I hope you will understand how easy it is to take personally comments such as:

"Stuart

Your answer supports the view of Robert and is highly insulting to the user with you as "provider"."

I agree that abusive practice happens. I just don't really see how my comments supported it, especially since in my own clinical practice I earned a reputation as a bit of a rottweiller in terms of standing up against the very oppression you cite. In so far as the generalisations applied to me then yes - they were certainly 'wild' although when directed at the proffesions as a whole then I agree that they are not. But I still maintain that it is easy (and indeed reasonable) to interpret your opening statement above as a personally directed attack.

Rather ironically, the only reason I'm at home to answer this post is because I'm ploughing through the draft code of practice for the new Adult Support & Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 and creating training handouts. Following this I'll do the same with the Protecting Vulnerable Groups (Scotland) Act 2007. If I wasn't into adult protection and rights I wouldn't have chosen this as a project in the first place.

Cheers,

Stuart

TY for the response Stuart...clearly you and I aren't really that far apart in approach... just typing styles/verbalising!

 As I have stated, I have collated loads of responses from service users about their experiences and would be more than happy to share them.  I too am around creating training handouts. The people approaching me used to be about children's services.. is now becoming alot more about adult services.  I am assuming/presuming is about the aging population and finance in a lot of ways.  The overall message I am getting is actually, adult services are doing well, just frustration about "speed of service"- some who have approached me get a little uspet when I say I don't find the 'speed of service' unreasonable; ' I know this is your flesh and blood, but they are doing the best they have with the resources available.'  I say the same to people asking about child services sometimes but that is a different story! (trust me a different story- and again, sometimes they don't like my opinions!)

 I, like you, try to be professional and not let my personal opinions get in the way of my advice or suggested routes.  I am aware of my 'bias/assumption' and try to put that aside.  It has done me personally a world of good (particularly with advice about mental health issues) because I am now able to separate the health issue/history from the person.  I had a horrible experience last week on this particular issue.  I will not go into deatail  here.  But the individual accused me of bias/being subjective.  When I pointed out, ok, staying as you are, is that helping you or hindering you in life? The answer I got was " I don't care- I want my way and nothing more."  All I could do was say, "OK, you really are harming yourself emotionally  and that is holding you back from much in life."  (The case in question, the individual poses no threat to society or themselves)  I was told I was attempting to make the individual conform to "what the man wants".  I said, no, you can be an individual and express yourself, but your methods are flawed... let's find a healthy way to express your views that don't hurt/offend others or you.  Didn't get an answer

(Secretly Stuart- you and I might be two peas at the end of a pod in terms of ways forward!)

There was a row in the guardian about two months ago when a columnist in its society pages wrote that he didn't like a couple who had learning disabilities, and IIRC some disparaging comments about what they looked like.

They had a lot of complaints. The point of the columnist was that by disliking them he recognised that they were individuals rather than objects of pity. That could be a point but why does it take someone to dislike a disabled person before they're considered an individual. It says more about the columnist. 

I also think it smacks a bit of all that laddish, post-ironic humour which makes dodgy comments about gypsies, lesbian and gays, older and disabled people. I suppose comedy is always going to offend someone but why not offend the rich, able-bodied and powerful; or are people too afraid?

Interesting post Keefer.  It is rare that I post my personal experiences, but as someone who works in the field of social care and health (from a legal angle)

Comedy is almost always at the expense of others... some of that is a given.

I am recognised disabled. I have a rare disease...indeed if you said in a lecture...do you X? most trainee doctors would know my name. I  am called the Brum foot lady. I fought for 22 years through the pain I was in.. I posed for the cameras... paper's written on the back of me.

 But I digress.  

The point of the columnist was that by disliking them he recognised that they were individuals rather than objects of pity.

 I knew this young.  The primary school I went to had a deaf unit (some irony there) Children speaking sign language was treated as "freakish"- "uncomfortable".  When I tried at about 7/8 yrs old to sit on the 'deaf' table at lunch I got yelled at.  I never saw myself as an object of pity nor saw them as such.  It is ironic that two of my  children are partially deaf.  (from birth) When I did that act, I was called 'sick', 'dirty' lice riden' (aren't children wonderful- but the Head stood me in front of the whole school and made them thrown tennis balls at me to prove how my behaviour was not acceptable.) Then I became a teenager...I was placed for my PE in 'special needs'. So I spent alot of time with people who were viewed as people (by me) rather than being cerabal palsy/downs/spina biffita- We were treated as "we have to deal wiht you because the LEA says so- even though we know we are wasting our time."  I now do alot of public speaking I manage my own health..find the right time to sit down, I take my shoes off and make a joke of it...

 I have never ever viewed myself as disability first and who am next.  I am just me with some bits that don't work 'average'.  Mentally I am fine, overall health I am fine...so i have no problems with comprehension and instructions- according to MENSA.

This thread is  called "do you have to like your clients?"  I am on my second marriage. My first husband thought me crawling on my hands and knees to hoover was funny... I did it because I am house proud- I was a newly wed and wanted to impress my mother in law with my housekeeping and cooking skills.  Maybe considering how history impacts on people would be useful.

 I have heard of stories of social workers writing nothing in assessments except "mother had bulimia 10 years ago"- and that is grounds to call them unfit and possibly "emotionally unavailable."

 Please please look at the person...because I don't walk well doesn't make me a bad mother...but the fact I walk funny has been viewed as difficult...I have had social workers and police at my door claiming I am drunk...and then they realise I am tired, realise I am wearing leg braces to be able to do school and shop runs.  But then,,,,, I go to do the school run and am called in.."we hear you have special needs"- No I don't.....I just walk slow and on a bad day my general speech isn't great.

So do you have to like your clients? Not really but at least respect them.

this is what i tell my student and collegues:

You dont have to like people, but if you dont, you have to be aware that you dont. If you dont like someone and are not aware of it, then it will affect your practise.