Encounters in social contexts and the judgement and affirmation – or denial, of our identity by others, contributes to conscious identity work (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). The reaction and responses of others are often not predictable and are certainly not controllable; especially in relation to our work selves: “Identities are always in the
balance, as a person’s social significance [can] easily be disturbed, disrupted and reshaped by changes in social relations” (Knights & Clarke, 2014, p. 338). The DCSs in
this study face levels of uncertainty and precariousness which are arguably beyond the realms and daily realities of most work roles. Constantly being at: “the frontline of risk
personally and professionally because you are only your own individual [child protection] tragedy away from losing your job” (Dunkley, 2011) carried an emotional
dimension that weighed heavily on many DCSs minds. This is explored in greater depth in Chapter Nine, but it became evident that carrying statutory accountability for children’s well-being and safety, added a particular feature to how the DCSs made sense of their identity. It shaped, and was shaped by relationships, work practices and
Page | 152 C. Daniels
discourses that had come to be quite distinct amongst this group of senior public leaders as they managed staff and resources across disciplinary and institutional boundaries.
Social interactions and practices, affected by structural forces, build up their own organisational form, culture and language over time reproducing position status, ways of doing and organisationally acceptable behaviour in the present (Layder, 2006). For Chandra, this manifested itself in a very obvious tension:
When I went for the job, I had two thoughts in mind. In fact I had a real personal dilemma. In one sense part of me thought they have created my dream job. On the other hand it was very clear that the DCS role was created so there was somebody to blame if something went wrong. I actually remember conversations in the early days and saying “Who in their right mind would ever want that job?” When the Shoesmith case happened, it was very, very public. It’s all around us (Chandra).
Chandra had the phrase ‘A risk to a child is a risk to the organisation’ in very large letters across the top of her office whiteboard. The board faced a sizeable meeting table where the local authority children’s services senior management team met on a weekly basis. Probing what this meant to her and why she had written this, Chandra explained that although what drove her was her passion for children, she needed to remind herself and the team that it was their priority to focus on closing down risk as much as possible. They needed to have that at the forefront of their minds. The fallout for the organisation of a serious incident or child death and the political and media attention it could attract would be “catastrophic” for the council.
To be honest I can’t think of the enormity of what I am responsible for every day of my working life in this role, I just wouldn’t survive. So I compartmentalise it. What I focus on is: what does the organisation need me to do, to say, to prevent happening? I have to make sure we don’t fuck up and be spread all over the Sun or the Express. (Chandra)
In an attempt to stabilise her anxieties and fear of the external forces embodied in a powerful media and an intolerant government, Chandra appears to have strong identification with what she perceives to be the organisation’s needs . Politicians and large sections of the UK press have shown what they are capable of when someone in such an exposed senior position is deemed to have ‘failed a child’ or children. It is not
Page | 153 C. Daniels
an exaggeration to claim that no other executive leadership post in the UK public sector has encountered such a spotlight of scrutiny, ‘trial by media’ and politically accountable attention. From the ill-famed Shoesmith case in Haringey in 2008 to the dismissals and abrupt departures of: Baker in Salford 2009; Tucker in Birmingham 2010; Vahey in Derby 2011; Donaldson in Calderdale 2011; Pyper in Slough 2012; Christensen in Norfolk, and Green in Coventry 2013; Lewis in Somerset 2014; Thacker in Rotherham 2014, and McHale in Leicester 2015, the security of the DCS position has been compared to that of a UK Premier League football manager (Gallagher, 2013). In the period 2013-14, one in three Directors’ of Children’s Services left the role either voluntarily or through dismissal (Wiggins, 2014).
These dynamics are only reinforced in a culture of performativity and neo-liberal practices which sees local authorities increasingly acting as commissioners of services through a complex network of stakeholders, rather than direct providers of integrated services. As Hulme et al (2014) argue, in this ambiguous organisational context DCSs are facing increasing limits on their autonomy and disparagement of their professional leadership wisdom and expertise in an arena that needs to retain an understanding of the complexity and uncertainty of working with children. Fears such as Chandra’s are illustrative of a colder, more technical approach permeating the daily working lives of many in the role. They grapple with their authentically felt child-centred values, while being caught “in an iron cage of performance management” (Wastell et al., 2010 p. 311) which is primarily focused on evaluating and managing risk. In identity terms Alvesson (2010) would describe Chandra’s experiences and struggle as oscillating between identity constructs where discursive and structural forces are imposing identity, and the more agentic strategic image, representative of her efforts to reconcile the contradictions and messiness between self-view and organisational and external demands in identity struggles. Such processes are illuminative of agency-structure debates concerned with: “Identity construction, and identity constructed … How much is
the individual doing identity and [how much] are they having identity done to them”
Page | 154 C. Daniels