HORMONOTERAPIA NEOADYUVANTE

The precariousness of a secure fit between society and the individual is borne out in the reflections of DCSs when they talk of the existential anxieties they experience in the role. Often brought into sharp relief by what one of the DCSs, Jaime describes as “bruising encounters”, these indicate that society is “not the well-oiled machine it is

frequently portrayed as in the social sciences … [with] smooth social routines, rituals and encounters automatically producing ontological security” (Layder, 2006, p. 275).

When full account is taken of the discursive and structural forces we are always already situated in, and the socio-cultural context in which we find ourselves (Archer, 2003; Layder, 1997; Nyberg & Sveningsson, 2014), there are questions about the real extent of generic transformative capacity exercised through individual agency in the way Giddens (1991) envisages. Nonetheless, it is certainly accepted that “social actors are

not cultural dupes, or automatons” (Giddens, 1991, p. 56), and while embedded in these

contexts, individuals bring emotional uniqueness and an in-progress Psychobiography that enables them to respond to threats and uncertainties with varying degrees of ‘success’. What can be seen in the data are stories of personal accomplishments which secure some stability - albeit often fleeting, that repeatedly emphasises personal resilience as a defining quality in DCS leader identity constructs.

Bruising encounters are our bread and butter we have them every day. I often say to myself ‘out of the most difficult, hard situations, out of the turbulence, comes the greatest good’. So when it gets really hard, I dig deep. I get more resilient every time and I really can take a lot of shit. (Jaime)

Page | 196 C. Daniels

Charlie had talked about how his years of experience in managing children’s social care and dealing with serious case reviews (which take place in cases of serious harm or death of children where abuse and/or neglect is suspected) had helped him to strengthen his capacity to deal with the uncertainties and threats to security that come with the DCS role. In fact he advocated the need to understand that risk cannot be controlled and resilience is built through accepting that:

Resilience is the number one quality you need as a DCS. The pressure is relentless. The workload is relentless. The tragedy of some of the families we work with is relentless. You have to learn to embrace the risk and the risk of failure – it’s not something you can control. Resilience is in reconciling yourself to that (Charlie)

This perspective is supported in Professor Munro’s (2011a) review of child protection in the UK, where she argues for a systems approach that conceptualises child protection as a complex-adaptive system. Here practitioners are supported to step away from fear of the blame culture and talk about their experiences ‘good and bad’. To be open to the risks carried; so that opportunities for learning can happen and adjustment (adaption) made in response to that. Rather than what tends to happen - which is the system turns in on itself; paradoxically creating a more controlled and procedure-driven workforce that limits opportunities for learning and change and potentially increases risks for children. Charlie shared his analysis of how resilience plays a critical role for him, other DCSs and practitioners working at the frontline:

The Government response to the Victoria Climbie Inquiry [in 2003] was too focused on structures. What the Inquiry was asking was ‘what led a young, good, enthusiastic social worker like Lisa Arthurworrey [Principal Social Worker in Victoria Climbie’s case] accepting such low professional standards?’ That had something to do with the culture she was dropped into. She’d been in post just 18 months. It was not that she was a bad person trying to do a bad job. The structural stuff bringing in our DCS role was needed, but it’s the responsibility in that role to give clarity of purpose and make sure the right conversations are happening with the right people. We have to build our resilience as leaders and the resilience of the frontline because that’s what safeguards kids at the end of the day. (Charlie)

Other participants also highlighted the importance they placed on resilience, but spoke more specifically about the emotional strains and existential anxiety of particular encounters and episodes experienced in the role.

Page | 197 C. Daniels

We’ve just had a safeguarding inspection – it’s a really, really hideous, and intensely stressful process. We did fine and I’m very proud of everyone, but as the person where the buck stops you feel completely vulnerable until they announce their judgement on you. It’s weird, in one way you never feel as alert, as focused as you do going through that. You also never feel as exhausted and battered. It’s mostly mental, emotional stress which takes a lot of resilience. (Esa)

This is a finely-grained example of the fragility and precariousness of the self in social and organisational life, where everyone is subject to the unpredictable and uncontrollable evaluation and judgement of others, leaving:

Identities always in the balance, as a person’s social significance could easily be disturbed, disrupted and reshaped by changes in social relations, particularly in that most important site of identity construction – the workplace. (Knights & Clarke, 2014, p.338).

In the case of safeguarding inspections, that balance hangs in the hands of Government inspectors as ‘powerful ‘others,’ (Best & Kellner, 1991; Weber & Glynn, 2006), with the potential outcomes ranging from a possible career-ending rating of ‘Inadequate’ children’s services, to the superlative (and now rarely awarded) ‘Outstanding’. To his relief, Esa’s services were rated positively in the most recent inspection. The Framework for Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services is part of statutory provision (Education and Inspections Act, 2006) which measures the ‘effectiveness of local authority services and arrangements to help and protect children’, including a focus on looked after children, and the ‘effectiveness of leaders and managers and the impact they have on the lives of children and young people and the quality of professional practice locally.’ (Ofsted, 2015) There are four possible ratings: Outstanding; Good; Requires Improvement (previously adequate rating); Inadequate.

Chandra explained the impact for her of being rated inadequate:

I had an independent diagnostic of children’s services commissioned as I was coming into post as DCS. I was only a few months into the job - just about to go on holiday for Christmas. The consultants came back and said “your children’s social care is unsafe”, and, … [this is] absolutely true, on the same day I got an email from Ofsted that they were going to do an inspection in the first week of January. Despite working relentlessly, the inspectors found what I knew they would find and put us in intervention. You live on a knife edge once you’ve been pulled over that particular cliff. (Chandra)

Page | 198 C. Daniels

Once in ‘intervention’ what is encountered is very close and continued scrutiny from Government officials and regular, detailed reporting of actions being taken to improve – with the possibility of commissioners being ‘sent in’ to take over the operation of your children’s services, if a further inspection determines little, or no progress has been made.

The pressure is incessant. I had the Chief Exec on my back every day. The politicians jumping around like scalded cats and the staff terrified about doing the wrong thing. The local media are not kind. I felt permanently nauseous to be honest. (Chandra).

The implications for professional identity in this situation are profound as a form of “social policing of action” (Weber & Glynn, 2006, p. 1641) takes place through institutional controls and power relations. In the agency-structure dialectic, it is important to “set processes of individual identity work firmly in the structural or sociological

contexts in which they occur” (Watson, 2008, p.122). This need to be done in a way that

does not privilege structure over individual agency but takes seriously the impact of institutional power, social structures, culture and discourse on ongoing identity construction. Enduring the prolonged and heightened emotional and psychological pressures that Chandra describes reveals the peculiar fragilities and insecurities inherent in this particular leadership role. However, while clearly dealing with high levels of anxiety and being plagued by self-doubt at times, chapter six of this study captures Chandra simultaneously scripting a strong representation of her leader-self; one that strategically draws on individual agency (Alvesson, 2010) to mobilise a potent image of a professional self who can “make a difference for children”. This supports findings in other empirical studies of leader-manager identities, that not only do individuals hold multiple identities at the same time - these can incorporate contrasting, even antagonistic positions (Cascon-Pereira & Hallier, 2012; Clarke et al., 2009; Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003).

A central feature of participants’ sensemaking around professional identity and the ongoing maintenance and recrafting efforts this involves, is the work taking place at an emotional and cognitive level. This seeks congruence between self-perceptions of themselves as leaders - explored through internal conversations asking ‘who am I?’ and ‘how should I be?’ (Archer, 2003; Ibarra, 1999), and external representations which