Staff Culture
In the interviews with staff, there was plenty of evidence of strong support from management. Interviewees talked about their sense that their managers “want staff to feel that they are the best that they can be and that they’re supported” (Staff 1). Development, training, education and empowerment were referred to. This led to mutual trust, with staff knowing that they are allowed to do their job as they think best and line managers having confidence in the team to know what to do even when the manager is not there. Staff valued flexibility in their role, such as agile working or working from home on occasion, and an emphasis on work-life balance. For example, staff were encouraged to turn off their phones when not at work or on-call. This was possible because of the development and empowerment of staff. Staff felt that they were understood as individuals by their manager and that their work was appreciated.
This supportive relationship between managers and staff extended to mutual support between colleagues. There was respect for the experience and values of colleagues. Staff described working very closely with colleagues and feeling that they shared common values and aims. There was a sense of belonging to a team “who are committed to making that difference” (Staff 1). One nice example was of the mention of the value of colleagues to listen to a rant or a joke at the end of a difficult day, helping to share the burden of challenges. And the mutual support extended to residents: the staff described residents as being ‘good neighbours’ for each other and looking out for each other. (They also noted potential risks of a neighbour gradually taking on a carer role.)
The sense of shared values and a common outlook was also evident in descriptions of colleagues. A person-centred approach was very clear and we describe this in the theme Person-centred Support. The staff were caring and treated residents as they would want their own grandparents or parents to be treated. This led to a supportive, family culture. Recruitment of staff focused on values: “I can teach anyone how to write a [support] plan. I can’t teach someone to care for the people who live here” (Staff 1). The staff worked to foster independence but were conscious of “not doing it for them” (Staff 2) – the aim was to “give them the tools to do it themselves because it so easy in this job where they can get dependent on you” (Staff 2). That meant establishing clear professional boundaries:
“I can’t be his mate because that is unprofessional …but that doesn’t mean…you are not there to help them”
(Staff 2)
The staff were aware of the importance of setting out expectations about their role from the start, and continuing to maintain a balance “between professional and approachable” (Staff 1). There was evidence from some partners of an open-mindedness in looking for ways to support residents: “There isn’t anything that we wouldn’t have a conversation about when it comes to supporting someone” (Staff 3) while also keeping in mind the question of where is the right place for them. A note of caution was sounded in terms of a risk of being too inward-focused if people’s time was spent wholly within the site. Another concern was the lack of diversity within the almshouse community, with some staff reflecting that the mix of residents did not represent the local community. This topic is discussed further in Diversity and Inclusion: Residents and Staff.
