Feature: Health in The Workplace
using labels The trouble with
By Niall O’Reilly (pictured), Head of Work & Wellbeing at South Yorkshire Housing Association
profound impact on the people we serve. That’s why I’m a big advocate of a strengths-based vocabulary that’s hopeful, compassionate and kind. What is it that people most appreciate about you? When are you at your best? What helps you to be at your best and how can we get more of whatever that is into your day-to-day routine? That’s why we try to steer clear of labels, even those that were originally designed to be helpful. I’d like to pick out three commonly used labels that over the years I have learned to avoid, and why.
T
Hard to reach: We often call groups hard to reach when they don’t engage in activities we want them to. Rather than acknowledging that we may need to improve our offer, or, at
the very least, the way we communicate the offer, to engage our target audience, we take comfort in the notion that “it’s them, not us.” This inhibits learning. If we begin, instead, with the assumption that any group can be reached if
the design, quality and accessibility of the service are right, we’ll spend longer testing new approaches until we find what works. We’ll look to companies and charities that have successfully engaged with diverse groups and see what we can learn. Most importantly, we’ll be much more likely to co- design and co-deliver with our target audience, which is the only sure way to promote diversity well.
Distant from the labour market: This label is commonly used with very good intentions, for example, to lobby for investment in disadvantaged areas. However, like any limiting belief, it does more harm
than good in the long run. A person is only as distant from the labour market as a good job offer. Yes, some people might benefit from additional support in the workplace. However, there are many schemes, like our own Building Better Opportunities and Working Win initiatives, that can provide this, free of charge and to a high standard. The danger of this label is that it scares
recruiting managers into thinking the individuals described are somehow different to their existing workforce. The reality is that every company already employs large numbers of people with health conditions and disabilities – visible or hidden – and they are often among their highest performers.
Complex needs: This is the label I’ve used the most. It’s the hardest to give up because it does reflect an underlying truth. However, it has two important drawbacks. First, it defines people by their problems
rather than their skills, ambitions, hopes, relationships or a hundred other things that better describe who we are. It’s de-humanising. Platitude or not, each person is unique. Trying to bundle diverse individuals together under a single label – even one originally designed for good purposes – adds little. The second major drawback is that it puts up artificial barriers between professionals and the
Autumn 2019 CHAMBERconnect 77
he language we use to describe people matters. Language reflects our values and our view of the world. While I’d never want staff to be scripted or inauthentic, I’m also aware that what we say has a
people we’re here to serve. Our lives are often messy and complex. We have more than 600 people working at South Yorkshire Housing Association. Among them are people overcoming mental health crises, coping
miraculously well with personal or family traumas and performing at a high level despite health scares and chronic pain (and those are just the things I know about). Every day they come to work and make an incredible difference. Our business is better off for their presence. In fact, I can’t imagine it functioning without them. So, if these labels are unhelpful, what do we do instead? How about
telling people’s stories in all their richness and nuance, and with no attempt to fit into pre-defined narratives about broken service users being rescued by lofty professionals? Even better, how about we get out of the way and let people tell their
own stories? I’m happy to be proved wrong, but I’d be amazed if anyone began their own story by describing themselves as hard to reach, distant from the labour market or having complex needs. Anyone still using these labels may be curious about why that’s the case, and reflect on whether, despite our best intentions, the language we use may end up doing more harm than good.
‘How about we get out of the way and let people tell
their own stories?’
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
