MAY2002

My position in our community is that of Family Advocate. Several family members [parents with children who have serious emotional disturbance (SED)] have the same position as I do, but we all work in different locales. Our grant community also employs Family Service Coordinators. This is a 'professional' position in our community, but the people in these positions don't have to have a degree, and they also are not parents of children with SED.

The problem is that our job descriptions are not clear, so Family Advocates and Family Service Coordinators often do the same work. We brought this issue up with our supervisor but it falls on 'deaf ears.' We don't know how to approach it again without seeming adversarial or to be challenging him. The longer the problem is not addressed, the more frustrated and angry the Family Advocates become. Families tell us they are confused; and the Family Service Coordinators seem to "compete with us." Can you help us?

This is the third time this question (or a similar one) has crossed my desk this month. It definitely hits the "priority" list so here are some thoughts on a complex and challenging issue.

Efficient communication is not always effective communication. In system of care work, content (what, why, who) is easier to discuss than the necessary and more intentional discussion of feelings, implications, and future directions. This latter discussion is threatening to people when emotions run high, trust runs low, and people are fearful.

Not so long ago a wise manager told me, ".the real issue is one of identity. The families speak from their identity and they are responded to in their roles." Our identity in the work, as family members with children who have serious emotional disorders and who are part of a national movement, is fairly new to the professionals who partner with us. Our roles or positions in the work evolve out of our identity.

As family members, we are clear about what we know and can provide to other families and their children who are like us, what we bring to system of care reform. We know family members have a deep trust in their own identity group -- other family members. However, we don't always remember that these distinctions are not always clear to other professionals, especially those who must shift from seeing us "as the problem" to seeing us "as part of the solution." For many, this shift is a double bind.

A double bind requires one to compromise a personal value or even give up a long-held value entirely. No wonder some people become immobilized. To complicate things further, there are few or inadequate models that lead the way toward effectively navigating this social reform. It is essentially a social reform for those of us who have felt (may continue to feel) disenfranchised and experienced stigma and discrimination.

This contextual background on the family experience is provided to frame our identity as a group, born out of our shared experience as individuals. Once this discussion has happened, it is easier to tackle what roles will be performed by whom and why.

To better serve the process, I am including some useful questions intended to help you and your partners find out what else needs to be talked about. I am also including a reference I strongly recommend to you, your identity group, and your partners.[1]

And now, the questions:

• "Now, where are we?"

•  "Can you give me your understanding on my position on this issue?"

• "What is it we have agreed upon?"

• "What still needs to be resolved?"

• "What will happen as a result of this meeting? When? Who will do it?" 

•  "When do we check in again on this issue?"

• "How should we communicate what we have agreed upon to others?"

•  "What else do we need to talk about?"

• "Have we left anything out?"

As these questions and others are answered, everyone's level of stress and fear is reduced. These are partnership questions. That is, they say, "We are all in this together and this is how we are going to get the work done."

People want to know where they stand. It helps to remember that performance feedback, both from the employee to the supervisor through inquiry and from the supervisor to the employee through perceptions, is more than a mutual performance evaluation. It is an ongoing part of the supervisor-employee relationship. Feedback is best experienced on a daily basis (in person, through e-mails, or by phone) with both supervisor and employee continuing to develop skills that help each describe behavior in neutral terms. That is how strong relationships are built.

There are newly evolving constructs for supervision. Some people believe supervision is an archaic frame; some believe co-supervision is the answer. In this limited space I have opted to focus only on the context of the issue you present and some process skills I hope will help you navigate both the building of stronger relationships and the creation of job descriptions suitable for each identity group's role.

[1]Ryan, K.D. & Oestreich, D.K. (1998). Driving Fear Out of the Workplace: Creating the High-Trust, High Performance Organization (Second Edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.