The Secure Start® Podcast

#27 Why Clear Primary Tasks And Brave Authority Transform Children’s Homes, with Tom Ellison

Colby Pearce Season 1 Episode 27

Send us a text

The work gets easier when the purpose gets clearer. I sit down with social care consultant and leadership trainer Tom Ellison to unpack how a simple, jargon-free primary task can reshape children’s residential care. Tom traces his path from frontline practice to boardrooms and back into coaching, explaining why so many teams know what “good” looks like yet struggle to do it consistently. His answer is both bold and practical: define the primary task, align everyone to it, and use supervision to keep that alignment steady.

Tom breaks alignment into a living practice rather than a slogan. He challenges leaders to risk being unpopular, take up their authority without apology, and draw straight lines from daily tasks to therapeutic aims. We examine the tension between Ofsted ratings and child-centred work, and why regulation should guide, not govern, your purpose. Clear responsibility, clean handovers, and a shared culture of safety reduce chaos and create space for growth.

We dive into supervision as the engine room of thoughtful care. Tom’s two-part frame—alignment and understanding—helps teams process anxiety, recognise projection and transference in plain language, and turn reflection into action. We talk neurology, trauma-informed practice, and why sanctions often fail. Most of all, we return to practical steps: ask what you’re here to do, what it looks like when done well, what gets in the way, and what the plan is. Keep the language simple, the authority grounded, and the purpose front and centre.

If this conversation helps you think and act with more clarity, subscribe, share it with a colleague, and leave a review with one insight you’ll apply this week.

Tom's Bio:

Tom is an accomplished Consultant and leadership trainer with over 30 years in children’s residential care, specialising in innovative leadership and mental health support for young people. Through Elevate Professional Development, launched in 2025, he delivers UK-wide workshops to strengthen care leadership. With 20 years of boardroom experience, Tom has consistently driven strategic leadership and service transformation. Holding a BPS-approved Psychology degree, a Master’s in Psychoanalytic Observational Studies, and postgraduate qualifications in Management and Strategic Management, he blends academic and practical expertise. Currently, he serves as Non-Executive Chair at AMMA Childcare Ltd, Non-Executive Director at Cedars Childcare Ltd and Empathy CIC, and advises the leadership teams of a number of organisations in the third and independent
sectors.

Disclaimer

Information reported by guests of this podcast is assumed to be accurate as stated. Podcast owner Colby Pearce is not responsible for any error of facts presented by podcast guests. In addition, unless otherwise specified, opinions expressed by guests of this podcast may not reflect those of the podcast owner, Colby Pearce.

Support the show

Colby:

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast.

Tom:

If I describe to you something you already know in a way you've not heard before, the rest of the programme is to explore why you're not doing it. Dealing with imposter syndrome, for example, is that can be a barrier to people fully taking up their role and taking up authority. The job of leaders is to help people. In this 90 minutes, I want to give anybody that attends something that they can walk away and use. The more jargon you can deploy, the smarter you look. Whereas I try and go the other way and say, Well, let's try and express this really simply. What does a good outcome look like after a residential experience? Well, you would want those children in adulthood to be able to enjoy being in the world and to succeed in whatever form they choose to succeed. Is once we've got clear about primary task, what are we here to do? The thing that naturally follows from that is alignment. Without a leader who's clear about the primary task and who is actively aligning people to the primary task, people will end up aligned all over the place. An essential quality of leadership is to align the team to that primary task. That you could have a feeling that you don't have a valency for, it's not yours. You picked it up from one of the children. If you don't understand that, if you're not helped to understand that, you might think it's you. Then in an effective organization, the way I describe it is anxiety feeds up through the system. And what should be coming back down is containment, is containment. Processing the anxiety, metabolizing the anxiety and thinking with people.

Colby:

Hello and welcome to the Secure Start podcast. I'm Colby Pierce, and joining me for this episode is a highly experienced social care consultant and leadership trainer. Before I introduce my guest, I'd just like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the lands that I come to you from, the Ghana people of the Adelaide Plains, and acknowledge the continuing connection the living Ghana people feel to land, waters, culture, and community. I'd also like to pay my respects to their elders, past, present, and emerging. My guest this episode is Tom Ellison. Tom is an accomplished consultant and leadership trainer with over 30 years experience in children's residential care, specializing in innovative leadership and mental health support for young people. Through Elevate Professional Development, launched in 2025, he delivers UK-wide workshops to strengthen care leadership. With 20 years of boardroom experience, Tom has consistently driven strategic leadership and service transformation. Holding a BPS-approved psychology degree, a master's in psychoanalytic observational studies, and postgraduate qualifications in management and strategic management, he blends academic and practical expertise. Currently he serves as non-executive chair at AAA Childcare Limited, non-executive director at Cedars Childcare Limited and Empathy CIC, and advises the leadership teams of a number of organizations in the third and independent sectors. Welcome, Tom.

Tom:

Thank you. I'm quite humbled by that introduction, so thank you.

Colby:

Well, it's all you. Yeah. People um often comment about uh having it's a weird thing having your your professional life, I guess, um reported on in in that way. And uh a couple of people said, Oh, I'd like to meet that person, you know. It is yeah, he sounds impressive. Yeah, and for other people it's just very awkward um to to sit and and hear that. But yeah, you know, um, but it is a it is an impressive career, and I I should say uh at the outset, um, I approached you after seeing um a post on LinkedIn about uh psychoanalytic leadership, uh no psychoanalytic supervision workshops that you were delivering. Um, and I thought, oh, that's that's right up my alley to have on uh here on the uh Secure Start podcast. So um I yeah, I approached you and here you are.

Tom:

I'll try and be suitably smart and impressive.

Colby:

I'm sure it'll just come naturally. Um before we we we really get into it, I just thought it'd be interesting to hear a little bit more about you, how you came to be um working in in this area, and um yeah, what you do, what you what what you were you do in an average week or an average month uh as part of your work.

Tom:

Okay. If I if I start at the beginning, I start sort of it's easier to lead in than go backwards. So um I was interested in psychology as a teenager. Before the internet, there was a bookshop uh in my hometown where there was a psychology shelf, and I'd go there and peruse the books and eventually buy the books. And um, so I was interested in psychology from 13, 14. Um I ended up going to university and doing a degree in psychology, traveled a little bit, and then when I got back, was kind of determined I want to use this degree to do, I want to work in that field. So um I did a little bit of work in the youth service and then saw a role as a residential, I think it was called residential social work back then. That's a protected title now, so you can't call it that in the UK, usually called residential care workers. But I um I applied for that job not really knowing what it was I was implying for. It sounded interesting, and found myself working in a psychiatric, a child adolescent psychiatric unit within a residential school. I think I was 22, 23, something like that. Yeah, so there was not much age difference between me and the oldest young people in that service. I think there's like three or four years between us, something like that. So I did that for I think I was there three years, and then uh being an ambitious soul, I wanted to progress and move forward. So I took up a role in a charity called the Together Trust on Greater Manchester and worked there on an offer 10 years. And then while I was there, um I started a master's program with the Tavistock. As a result of that, I kind of branched into working for an organization called SACS, which you might have heard of. Um, and SACs were delivering treatments, treatment programs, residential treatment programs, specifically for younger children who'd experienced sexual abuse and who in the main were demonstrating sexualized behavior themselves. So I was there for five years as a deputy director, and then I went to Britt Mellencare as a director. Um, that was more forensic, that was more awful lot of children who were some of them were a risk themselves, some of them were a risk to the community. So uh a lot of risk management involved in that role. So I did that role, and then I went to be the director of a therapeutic community. So I was uh director of community at Thornby Hall for roughly two years, and then uh went to an organization called Young Foundations, which was um not in a good state when I arrived. And um myself and the leadership team there developed Young Foundations to be a um the UK's largest provider of tier four step-down services. So for people watching in other countries, tier four step-down meaning uh children who've been in patients. So children who've been in patients in hospital, usually on locked wards, we would offer pathways back into the community. But again, a lot of risk management, a lot of clinical support, psychiatry, clinical psychology, psychotherapy, sometimes things like OT and speech therapy as well. Um, so I was in the leadership team of that organization for eight and a half years. I left there late 22. I was going to go, I was I was talking to an organization about joining them as a chief executive. And halfway through that process, I kind of realized I wasn't feeling it. And thinking I've just come away from eight and a half year stint uh in the boardroom, and I'm not sure I want to jump in to another one. And uh during that transition, I've been approached about some consultancy. So um I just followed that up and I ended up consulting to a local authority two days a week for initially. I think I was meant to be there for 12 weeks, and it went on for 18 months, and that was helping develop their residential services, which were pretty good to be fair. The governance, the governance needed work, but actually the work going on at the coalface was was was very good, actually. Um, and from there that built out into a consultancy. Um, and then this year um I've started to deliver leadership programs and leadership. Because what I found what I was doing in the main, particularly the non-executive work, is I am coaching and advising leaders. So I'm coach and advising the board, or I'm coaching and advising the senior management team. And so and I've always been interested in that space. I I ran development programs internally. Back when I was at SACS, I was involved in the development of uh uh a degree program in therapeutic childcare. So I've always had a leaning towards people development and um and so the the the leadership stuff that I'm delivering now combines that background in operational leadership with some of the stuff that are picked up at the TAVIS stock and working in organizations that had a psychodynamic, if not psychoanalytic, leaning. So now that so the the supervision training that you saw, uh I delivered, I delivered one of those last week. And the the the early part of the day is about leadership in a way you might expect to see on a an MBA program or a leadership training. So there's there's some basic building blocks that need to be in place, but then as we move into the afternoon, there's an awful lot of stuff that I think you would recognize as a psychologist and a therapist about um um projection and containment, transference and counter-transference splitting, the things like that that do crop up in the work. Yeah, that are thing if you're an operational manager, it helps to see it, it helps to understand it. Um, I'm very um careful in setting boundaries about what are the limits to doing that kind of work. That the that so noticing you know transference effect in a key worker relationship is probably useful and helps you think about what's going on and what the needs of the child might be and what support the staff might need, but it's not therapy. And and so and so drawing those boundaries uh when you when you're going into that area is I think is quite an important part of the work. So I think that's the journey. So now I have a portfolio career now, so I do uh the leadership stuff through Elevate. I um I'm a non-exec director for three different organizations, and I and I consult. So um which is you know it's always advisory. So you know I think I've been I've been invited to step into operational spaces before now, but I'm quite um I'm quite boundaried about that. And my my job's to advise and help. It's not it's not to actually come and do the work.

Colby:

It's interesting, isn't it? It it does it it's not dissimilar in some ways to how my own my own career is uh is kind of unfolding. I am still doing a lot of um psychotherapy work with children and young people who are recovering from multiple adversities. Um, but certainly uh that more consultant role to organisations and and supporting and as well as um uh supervision, consultant supervisor type roles has become more and more uh an aspect of my role and uh of my work, sorry. And I've you know, and I for example, I've I'm doing less and less training these days and moving more into the development of individuals and teams in a consultant and supervisory way, as opposed to delivering standalone training.

Tom:

I th I think I'm merging the two.

Colby:

So yeah, it sounds like it.

Tom:

Yeah, so so certainly the leadership program that starts in November. So I've developed a 12-month program, and a third of that program is coaching. So, so it the the the the training bit to introduce principles and concepts and ideas, and throughout that program, and and actually pretty much everything I do, I I emphasis the need to have some self-awareness or develop increased self-awareness through the program. And so I think I'm doing the same thing every time. I'm introducing some concepts and ideas that might be helpful in the leadership task, and then I'm exploring okay, what are the barriers to you engaging in this? Because the way I describe it is quite often in the training element, I'm telling people things they already know. Now I might be telling them in a way they've not heard it before, or describing it in a way they've not, or framing it in a way they've not heard it before, but I'm telling people things they already know. So the the purpose of the program then is okay, if I if I describe to you something you already know in a way you've not heard before, the rest of the program is to explore why you're not doing it. And so which is usually it's it's internal stuff. You know, we we started um you know, you after your introduction, my reaction was the voice at the back of my head telling me that's too impressive, that can't possibly be it. And so and and dealing with imposter syndrome, for example, is that can be a barrier to people fully taking up their role and taking up authority. And I think for me, the biggest issue that I repeatedly run into in leadership situations is uh um people being hesitant to take up the authority that goes with their role. You have to take the risk. Yeah, I think the the way I frame it is you have to take the risk of not being liked. To to take up leadership fully, you're risking uh rejection, you're risking losing connection, you're risking, you know, if you if you put the needs of the organization first, you are risking quite a bit. And I think that's where people hesitate. So they'll they'll get into a leadership role, they'll be doing the things they're supposed to be doing, that we're going to the meetings they're supposed to be doing, that we're sitting in supervision, for example, which you're not we're going to talk about. So you're you're acting out the things that you're supposed to act out in that job, but maybe what you're not doing is taking up authority, which is which is embodying the responsibility, accountability, and authority that sits with the rule.

Colby:

And that would be an interesting thing to explore um as to why why they just hearkening back to a it was almost like remember the old movie uh Harry Maguire when he when he was it Harry Maguire? No, that's that's the Manchester guy. Um what was it? It was a Tom Cruise movie. Um with the Jerry Maguire. Jerry Maguire, there you go. Some people might edit that bit out because I'm gonna leave it in because of course Harry Maguire plays for Manchester United. You're not far from Manchester, he scored the head of winner, much maligned former captain of the club. Anyway, so I've had him on my mind a little bit today because one of the sons is a massive Manchester United fan. Um remember in Jerry Maguire, he bit the his the the love interest is in a gathering with some um with some women and and uh and he he turns up and starts you know uh making all sorts of statements about um you know his his affections towards her, and she says, You had me, what did she say? You had me at the door or something similar like that. I had exactly the same uh reaction in my own mind then when you when you said about people um uh telling people what they already know, which I think is a really good start in any training endeavor or any supervision endeavor, but then moving on to talking about why they're not doing it, which is you know akin to saying what's what is getting in the way of you um being able to actually practice those things that you already know. Um you mentioned also a number of concepts a little bit earlier that um I guess most listeners or many listeners to this podcast would recognise as being concepts or constructs that are related to psychoanalytic thinking and psychodynamic thinking. I'm just wondering uh about other influences on your peer, uh on your sorry, on your career uh progression. Are there uh people important people or or important theoretical frameworks?

Tom:

Uh in terms of theoretical frameworks, I've cycled through all sorts of things. So so I did the psychoanalytic thing quite deeply in in the noughties. That that you know, I did I did a master's in psychoanalytic observational studies and went into analysis myself, and I went down the avenue of training to be a psychoanalytic psychotherapist and then realized I'd probably be a really terrible one. And turned and and by that point my my day job had developed into you know, I was I was I was in roles with director in the title. And so I thought, well, actually, I enjoy being a manager, I enjoyed being a director, I enjoyed um helping people in that way because I think that's what leaders do. I think leaders help people, and and I usually add a caveat to the end of that, and help comes in many forms, so so helping people sounds uh lovely, it sounds really pleasant that you know I go to work every day and I help people, but sometimes help involves a difficult conversation or or even a difficult process, and so um I kind of arrived at at the well, I I think the job of leaders is to help people, and um but on that journey I I've been influenced by all sorts of things. So um yeah, I've studied uh management and management studies at quite an academic level, uh, which is quite dry. Um but I've also picked up a lot by just doing the work. I think early in my career, um, when I was a practitioner, when I worked with the children, the it seemed like attachment theory was a new idea. So I remember I'd been in the work for five or six years. I'd I'd been working directly with children in residential settings in their homes for five or six years, and and then there was suddenly I was put on the list to go on an attachment training, which I got very excited about. I thought, oh, this is great, this is this is exactly what I want to be doing. And I went on a day of attachment training, and I learned about avoidant and ambivalent attachment styles and disorganized attachments, and I learned about John Bowlby and Mary Main and the strange situation test. And I did this, it was a very full day, and I really enjoyed it. And when I went back to work in the home the next day, somebody said to me, So what are you gonna do different? And I didn't have an answer. I really I kind of thought, okay, I've I've I've picked up some jargon, I've picked up some frames and ways of looking at things, but I didn't really understand what I do with this, how do I apply this? You know, and so when I'm developed training, even if I'm doing, I do some 90-minute webinars that I tend to give away. But even on those, I'm very mindful, I remember that experience, and I'm very mindful of in this 90 minutes, I want to give anybody that attends something that they can walk away and use in their in the management and leadership tasks, something that okay, I can use that. So I I try to go very quickly from conceptual theoretical stuff to an invitation of okay, how might you use this? And uh I think pretty much every training that I do ends with tell me how you're gonna use what you've used today. And I go around the room and get people to tell me how they're gonna use it because it is it is that um application of the training rather than uh you know people can go on a training and be thoroughly entertained, and it makes no difference whatsoever in their career. And and it and training managers tend to measure training in that way, they'll hand out a feedback form and you know you put smiley faces on and say how many, you know, whether you get a smiley face or a sad face dictates how good or not the training was. And I've always struggled with that a bit because I think surely the training, the the the value of the training, how good the training is, is does it actually change what people do in the workplace? And is that is that change enduring? Are they are they working in a different way 12 months later? Or is it just something they pick up, deploy a little bit of jargon in the workplace to show that they've been on the course and then go back to doing how they did things all along?

Colby:

I think I well, there's there's a lot in that. I think um the way I used to put it is that um training often um was focused on what people needed to know, uh, but didn't really offer much in terms of what people needed to do. And there's still plenty of training, I think, that is like that, that is very much knowledge oriented, right, and uh lacks um the uh it lacks um the provision or the delivery of um of a way of um turning your mind to how you're going to implement this knowledge that you've been gained, you've gained. And I think the other thing that um you just said there right at the end is about in 12 months' time people may they may have made a change but go back to how they've always practiced, or they may never have even made a um a change at all. They just had new concepts and and new ways of perhaps thinking about the work, which in itself is not a bad thing. Um, but there's a there's a statistical phenomenon, phenomenon, phenomenon. It's getting late in the day here. I've been talking to young people all day. Um, there's a statistical phenomenon called regression to the mean. And regression to the mean really um is is a phenomenon that that relates to in any change endeavor, you probably already know this, so this is just for the for our listeners um who haven't heard it, but in any change phenomenon or change process, people uh will find it hard to sustain the change over time, and they'll and they'll often end up back where they started again over time. It's really difficult to change habitual uh behaviors, including, for example, the way we relate to other people. And um, so that's regression to the mean. People some people don't change those who do, some people can mobilize effort to change their approach, but they'll um but a good proportion of those will end up go reverting back to just performing in the role uh how they always have. And that that has brings me back to something that you said earlier about starting with where people know. Because it's my view that if you start with where people with what people already know and already do, you you you cut out this phenomenon, or you have your best chance of um cutting out this phenomenon, and rather just focus on those aspects of the way in which people perform in the role that are um therapeutic, that are helpful, that are um able to be sustained over time. And um the the further importance of that, notwithstanding that it's easier for people to keep doing the things, perhaps emphasizing certain things over other things, but keep doing the things they already know and do, um, is that it's not as jarring for the young people because our young people uh can you know are very sensitive to inconsistencies and uh and they you know it does they don't always react or respond well to them those inconsistencies.

Tom:

I think you've said a lot now, so I'm trying to pick up the the things you've said, but the the the the thing about uh regression to the mean uh might mean that someone engages in a training, they change their behavior for a bit, and then after 12 months they've gone back to where they were before.

Colby:

That's right.

Tom:

The the thing that I try to the way I try to address that is if you can change the way somebody sees their job, their role, and what their role is for, I think it's less likely there would be that regression. It might happen from time to time, but it's easier to snap them out of it, if it particularly if the supervisor can see it. So, for example, um on most of the trainings I do now, I'll introduce primary tasks at the beginning of the training, which an idea from beyond. So from that kind of psychoanalytic, psychodynamic movement. But the the fundamental question, well, what are we here for? What what what what is the task that we're here to do? And I I never cease to be surprised that in certainly in the UK, if you ask a the registered manager of a children's home, and they might work within an organization that that uh builds itself as psycho uh as therapeutic. We're therapeutic, we worked with therapeutic model. And if you ask a manager of a home, okay, what's the purpose of your home? What are you here for? I'm always taken aback by how vague the answers are. There'll be a bit of jargon thrown in there, it'll be a bit vague. Words like nurture get deployed and therapeutic and so on. Without, and if you drill in to start drilling into those words, well, what do you mean by nurturing? And what do you mean by therapeutic, they run out of rope pretty quickly. And that's not their fault. That that I think that's I think one of the things in uh professional culture is we use jargon to distance people, we use jargon to try and you know um embellish our own understanding. So the more the more jargon you can deploy, the smarter you look. Whereas that I try and go the other way and say, well, let's try and express this really simply. Because somebody who if you deploy a lot of jargon, how do you help somebody who who started in the work last week? And so um we spend on pretty much every training I do, the first hour and a half is what's the primary task associated with your role? So if you're a home manager, that a home represents quite a discrete kind of system. Uh yeah, you it links to a wider organization usually, but it's quite a discrete system. So you say, okay, what does this discrete system do? What's what's the purpose of it? What does it do? I think if you distill that into a sentence or two sentences that are clear and free of jargon, it's enormously helpful because I don't think that leader can if they if they really commit to the task of okay, let's let's develop a primary, let's develop an expression of the primary task, a couple of sentences. It's very difficult for them to go back to where they were before because they see their work differently now, and there's clarity about it. And and one of the things when I'm asking people to do that, I say, look, it's unlikely you're going to do this at the first time of asking. So you sit down. What does okay? So you're the manager of a children's film, and it sits in an organization and on the website it says it's therapeutic. And maybe there's some clinicians in and out of the service. Okay, write down in a sentence or two sentence what. What's the primary task of that system? Um, I've never known anyone who just do it. I I they'll they'll write it, they'll edit it, I'll challenge it a bit, they'll go back. And I and I quite often say, look, you're gonna you probably if we did a training on a Friday, if you come back to that primary task on Monday and read it again, it won't be right. It'll need to be distilled, it'll need to be worked on until you've got absolute clarity of what are we here to do. And I think that that the that avoids the regression to the mean thing. That if you if you've got actually, I'm really clear about what I'm here to do and and how I do it. So I use a phrase, um, it's quite often people make the claim, well, we're here to do therapeutic work with children. And the place that we get to is something along the lines of, okay, so you consciously use relationships in order to affect enduring transformation in children. Okay, there's some big words there, but they're not jargon. So you can't it's the conscious use of relationships because if you children, you know, a teacher in a classroom probably wouldn't make that claim. They're there something to do with uh knowledge and development and teaching. And a teacher can have a relationship with a child that is actually beneficial and helps the child to grow and develop as a human being, but the teacher isn't consciously using that relationship. And so if you're delivering therapeutic care residentially, the I try and boil it down and say, okay, what is it that you're doing? Okay, it's a conscious use of relationships. So you're conscious, you're thinking about the relationships. You're uh and in order to um deliver, or words of that words of a similar word, uh, enduring transformation in children. Because again, the the enduring transformation bit, and I had a debate about this last week, is I've come there are people in residential childcare who believe their job is to make the children behave. So that's so the job is to make the child. So so here's a child behaving badly, you know, they they live in a home for 12, 18 months, and then they're not behaving badly anymore. Now that is a good outcome. I wouldn't I wouldn't dispute it, that's a really good outcome. But it's probably because there's some other transformation that's gone on underneath that means the behavior's not necessary anymore.

Colby:

Yeah.

Tom:

And so it it certainly in residential work with children, really thinking about what is it that what what is it that makes a difference? What do we do? What are we aiming for? And what do we use out is the conscious use of relationships. And the trans and it's transformation because it is literally on a neurological level. You're looking to change synapses and pathways in the brain, in order that I think I've got a slogan somewhere that it's about um that they can enjoy and succeed in the world. Because okay, what does a good outcome look like after a residential experience? Well, you would want those children in adulthood to be able to enjoy being in the world and to succeed in whatever form they choose to succeed.

Colby:

That's also an imp a difficult question for people to answer. Um, while you've been talking, I've been just thinking, yes, yes, yes. I love starting out with what are we here for? With the primary task. What do we do? Because I think what happens in social care and and various aspects of child protection endeavor is that the work is so confronting or you know hectic in in some way or or potentially even overwhelming, is that people stop thinking and just and do. And that and once you can get them, as you said, once you can get them to start thinking about the work that they do, that then that stops them from just doing it in a almost in a procedural way, which is where you get that problem of them going back to or or continuing to do what they've always done. So I love that idea. I think you've mentioned three things. Is is that that firstly getting people to think about what is the primary task or what is what is the core task of our organization. What do we know, and what what is getting in the way of us that delivering upon that. I think there, if I've heard you right, there are three really core aspects of of um training that you deliver in in these in this sector.

Tom:

I think I think the other thing to acknowledge is there are forces that will push you off task. So so in the UK, um you don't have to talk to anybody involved in residential childcare for very long before the conversation turns to Ofsted and regulation.

Colby:

Yeah.

Tom:

And I and regulation is important, and managers in particular, registered managers in particular, and responsible individuals, which are statutory titles in the UK, um, they would be very ill-advised not to pay a lot of attention to regulation. However, that's not why we came here. So, so in terms of and I think that has taken over a little bit. So I you you'll see it on you know on LinkedIn, managers will put their Ostead rating now in their title, you know, outstanding or you know, good rated manager with Osted. And I've sat in interviews with managers where they clearly felt what I was looking for was somebody who can deliver very good Ofsted outcomes. Because the rate uh outstanding good requires improvement or inadequate. So that they're rated. And the the ratings have consequences, you know, they have they have consequences for the organization, and sometimes they have consequences for the children, and so that is a very real, very powerful force acting on the question of what did we come here to do? And then there are other forces as well. I think that's the one at the moment that I feel um eclipses occasionally the best interests of the children because the the managers become so preoccupied about their Ostead rating that they will become concerned that that a child that they might be caring for who's struggling and um acting out or running away or you know uh pre presenting behavioral challenges, they'll become concerned that that might impact their Ofsted rating.

Colby:

Yes.

Tom:

Now, actually, that's not what we came here to do. We didn't come here to achieve outstanding Ofstead ratings, we came here to um help children in a transformative process using relationships, and and sometimes there is there is and I know if there's any Ostead inspectors listening, and I had a debate with one recently, they would say uh there's no inconsistency. And I think I think you can have a situation where there's no inconsistency, but I think that force is so uh dominant, it's shaping the thinking of people in residential childcare in the UK.

Colby:

Yeah.

Tom:

Occasionally it eclipses the consideration of what does this child need from us?

Colby:

It's one of those unintended consequences of um of regulation. Regulation is important for ensuring public safety. There's and uh you you may not know this, but until the middle of last year, I'd spent 14 and a half years in various roles, right through to chair and deputy chair positions in our own national health practitioner regulation scheme in the psychology part of it here in Australia. So I I'm a believer in in regulation, but it needs to be light touch and it needs to ensure that um we don't end up um scaring our you know our our service providers into becoming risk-averse and preoccupied with with um with regulation. And and you know, I think there's uh including guests that we've had on this podcast, and well a number of guests on this that I've had on the podcast would agree with the notion that that probably the most important role of um a responsible individual or a leader in an organization in in order to achieve the therapeutic task would be to turn their mind to staff well-being, the people who are actually delivering services on the floor. And that um and that yeah, the I my concern would be who is facilitating that outcome where the staff are in the best possible place to be delivering therapeutic care if the responsible individual managers are so concerned about um regulation.

Tom:

Yeah, I think don't get me wrong, regulation is a power for good. And so, in and if you look at the UK in the 1970s, the chances of being abused as a resident in a children's home were incredibly high. It was it was almost a one-to-one relationship. If you're in residential care, you're gonna be subject to some kind of abuse, and I don't think that's the case anymore. I think I think I think when abuse happens in children's homes, it's unusual and it's almost uh headline grabbing when it happens.

Colby:

Certainly is.

Tom:

And one of the things that's contributed to that journey, that improvement without a doubt, is regulation. I think I'm I'm quite a big fan of the notion of authentic leadership. And a principle of authentic leadership is balance. So so the a leader leading, I don't and I don't think it's the regulator's fault that that um providers have become preoccupied with um regulatory outcomes. I I I think they're looking for something to measure how good or not they are, and the regulator gives them a convenient shorthand for whether they're good or not.

Colby:

Well, the work is tough, isn't it? So you don't get that many pats on the back necessarily. This actually that's interesting, just quickly as a segue, in terms of what people find are easy and difficult to describe about the work. And you were mentioning that um that people in your in your experience um find it very difficult to describe the primary task just off the bat, if they're asked. What are we what are we here for? You'd think that that was the easiest thing to say. Um I was go thinking of asking you what do they find easy to describe. I I'll just let you know from my experience when I when I'm working therapeutically um with parent clients or or with um when I when I'm engaged, sorry, with parent clients or with with teachers of children that I see or with the uh caseworker from the statutory child protection organization, I'll often say to them uh what how will you know that the service I'm delivering has made a difference? So what what are the positive things? What are the growth things that you you are looking to see? And and they again they just can't they they really struggle to answer that question. Whereas they'll they'll easily tell you what all the problems are. They'll very, very easily tell you the problem. And I think that has a bit to do, well, I know from a psychology point of view, it has a bit to do with how our thinking and problem solving, uh, how much our thinking is devoted to problem solving versus um acknowledging or paying attention to the good stuff.

Tom:

There was a there was an event in the UK last month, uh it was a very good event actually, but there was a there was an event about um it was for commissioners, so those who are commissioning and paying for children's residential services and focusing on well, what do we mean by therapeutic? So if we're commissioning something and it's therapeutic, what is it that we're commissioning exactly? And I got into a conversation with the commissioner there about tier four step down, which children coming from um sectioned under the Mental Health Act and being discharged into the community. And the uh the commissioner was saying, well, we want we want to know that the children are getting sessional therapies. And I said, Well, maybe I think you know, having run you know an organization that that does tier four step down, my primary concern was always risk management. It was the the top of the list is are the risks being managed? Because the the the children, you know, they found themselves sectioned under the mental health app, usually for the risks they pose to themselves. You know, and uh and they're making a transition from something where the boundaries were very solid, as in locked doors uh and occasionally pharmaceutical boundaries, um, into uh an environment which by its definition is going to be a bit looser. And so the conversation there was I think the top, you know, if you're making a list of what what do we want from a provider of tier four step-down services, I think that the the the number one isn't therap, you know, sessional therapies with a clinician, although it might be on your list, but the number one needs to be robust risk management. And and that again, it was that was a version of the conversation of what are we here for, or or in that case, okay, you're here to commission what is it that you're commissioning, and how do you work out what it is that you need? And um I think that going back to basic principles um in whatever you're doing is incredibly helpful. And the way you frame what are we here to do is really does dictate the outcomes. So if you've got a clear, I think if you're a sessional therapist and you're, you know, you've you you've got a therapy room and a child is coming in for therapy, in a way it's hard to lose sight of what you're there for. It's kind of suggested by the space and the the time limit and the rest of it. If you're a residential worker in a children's home and you're driving kids to and from appointments, you're filling in paperwork, you're mopping the floor, you're preparing a meal, you're cleaning the toilet, you're going on a training course, all the things connected with that, I think it's much easier because there's so much variety in the task. It's much easier to lose sight of well, what am I here for? You know, but how how do you align um and align align is another word I'm fond of using, but how do you align mopping the floor and cleaning the toilet with um transformational change through relationships? You know, it's it's easier to lose sight of it.

Colby:

Yes, uh, yes, that I think that's that's really quite interesting. And um I was also uh while you were talking about um risk management, I was I was just I was one wondering if you would um briefly you know kind of describe what you mean by risk management as a as a really fundamental aspect of the of the role.

Tom:

I think um, you know, if you think about services that look after children who present a risk to themselves, the risk management hits on a number of layers. So so you you you would want staff who are clearly orientated to risk management. And I know that sounds silly, but it's not just the manager task. So I think again, in children's homes, one of the things that happens is a manager will write a risk assessment, the staff will peruse the risk assessment, particularly if it's full of jargon, it won't go in. And then they'll go about their business having forgotten about the risk assessment. So a lot of risk management stuff is cultural. It is about people understanding that they're responsible for this child, understanding what the risks are around this child, understanding the sort of things this child might do and acting accordingly. And and the notion understanding uh the authority that sits with your role is important. So it's so you don't get to say, well, it was it was someone else's. I thought someone else was watching that child, for example. So in in terms of risk management, there's a link to governance, but but um who is doing what and when, who is responsible for what and for what period, and when is it handed from one person to the next? And that I know that sounds really simple, but where things go wrong, it's usually where that that chain breaks down. So who was responsible for uh a young person who perhaps presented risks in one moment to the next? And in children's homes, that stuff is complicated because you've got lots of moving parts and you've got things that might happen that pull you out of shape, like the telephone ringing or the doorbell ringing or another child drawing resources away. And so um it is very um, it sounds very basic, but it's about who is doing what, where, and when, and who's responsible for what, and and is the clarity about that on the ground? So if I come into a home and I am responsible for, and there's I don't know, three or four, five or six children there, and I'm responsible for the safety of one of those children because they're being funded for one-to-one care by the local authority for reasons of risk. I need to understand that and it needs to be clear, and I need to make sure that if I need to step away from that child, I've clearly communicated with one of my colleagues and they're going to step into the space. And so it's it's very um it's very operational and it's not that connected with um some of the psychoanalytic and psychodynamic or even or inverted commas therapeutic stuff that that we might might also discuss that that child needs. But fundamentally, that child needs to be safe, and and to create the safety, everybody needs to be clear who's looking after that child and who's responsible for their safety moment to moment.

Colby:

So I'm getting excited now because I was gonna say, well, I'm just a simple person as well. And I uh well, maybe not as well, but I'm a simple man with a simple message. And when you were talking about risk, the the little the mischievous part of me was thinking, are we talking what are we talking about with risk management? Are we talking about how we you know manage actual physical risks or or procedural risks? And I think there's there's some of that in it, but are we not also talking about safety and psychological safety, physical safety? And I think yeah, I think the way we talk about these things is um really important because I think a conversation that that uses the safety language over the risk language probably aligns better with the um the primary task that you that you're referring to earlier. And um yeah, it uh the therapeutic task as such is to is to keep children safe, to do what we we as adults who are responsible for their care and management, uh what we what is expected of us uh to keep this young person safe, which is you know you can take it right back. It's it's it's it's parenting 101, isn't it? Really? You you have a child, you you have a child as a couple, and um uh and when that child is in your care, the f you gotta one of the first things you gotta do is ensure that they're safe at all times, both uh emotionally, psychologically, and physically safe, and and that their their other um primary dependency needs are being met. But um yeah, I I think the language, as I said, I love alignment as well. I think alignment is is a key construct in this area and and not well um used or thought about. I mean, I think it in in our work in social care and child protection, I'd love to see a lot more thinking about the work happening and and and to the extent that there's a lot more thinking about it, I'd like to think a lot that there's a lot more alignment.

Tom:

Um I think I think on alignment like after a visited. If I'm doing and it is pretty much true of every leadership training, do whether it's supervision or whether you know a full leadership program, is once we've got clear about primary tasks, what are we here to do? The thing that naturally follows from that is alignment. Because if you think, okay, I'm working with leaders, so if a leader through some work we're doing together, they reframe their primary task. And and again, it's I'm not introducing them to new ideas, I'm just introducing them to a new way of framing it and thinking about it. It's not, they're not going to conclude, oh, I didn't know that's what I was here for. It would just be a okay, I've got more clarity of how I describe what I'm here for. And if you can describe it, you can you can repeat it. And so the the role of the leader is to then go and repeat that to the team. This is what I think we're here for, and there might be a debate about that. Usually there's not, but there might be a debate about that, and then over time, the job of the leader is to align the individual members of their team to that to that task. And I've I've got some graphs that are you uh graphs, diagrams, I've got some diagrams that are used in the training that that illustrate this very simply and very clearly. The idea of without a leader who's clear about the primary task and he and who is actively aligning people to the primary task, people will end up aligned all over the place. There'll be they'll be the everybody will be facing in a different direction, slightly. Um, there might be some commonality, they're looking in roughly the right direction, but they're not looking at the same thing. And you know, I think that the an essential principle of leadership, as as distinguished from management, management's slightly different, but as as an essential quality of leadership is to align the team to that primary task because that then becomes quite powerful. We all know what we're here for, and we're all coming into the workplace every day and moving toward that. You you end up leveraging off the power of the group.

Colby:

Yeah. What what importance do you place on leaders um having regular supervision themselves and uh and and and training about uh some of these things that you're talking about? What what importance do you put on that? How do you think about the importance of that?

Tom:

Well, as somebody who delivers this kind of training, I'd say it's very important. Yes, of course, that's the obvious in in terms of supervision. If you think about the frame they're offered, so the frame is and we'll we'll take the manager of a children's home, but it could be a school, it could be a residential school, it could be a fostering service. Um so you've you've got a manager who's developed some clarity about their primary task, and their job is to align people to that primary task and move forward towards achieving uh those outcomes. For example, transformative change brought on by conscious use of relationships. So that's that's what we're moving towards, and everybody's aligned to that. Over time, what will happen is people, including the leader, will become misaligned. Other forces will like the regulator or like a crisis or you know, a lack of staffing, or um, or the children, you know, the the stuff that the children bring can pull you out of shape. And um so the manager's own supervision should be helping them reflect on where they are, take stock of where they are, work out am I still advancing towards that primary task, or have I drifted off because I've been pulled out of shape by the things that just happen when you're in these complicated roles. Um so I I would say that if somebody, if if you have a moment in time, it never happens. But let if you imagine a moment in time where you've got a team that's arranged in a hierarchy, and the person at the top is perfectly aligned, and everybody underneath it is perfectly aligned. The supervision is the thing where you fine-tune, okay, that one's slightly out of whack, so let's bring that one in, and that one's or that person there is struggling with something, maybe something coming from the children, maybe something coming from outside of the system from home or or wherever. Um the role of the manager's supervisor is to help reflect and take stock and work out where they are. Um, and within that, I mean, the there's lots, you know, there's lots of different supervision models. There's an awful lot. There's, you know, seven-eyed model, there's a four by four by four model. Um the in the old days in the children's homes regulations in the UK, you got in England rather, in uh slightly different in Scotland and Wales. But in England, you you used to get eight points. It would guide you and say, right, supervision should take place monthly and they should cover these eight points. So it's very prescriptive, it's less prescriptive now, but it was very prescriptive at the time. But if I try and make things simple, so so you say, okay, well, supervision is about alignment, that bit of have we drifted away from the thing we came here to do? And if we have, can we can we correct? And the second part is understanding, and so so and so you've got alignment, are we moving toward the thing? And the understanding bit, understanding is a broad term, but is it's it includes self-awareness, it includes understanding what are the things that are push pulling us out of shape or pushing us out of shape, it includes understanding what's going on for the children, which which is uh, you know, I think I think um the trauma informed gets bandied around a lot in the UK at the moment as a way of understanding children that have had adverse experiences in their early childhood.

Colby:

Not just the UK, yeah.

Tom:

Okay, so but if you if you think whether you call it trauma informed or attachment informed, or you know, understanding that um it, I I think working with children who experienced trauma and neglect is not intuitive. It's it's so the intuitive thing is, and I was in a conversation with well, well, this works with my children, so why doesn't it work with these children? That's the intuitive thing. That the someone comes through the door and says, Well, um, he's been that child over there's been beastly and called me all sorts of terrible names, he should go to bed early, you know, which might work. Um, I wouldn't use that at home with my son, but but but I I kind of get the thinking. I kind of get okay, um cause and effect. Okay, so we're gonna use cause and effect thinking to try and shape the behavior of these children. It doesn't work with children who've had really um unpleasant and neglectful and abusive experiences growing up in their early early life because the the bits of the brain that deal with cause and effect don't work terribly well. And you know, they're learning. Yeah, and you know, there's I've got a slide in one of the trainings I do that's that's um it's brain scans of the remaining orphanage kids, and I'm literally showing they've not got the hardware, so it's it's not even a question of the running different software, they don't have the hardware that the gray matter is not there to do this cause and effect thinking. So, and I take that as an example of okay, understanding the effects of trauma, it's not intuitive, you can't just intuit it. Some people, some people, to be fair, uh are closer to it than others in just by their you know natural inclinations. But um you have to develop understanding to do this job. You you can't you can't just intuit your way through it, and so the second part of supervision is about understanding. So it might be understanding okay, what's the neurology of a traumatized child like and why is it unhelpful to use sanctions and rewards, and ineffective actually, but but actually actively unhelpful. Uh, and what can you do instead? And but then the other part of the understanding thing is understanding yourself and understanding. Well, what what is working with these children provoking in you? Um, why is that? And actually, um to well, I I I because uh there's a real issue in the UK with turnover in this sector. So so people come into the work and they leave the work. Now I think there's various reasons for that. One one reason might be that organizations might the people at the ground floor and the people at the top of the organization are not well aligned, but I think a big reason that goes unacknowledged is working with these children can provoke feelings that are very uncomfortable. And without supervision that helps you sort out what is your stuff that was in you when you came through the door, and what are you picking up from the children? What's or HR, what's going into you? Um without being able to sort those things out, and I'm I'm trying in a very simplistic way, I'm avoiding jargon to talk about um personal and diagnostic counter transference. But the the I tend not to use those terms in the workplace, but um, I'm doing it for you because I know you'd get it. Yeah, it's just the two of us, yeah. So the that um diagnostic country the the idea that that somebody else that you could have a feeling that you don't have a valency for, it's not yours, you've picked it up from one of the children. If you don't understand that, if you're not helped to understand that, you might think it's you, you know, and and that could be it could be feelings of depression or anxiety, it could be feelings linked with abuse. And I think if you're not helped to process that stuff and it's strong enough, you probably you probably start to feel like you might be a bad person or a depressed person, or oh, this isn't for me, and run away from it.

Colby:

It's it's that um oh vicarious traumatization in a sense, isn't it? It's well it not in probably in more than a sense, but um it's what what we absorb, I guess, from the work, and um individuals and organizations absorb a lot. And we and we have individuals and organizations who work in this area who them who become very much like the clientele that they're serving, um, probably in part because of a lack of space and time to reflect on what's actually going on here, to think, you know, to think about the work. And I think there's three things you've you've kind of mentioned which align very much, there's that word, they align very much with um my most recent past guest, uh Adriana Diaz, talking about a program in Portugal, but uh supervision on that project aligns with what you're talking about. At the very least, it's about what's going on for us, it's about what's going on for the children, and it and it's what's going on in the organization. That's how I understand um what you've talked about, how aligned we are with the primary task, what's going on for with the kids that we're seeing, and what's going on with us as well. And we need at least those three aspects of supervision. Um well that they are very important uh to um facilitate an outcome where we where we work closely to and with that that primary task that we have.

Tom:

I think like I say, I I I try and keep everything really simple. So it's the the alignment thing is are you approaching the primary task? And the understanding thing is, well, what are the many forces that might be acting on you that prevent you from aligning with the primary task? That and that could be unconscious processes, it could be um, you know, stuff coming from the children. It could, it could be, you know, it could be, you know, for a manager the regulatory environment, it could be the organization and things that are going on in the organization that might not be, there might not be a straight line relationship with the children. There usually is, you can usually find uh if you if you're working with children who are whose presentation is dysfunctional, that dysfunction will get into the organization and it mirrors up and down. And um in an effective organization, organizations organize themselves in hierarchies, and in an effective organization, the way I describe it is anxiety feeds up through the system, and what should be coming back down is is a is containment, is processing the anxiety, metabolizing the anxiety and thinking with people, because the the you know the the understanding bet is being able to think about what's going on rather than just experiencing.

Colby:

Is it too simple to say that um what is really required in this work, but whether it's um delivering a quality residential care service or or a foster care service, um or or performing the role of a statutory social worker or statutory child protection worker, probably one of the foundational things or the things that are of most important in this work is to have the time to stop and think about the work and and what's happening for you um and what's happening in terms of what you're delivering to um to your client group.

Tom:

I think it's about being balanced as a professional. So you I I was someone once described me and said, Oh, you're you're a doer, not a thinker. Because in my early career, I kind of got ahead by getting lots done very quickly, and uh that hit home because I can't there was something very real about that that comment at that time, and the inference was I wasn't being particularly reflective, and I certainly wasn't looking at myself. And um, so you you we get rewarded in career, in profession, for being doers, getting stuff done, and you know, the likes of us would speak up for spaces to reflect, spaces to think, spaces to understand. But you have to have a balance. So, my you know, critique of organizations that are very psychologically informed and perhaps work in a psychodynamic way is they will think and analyze ad nausea and not get things done. And things need to get done. So that it is that balance. And I wouldn't say like for most organizations doing the work that I'm involved in in the UK, I'd say there's probably more doing than thinking. But I have come across the opposite scenario where there's an organization that's very, very good at thinking, very analytical, very um smart, introspective, and so on. But they struggle to get things done, they struggle to turn that processing and thinking into activity that makes the world a better place. And so it it is, you know, I go back to that, you know, the qualities of an authentic leader. Um one of which is um so the the qualities of the authentic leader are self-awareness, balance, transparency, and morality. And the transparency and morality thing together are about I think that that's there's a big lot of talk in leadership circles about being vulnerable, you know, allowing yourself to be vulnerable. I think there's a link between trans if you if you play in the space between transparency and morality, you probably get to vulnerability, but the balance bit's important. The the balance bit is um we need to be able to think and we need to be able to do, and you can't sacrifice one for the other.

Colby:

So I'd I've what I'm gathering from this conversation that we've had today is that you it if and again, I'm a simple man. Uh I like I like to simplify things a lot too. And people, what what Einstein, perhaps the cleverest man of the 20th century, some would say, uh, maybe the cleverest man ever said, if you if you can't describe it simply, you don't know well know it well enough.

Tom:

Yeah.

Colby:

That's uh apparently an Einstein quote. But what I what I what I've heard you say, if I can bring up four key things, which is which are what are we here for? What is our primary task? Yeah. Um what's getting in the way of us let me put it a different way is what is what is the primary task? Um what what does it look like to be delivering on the primary task? What's getting in the w way of us doing it, and and what what is the the the next steps forward to making sure that we are delivering on the primary task? Would it be too simple? And I I have a feeling I there's an important point that you've made that I've one that I've missed out in that um little list.

Tom:

I think the but so yeah, I I I am frequently, particularly when I'm working with new people, it's what are the two questions that I always package up at the beginning is what are we here for and what do you want? Because hopefully they align, but they might not. Um, but you know, so what are we here for? Which is about your role and your role within the organization, but what do you want is more personal, it's about you as a human being and what your you know dreams and aspirations might be. I think when I okay, so what are you here for and what do you want? Hopefully those two align. If they don't, then we can do some work to help them to align. It when when there is clarity about the primary task and that leader is going off to align other people, the thing that we're thinking about when I say what's getting in the way, what's getting in the way might be practical, it might be resources, it might be capital, it might be all sorts of things. But quite often it's something unconscious or or or if not unconscious, unacknowledged. So uh as I said earlier, I think I think a frequent difficulty that, in particular, new leaders have is they're reluctant to use their authority because they're worried that other people will regard them badly. Who do you think you are? Um, why you I I can remember the first time I gave direction to somebody, and I was about 22 or 23, I found myself by default leader on a unit, and it was a unit, um, with some children who presented risks. And I I just worked out by elimination, oh, I must be in charge today. And the the the fellow, I can remember his name, but the fellow that I gave direction to was in his 50s, and I fully expected him to either laugh at me or dismiss me, or who do you think you are? Um and I I said, could you and it was about risk management. I was asking him, could he go and supervise a corridor where I knew there was always trouble down there? So send someone down there. Um and he just very politely said, Yep, and went and did it. And and I but I was waiting for something to come back, something negative, some rejection. And I think that that all right, I was lucky enough to be very young when that happened. But I think at whatever point in your career you find yourself in a position where you're delegating or you're asking people to do things, you you're and you're asking from a place of authority, you're not asking as a favor. Um, I think a lot of people hit a barrier there. And and there are people running around with director in the title who've not overcome that barrier. That um, and then in the in the you know, if you if you follow leadership thinkers uh on the internet, um, there's a big thing, authentic leadership is that there's a big movement around authentic leadership, but there's a lot of stuff about vulnerability and empathy, the empathetic leader, which I think's all good, but it has to be balanced with, and you have authority and you have responsibility, and in particular, if you're looking after children where there's risk, you absolutely have to exercise their authority. You can't not, you can't choose not to because it feels a bit uncomfortable. And so um that what are the obstacles, they can be external or internal, and and it can be about what what what's what's going on on the inside, and um of uh somebody when I when I was in my early days as a director, somebody used to provoke me with the phrase of who are you being at work, which was a provocation to me because I was struggling with that, how to uh inhabit my role and still be me. You know, inhabit my role without looking like I'm pretending to be somebody that I'm not, and I was struggling with that. I think he could see it, and so he he would regularly deploy the phrase who are you being at work today, which was which was a big I didn't like it, I didn't like it, but it was the right challenge. It was uncomfortable, but it was the right challenge. It was it was you know that that was I don't know 20 years ago. I've held on to it. Um so that the the I think very simply, and it is what are we here to do? How do we align people to that, and how do we address the things that get in the way of that alignment?

Colby:

And what's the plan? It's been a fascinating conversation, Tom. We we haven't quite got through all the areas that I had hoped to speak to you about. So I um maybe make it maybe I can persuade you to come on again another time. I as you know, I had a bit of a senior moment there as happens. The thing that I I was try struggling to remember when I was trying to summarize our conversation under four points was the primary task, what do people already know? That was the bit. What do you already know? Um now I'm gonna have another senior moment um about the about the next two. But um, what's getting in the way of what we already know, and then and then what's the plan? How are we going to put realize this, how we're going to operationalize it? Because as one of your mo your latter points has been is it's you have to be thinking about the work. It's really important to think and reflect about the work, but it's you've got to also get stuff done. Yeah, you've got to be productive, you can't spend all your time uh being in introspective um about although I I I often sort of think you know, reflecting on my own practice experience, I'm always thinking about what's going on. I'm always both introspective and doing something, or reflective and doing something.

Tom:

I think I think that's the place we aim for. So late career, I think I like to think I could say the same that I'm able to do and I'm able to think. Early career, that's not the case. Early career, I was a manic doer. Yeah, who who probably left lots of collateral damage around him and and wasn't particularly thoughtful about how I was doing what I was doing, why I was doing what I was doing, and what were the forces acting on me. I think that stuff certainly because I started residential work in my early 20s, and throughout my 20s, there wasn't much regard for that. I was busy and I was rewarded for my busyness, but I think it was it was mid-career that I was challenged to actually actually meaningfully reflect and develop understanding and develop understanding of how am I being and how are the people around me being and what's what's passing in the space between us.

Colby:

Yeah, yeah. Well, once again, it's just been I think a fascinating conversation and uh um so fascinating, in fact, that uh that I I slowed the process down a bit too much. So hopefully we um we may have an opportunity to speak again um a little bit more about um uh residential care, which is an aspect of care that you have um a career lifetime looking in and around, and uh love to hear more about your your um your thoughts around that too. But uh for the sake of uh allowing us both to get up with the rest of it at the end, uh mine is very short from here. Uh but yours is still mostly ahead of you. Um thanks again, and uh hope to speak to you again another time.

Tom:

Thank you, it was my pleasure.