Welcome to the show -- and Winter, here's the hiring mistake that looks safe in a spreadsheet and can blow up inside a participant's lounge room: picking the candidate with the neatest Certificate III and never testing what they actually BELIEVE about disability support. That phrase -- "inside a participant's lounge room" -- is the bit people miss, hey. This isn't retail, it isn't a warehouse floor. You're sending someone into a HOME, often into a routine that's taken months to build, and one bad fit can make the whole service feel unsafe. Exactly. A Certificate III in Individual Support proves training. It does NOT prove patience on a rough day. It doesn't prove they'll respect a participant's autonomy when the participant says, "No, that's not how I want this done." And it definitely doesn't prove they'll treat someone's home with the same respect they'd want in their own. So when you say autonomy, you mean the difference between "I'm here to help you live your life" and "I'm here to make you comply with my checklist," yeah? Yeah, that's it. The NDIS has participant choice and control at the centre, and in 2026 that's not just philosophy -- it's operational. Auditors are actively looking for evidence of person-centred workforce practices. So if you're hiring workers who talk well in interviews but default to control, you've got a quality problem and a compliance problem at the same time. Auditors looking for "person-centred workforce practices" -- that's not fluffy language. That's the regulator saying, show us how your hiring matches the rights of the person receiving support. Not just your policy manual, your actual PEOPLE. Right. And the NDIS Commission's Disability Action Plan 2025 to 2030 makes this pretty plain: dignity, inclusion, cultural safety, removing barriers, human rights in everyday interactions. So the old hiring reflex -- skills first, values maybe later -- honestly, it can be backwards in disability support. I do wanna push on that a bit, because "values" can get very hand-wavy, very fast. Every provider says they're compassionate. Every job ad says person-centred. If I'm a hiring manager under pressure, skills feel... safer. At least I can point to the certificate and say, well, there it is. I get that. On paper, qualifications feel defensible. But here's the trap: poor fit is one of the drivers of turnover, and disability support already has brutal churn -- around one in four workers leaving in a given year, roughly three times the overall Australian workforce. So the "safe" hire can become the expensive hire, the unstable hire, the one that forces a participant to start trusting a stranger all over again. One in FOUR. That's the number that sticks. Because every time that happens, the provider sees a vacancy... but the participant feels a loss. They lose the worker who knew how they liked breakfast made, how they communicate when they're overwhelmed, what a good day looks like. And that's why in NDIS, cultural fit isn't a nice-to-have. It's not office chemistry. It's whether the worker's presence builds trust or drains it. The best providers and groups like National Disability Services have been pushing values-based recruitment for exactly that reason -- better quality, better retention, better continuity. Okay, but let me sharpen the disagreement. I don't think "hire for cultural fit" is enough. Sometimes that phrase becomes code for vague sameness -- like, "Would I enjoy having coffee with this person?" That's useless. In support work, if you can't describe the fit as BEHAVIOUR, don't use the phrase. Yep. That's a fair hit. "Cultural fit" without behaviour is basically horoscope hiring. What you need is observable stuff: how do they talk about participants? How do they respond when a participant refuses the planned activity? What do they do when a colleague supports someone in a way that feels off? That's where values become visible. Horoscope hiring is harsh... and annoyingly accurate. But that's the point, isn't it? You're not hiring for a vibe. You're hiring for how someone behaves at 7:30 in the morning when the plan changes, the participant's upset, and there is no manager in the room. So if we make this practical, where do you start? Not with a mission statement on the wall. Start with your BEST workers. The ones participants ask for by name. How do they speak about people? Do they say, "my client wouldn't cooperate," or do they say, "we had a tough morning and I had to adjust"? That language tells you a lot. And the "adjust" part matters because support work is full of plan changes, yeah? Exactly. Watch how your strongest workers handle ambiguity, conflict, and last-minute shifts in need. Those patterns are your real culture. Not "we're caring," but "we stay calm when routines blow out, we protect dignity, we don't talk about participants like problems to be managed." That's the behavioural definition you're hiring against. And there are tools for this. NDS has a Values Based Recruitment Toolkit -- interview guides, assessment exercises, even psychological testing info. Plus the NDIS Workforce Capability Framework gives a shared language for the attitudes, skills, and knowledge expected across the workforce. So you're not inventing standards from scratch. The Workforce Capability Framework is useful because it turns "good worker" into something less squishy. But even then, organisational fit is only layer one. In NDIS you've got layer two, and it's massive: participant alignment. Yes -- this is the bit providers sometimes miss. A worker can fit your organisation beautifully and still be wrong for a specific participant. Communication style, pace, interests, personality, lived experience, cultural background -- those can matter more than a sparkling resume. Grab the pace example, because it's so concrete. A worker who's warm, slower-paced, and comfortable repeating themselves may be a much better fit for a participant with intellectual disability than someone who's highly efficient, brisk, and direct. Same qualification. Very different experience of support. Same qualification -- that's the whole thing. On paper they're equal. In practice, one creates calm and trust; the other creates friction. Participants may choose workers based on communication style, shared interests, lived experience, or cultural background because connection isn't a bonus feature. It's the mechanism that makes support work. So let me play this back. You're saying the real hiring question isn't, "Can this person do personal care or community access?" It's, "Can THIS participant genuinely trust THIS worker?" Almost -- and I'd make it even tighter. It's both. Can they do the role safely and can this participant trust them enough for the support to actually land? Competence without trust is thin. Trust without competence isn't enough. You need the overlap. And then we get to cultural safety, which is not optional. Australia's participant base is diverse -- culturally and linguistically diverse communities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, all sorts of backgrounds where support only works if the worker is respectful of values, language, and household norms. Right. Cultural safety can be as visible as language skills and community knowledge, and as everyday as removing shoes at the door, understanding family dynamics, or not bulldozing cultural practices because you're in a rush. A reliable worker blends into the environment respectfully instead of disrupting it. "Removing shoes at the door" is such a useful image because it's tiny... but it's not tiny. It's the first ten seconds of whether someone feels seen in their own home. And if you serve a significant number of participants from one cultural community, actively hiring workers with knowledge of that community isn't just good ethics. It's a competitive differentiator. Better outcomes, stronger referral relationships, better retention because the match is more durable. Which brings us to interviews. If you're serious about fit, stop asking vague questions like, "Are you compassionate?" No one says no. Ask behavioural questions. "Tell me about a time you disagreed with how a colleague was supporting a participant -- what did you do?" Or, "A participant refuses the support plan for the day. How do you respond?" Add, "What does person-centred support mean in practical day-to-day terms?" And, "If a participant discloses something concerning during a shift, what happens next?" Their answers reveal orientation. Do they describe people as having agency, goals, and the right to make imperfect choices? Or do they default to control and compliance language? Also, don't overlook lived experience. People with disability, people with mental health experience, people who've navigated complex systems themselves -- the Commission has been clear that including people with disability in the workforce matters. That insight and credibility can't be copied out of a textbook. And that's the final reframe for me: you're not filling a shift. You're deciding who gets invited into one of the most personal spaces in a person's life, over and over again. If your hiring process can't tell you whether that person will be trusted there... it's not finished. Yeah. The best hire in NDIS isn't the one who looks safest on paper. It's the one a participant doesn't have to recover from.
Audio Coursesby Jellypod