Up the organization: In search of a better relationship
between practitioners and administrators
In theory, an organization is a collection of people brought together in order to achieve a common objective in the most efficient manner possible. One rose colored view of this relationship put forward in the early 1900's by a corporate executive is that an organization is fundamentally characterized by cooperation. More common is the pejorative notion of the inefficient, ineffectual bureaucracy characterized by a top down, authoritarian structure. From this view, the word "bureaucracy" says it all.
Another view prevalent in management includes the comparison of organizations to organisms that are forever adapting to changing circumstances. From this vantage point, the task of the administrator is to develop goals, programs, technologies, resources, and staffing that fit the requirements of the environment. Organizations have also been characterized, often by organized labor, as systems of domination where conflict is not only real, but unyielding. In this view the interests at the top and the bottom often parallel divisions in society.
If there's one thing we see every day at NASW, it's many of the realities of organizational life. One thing that is common for us is the crisis call where a social worker contacts NASW because he or she has been told to do something that is inherently unethical or illegal (and they frequently occur together) or face being charged with insubordination. In such situations it often appears to the practitioner that the supervisor giving the instructions is acting in an over-simplified manner in order to get a job done and ignoring the implications that the practitioner readily sees.
For example, social workers tell of being instructed to place their signatures on notes developed by other staff despite the fact that they had not written the note. Another example has to do with situations in which client information should either be shared or withheld. There are variations on these examples and there are other examples as well.
These situations point to a stark reality that can exist at times between the pressures on an organization and the sensitivities inherent in professional social work practice. That's why it is refreshing to hear of the supervisor who takes the time to explore the worker's concerns and enable him or her to find a way to carefully and satisfactorily weave through rough terrain. Unfortunately, what I often find in conversations with members is the absence of such an open discussion. (Of course, we don't get crisis calls when there are such discussions.)
Given that a social worker makes a lifetime commitment to a difficult and under-compensated career, often taking out large loans to get an outstanding education, it is emotionally wrenching to face overpowering organizational pressures that deny the principles of knowledge and value based practice and force the worker to confront termination. For me to respond to requests for advice is therefore a humbling experience. What I usually suggest as a beginning step is to assess whether the supervisor suggesting an over-simplified intervention understands his or her own potential ethical and legal liability. Is the supervisor prepared to have the decision reviewed by the regulatory body that oversees the agency or to appear in court when the client or family challenges the intervention? Although such challenges are few and far between, it is impossible to predict when they will occur. When such review happens and problems are found, organizations and staff will be shaken up. Will the top administrator appreciate the supervisor's decision when he or she is called in to justify a questionable act? Such prospects should give impetus to think through alternative courses of action, including getting, if necessary, the opinion of the organization's legal counsel and top clinical specialist.
What all of this assumes is that the worker and the supervisor are in the same leaky boat, and the question becomes whether there is anything that the worker can do to help that perception along. Interestingly, many callers feel that pursuing such an assessment is a useful step. It also points the way to moving up the hierarchy, meticulously following organizational protocol (referring to personnel policies or collective bargaining agreements), when the issues continue to be ignored. The reality is that, at best, grieving up the hierarchy leads to being reassigned; being prepared to leave is often a prerequisite for the action.
The crisis call will also include exploration of the merits of the supervisor's position and what opportunities that might suggest for further discussion. In one case, pursuing this line of thought drew out the possibility that the worker came across as overly critical when the supervisor did not agree that an ethical problem existed. The worker decided to address how he might have exacerbated the potential for a dialogue and what alternative courses of action might be revealed from this.
While crisis calls to the Chapter are not presented as representative of all organizational life, they do draw out important issues that are common in most organizations. The reasons for why social workers have problems with their organizations are many, they are complex, and they are deeply rooted in the social fabric. They are related to why services for clients are resource poor, and the employment of non-social workers in key positions is frequently involved. But even when social workers are represented in key decision-making positions, problems still exist.
Social workers in administration, including both supervisors and directors, are pivotal to assuring that standards for quality social work practice are upheld; that communications reflecting social work concerns are encouraged; and that direct line practitioners are valued and respected. They also need to share with their colleagues who are direct line practitioners what the pressures on the organization are and what the organization is attempting to do to in response, even when the response is limited by outside constraints. I have observed a large number of social work administrators advocate on behalf of clients and quality services before governmental bodies but never share these experiences with staff. Why not? This needs to be part of their daily practice. Organizations that reflect such openness are places where social workers want to be employed.
As part of its priority to improve the environment for social work practice, the New York City Chapter has targeted discussions with social work administrators, often through the umbrella organizations that they belong to, to support direct practice and the use of professional social workers in these positions. Of course, many social work administrators are already outstanding advocates. We need to create greater expectations in this area and have these expectations begin to catch on.
No matter what one's view of organizations might be, finding a common ground is essential to enhancing the prospects for quality social work services.