This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]On: 06 October 2014, At: 23:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Administration in Social WorkPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wasw20

Organizational Engagement andManaging Moments of MaximumLeverageDavid Alex Cherin PhD aa School of Social Work , University of SouthernCalifornia , Los Angeles, CA, 90059-0411, USAPublished online: 11 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: David Alex Cherin PhD (1999) Organizational Engagement andManaging Moments of Maximum Leverage, Administration in Social Work, 23:3-4,29-46, DOI: 10.1300/J147v23n03_03

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J147v23n03_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Organizational Engagement and ManagingMoments of Maximum Leverage:New Roles for Social Workers

in Organizations

David Alex Cherin, PhD

Modern, post-industrial organizational environments are character-ized by increasingly complex operations and information flows, agrowing diversity of the workforce, and more intra- and inter-organi-zational turbulence (Drucker, 1993; Quinn & Cameron, 1988). Theseforces have created the need for investigation into existing models oforganizational arrangements and the extent to which they focus on theprocesses that are essential for understanding the changing internalorganizational environment. Organizational arrangement models, suchas high performance work teams (Lawler, 1986), socio-technical worksystems (Ott, 1989; Shafritz & Ott, 1992), and total quality manage-ment (Schmidt & Finnigan,1992) emphasize interactions between in-dividual workers and among work teams when dealing with workrelated tasks.What is missing in these current workplace models is the articula-

tion of the system created from the interaction between social systems(people), technical systems (product manufacturing and service deliv-ery), and communications systems (decision making and information

David Alex Cherin is Research Assistant Professor, School of Social Work,University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90059-0411.

[Haworth co-indexing entry note]: ‘‘Organizational Engagement and Managing Moments of MaximumLeverage: New Roles for Social Workers in Organizations.’’ Cherin, David Alex. Co-published simulta-neously in Administration in Social Work (The Haworth Press, Inc.) Vol. 23, No. 3/4, 2000, pp. 29-46; and:Social Services in the Workplace: Repositioning Occupational Social Work in the New Millennium (ed:Michàl E. Mor Barak and David Bargal) The Haworth Press, Inc., 2000, pp. 29-46. Single or multiple copiesof this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service [1-800-342-9678, 9:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. (EST). E-mail address: getinfo@haworthpressinc.com].

E 2000 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE WORKPLACE30

exchange). The coming together of these systems is what we call theengagement process. When workers engage to deal with decisionmaking, information exchanges and with technical work issues, thesocial interaction of the group becomes the medium through whicheffectiveness and efficiency can be achieved. This medium, the socialinteraction of workers around work tasks, is a critical aspect in under-standing and managing the workplace.The engagement process produces times of unique opportunity to

influence organizational effectiveness because they are moments ofmaximum leverage. Breakthroughs and turning points in the life of aproject are more likely to occur during these moments of maximumleverage, and, as a result, present opportunities for all levels of a workproject to gain clarity and to advance the project to the next level ofeffectiveness and efficiency. These moments may be key decisionpoints in a project time line, process re-evaluations, or resource rede-ployment issues.The goal of this article is to provide a conceptual framework for the

engagement process. The author focuses on reframing intra- and inter-work group relationships and the system created when these workingsystems come together (engage) during critical moments in the life ofa project ( moments of maximum leverage) by utilizing ideas from thefield of social work that can be applied to organizational work groups.A critical foundation piece of social work practice is that of person-in-environment fit (Perlman, 1979; Germain & Gitterman, 1980; Meyers,1983). It is built on the notion that a new system is created by theinteractions between people, situations and relationships and that thissystem poses the challenge and the opportunity to improve the fitbetween the people and the environment in which they operate.While social work has long functioned in organizations and in the

workplace, the presence of social workers has most often been associ-ated with employee assistance programs, workplace safety programs,policy consultation regarding vulnerable populations in the work-place, development and implementation of stress reduction programs,and organization and community relations (Kurzman & Akabas, 1993).Social workers have not played a prominent role in consulting tomanagement regarding mainstream efforts of organizational effective-ness, work process redesign, and development and implementation ofwork process systems. When social workers become involved in orga-nizational consulting efforts, they have utilized tools and techniques

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

David Alex Cherin 31

appropriated from the fields of organizational development (Gould &Smith, 1988). Recognizing that current organizational arrangementmodels are heavily dependent on skills and knowledge related to theperson and situation orientation that typifies social work practice,provides the profession with a distinct opportunity to move into themainstream of organizational consulting as a purveyor of expertise.This article describes the forces producing change in modern orga-

nizations, introduces the organizational engagement concept and de-scribes the principle of managing moments of maximum leverage. Theauthor concludes by proposing that the current needs of organizationspresent a window of opportunity for the social work profession, be-cause it is positioned to facilitate the fit among and between workersand work groups around tasks.

FORCES PRODUCING THE NEED FOR CHANGE

IN ORGANIZATIONS

‘‘The current accepted body of knowledge about, and practice of,management is better suited to a less turbulent world. Executivesstruggle to make sense out of what is happening to their organizationswith lenses crafted in . . . times of slower change and less interdepen-dence’’ (Mackenzie, 1991, p. 9). Modern organizations are facing suchrequirements as: the necessity to deliver products to the market soonerthan ever before in order to sustain a market position; the adjustmentof products and services in real time to meet ever changing customerdemands; and the need of organizations to adjust rapidly their work-force and technology to changes in their technical environments. Inorder to obtain the degree of flexibility and agility needed to succeedin an era of rapid market changes, organizations are flattening workstructures and moving away from hierarchical configurations (Denton,1991; Maccoby, 1989). In addition, organizations are trying to removebarriers to communication between workers and between work groupsso that decisions can move laterally rather than vertically through theorganization. The lateral method is a structure that encourages flexi-bility, rapidity, and permits organizational learning (Senge, 1991;Kline & Saunders, 1993; Redding & Catalanello, 1994).These changes have also significantly modified the structure of

modem organizations. Decision-making, which was once the soleprovince of senior management teams, is now a part of many high

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE WORKPLACE32

performance work groups. Facilitating communications and problemsolving, which is the province of middle managers, is now also han-dled within high performance and self-managing work teams (Cohen& Bailey, 1996; Lawler, 1986). As a consequence, the organizationalchart and organizational responsibilities, inclusive of decision making,have been compressed and deconstructed. As this compression takesplace, hierarchies and the organizational models that depict them, haveproven to be inadequate. New models are needed which reconceptual-ize the current workplace and focus on the relationships between andwithin work teams.

MODERN ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS

Recent organizational frameworks have increasingly recognized theimportance of worker and work group intra- and inter-actions. Thisrecognition began with human relations theorists in the 1950s andearly 1960s who were critical of the dehumanizing management prac-tices that grew out of the traditional scientific arrangements (Lawler,1986; Lawrence & Lorsch., 1986; Beehr & Bhagat, 1985; Burns &Stalker, 1961; Argyris, 1957; Likert, 1961; McGregor, 1960). As aconsequence of this work, organizational arrangement modelingmoved from a primary focus on structure to a blended focus on struc-ture and social systems (human beings), where there were continuousexchanges among workers, the organization, and their environments(Katz & Kahn, 1966).

CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF WORKERS’ SOCIAL SYSTEMS

AND WORK PROCESS

As a product of the research done at the Western Electric CompanyPlant in Hawthorne (Chicago), known as the Hawthorne studies (Ho-mans, 1995) and the work of The Tavistock Group in England (Trist &Bamforth, 1951), a critical theoretical framework about work systemsand workers was introduced into the literature. This framework high-lighted the ‘‘connection’’ (a social and technical whole) between tasksand workers’ relationships to one another and ultimately work effec-tiveness (Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Ott, 1989).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

David Alex Cherin 33

W. Edwards Deming’s (1986) work in total quality management(Delavigne & Robertson, 1994) extended this link between workersand work processes by conceptualizing continuous information as thekey thread that connected workers to each other and to work proc-esses. Together, socio-technical systems and the total quality modelsframe the critical importance of how workers and work processes arecontinuously interacting. Deming took the socio-technical notion ofthe interaction of social systems and work systems and gave it agrammar that illuminated the methods of how workers communicatewithin and between work groups in the accomplishment of tasks.The most recent organizational models that build on this previous

work are high performance work teams (Lawler, 1986; Mohrman &Cummings, 1989; Lawler et al., 1995; Cohen & Bailey, 1998) andlearning organization (Senge, 1990; Schon, 1983; Nonaka, 1993; To-bin, 1993). Both models focus on the importance of worker relation-ships and the impact ‘‘relationships’’ have upon decision making,work flow, and communications (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Learn-ing organization and high performance theorists depict an interweav-ing of the tasks of problem solving, communications, and decisionmaking with the interpersonal (relationship) connections of workersand work teams (Lawler, 1986; Senge, 1991).The concept of workers’ social systems in organizations has

evolved in the past four decades from the idea of separate, informalsystems that impact work, to one where work processes and the socialsystems of work are integral to one another.Figure 1 depicts this inter-connected model as it has evolved, show-

ing how work groups are held together by communications processesand their mutual involvement in work process tasks. While a theoreti-cal understanding of this relationship is clear, the management pro-cesses needed to bring them about are still being evolved.

THE GAPS IN CURRENT ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS:

THE CONCEPT OF ENGAGEMENT

Current organizational realities can be described as ‘‘workers find-ing themselves in the dynamic lattice of relationships that is the lateralorganization’’ (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995, p. 14). Whiletasks and the relationships of workers performing those tasks areunderstood as an inclusive domain, those who study and manage

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE WORKPLACE34

FIGURE 1. Social and Process Dimensions of Organizations

work groups work groups

work processes

work groups

In conceptual arrangements in the learning and high performance models, the socialwork and work tasks meet continuously where groups come together to accomplishwork. While conceptualized in a way to highlight the new work systems created byworking groups coming together, there currently exists a lack of understanding ofhow these intersects actually operate.

organizations are seemingly searching for ways to articulate thesearrangements. The concept and practice of organizational engagementdoes not yet exist in the language or understanding of management; itremains trapped, unarticulated, and described only in vague terms. Asa result of this lack of articulation, many attempts at implementinghigh performance work teams, total quality management systems, andlearning work groups falter and often fail (Gummer, 1996; Schmidt &Finnigan, 1992; Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995; Lawler, Mohr-man, & Ledford, 1995). Many of the implementation failures can beattributed to the lack of understanding of what is required in trainingand managing high performance working groups or in creating a totalquality management context in organizations.A longitudinal survey, conducted between 1987 and 1993 by the

University of Southern California’s Center for Effective Organizationswith Fortune 1000 companies, examined how companies implement-ed total quality management efforts and employee involvement mod-els (high performance work teams). The authors report that between1990 and 1993 very few employees were trained in the skills feltnecessary to implement and sustain TQM/high performance organiza-tional work models (Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995). Of theapproximately 300 companies responding to the 1993 survey, as fewas 17% reported training a majority of their employees in group prob-lem solving skills or in inter-personal skills. While the number ofcompanies using self managing/high performance work teams hasincreased between 1990 and 1993, these organizational arrangementsapplied to only a small percentage of the total work force. Similar

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

David Alex Cherin 35

results have been noted in organizations where attempts to install totalquality management fail approximately 70% of the time ( Schmidt &Finnigann, 1992).An aspect of these failures in implementation is documented as the

lack of understanding of the concept in the social engagement of orga-nizational workplaces. Surveys of organizations engaged in TQM con-ducted by Hackman and Wagemen (1995) demonstrated that only asmall percentage of organizations understand the emphasis on thesocial and relationship aspects of worker involvement made by TQMauthorities. In both the work of Deming and Juran (founders of thequality concept) the notion of inter-group inter-dependence and inter-relations was the cornerstone of the TQM process (Deming, 1986;Delavigne & Robertson, 1994; Juran, 1995). The same sentiments areexpressed by Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman (1995), who indicatethat success of high performance/self managing work groups can beattributed to those employees who possess an understanding of inter-personal relationship skills. Yet, little is available in organizationalliterature sources that adequately explicates the concept that interper-sonal skills are the necessary ‘‘medium’’ through which the technicalskills (problem solving, decision making, and project design/redesign)of high performance work groups is conducted.The Center for Effective Organization’s survey, discussed earlier,

highlights the fact that the focus of training and understanding of highperformance team work are the technical skills of communication andproblem solving. The context in which these technical skills flow, groupsocial interaction (engagement), is not articulated as an aspect of train-ing. In fact, when groups come together (engage), it is the environmentcreated by workers and work groups that needs to be understood andfacilitated. Facilitating the environment, created when groups engage, isthe critical aspect necessary to ensure group effectiveness.

SOCIAL WORK AND ORGANIZATIONAL ENGAGEMENT

The point at which groups come together around tasks, where rela-tionships and tasks converge, is a critical domain in group functioning.Social work clearly recognizes the new system created by groupscoming together around tasks as a unique area that is something differ-ent than the sum of the parts of the converging groups. Social workarticulates these types of temporary systems as the life spaces ofindividuals, groups, and organizations–spaces where people and situa-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE WORKPLACE36

tions combine to originate a distinct inclusive system, i.e., the interac-tion of people, the task, and the environment (Germain & Gitterman,1980). The authors draw on this social work based perspective inconceptualizing the organizational engagement concept and the un-derstanding of moments of maximum leverage. The concept of a lifespace exists in the social work literature on group therapeutic practices.It has not, to date, been applied to organizations or institutions. Whatis presented here is a synthesis of these group principles into theorganizational landscape. It is important to understand that the profes-sion of social work has much work to do to integrate these principlesinto a coherent body of organizational practice theory and skills.‘‘Social work is unique among the social science professions in that

social workers are specialists . . . in work with boundaries and wholes(created by the overlapping of boundaries of separate systems). Assuch, social workers can be seen as the experts in such functions aslinking, coordinating, relating, negotiating, mediating, and encounter-ing)’’ (Hearn, 1979). Within this statement are many of the seminalconcepts that not only distinguish the profession of social work fromother professions that focus on organizational work, e.g., psychologyand sociology, but also establishes social work as a potentially signifi-cant contributor in the operationalization of today’s organizationalmodels. When multiple groups are engaged, each working on a sepa-rate piece of a project, whole projects come into view when discus-sions are held about the totality of work and decisions to be made.This new system created by this coming together becomes the organi-zational engagement domain of organizations and the context of rela-tionships must be facilitated and managed for the tasks at hand to beaccomplished. The creation of the engaged system by the convergingof multiple work groups is depicted in Figure 2. The engagementprocess model focuses on the nexus created between work groupswhen they come together around work processes. When these workgroups come together in a high performance environment to focusjointly on work tasks, the new, whole system that is created from theparts–task, individual skills, and social interaction–must be facilitated,not just the individual parts. This ‘‘holonistic’’ perspective (using theAnderson and Carter (1990) concept of holon) suggests that the newwork system–a triad of people, situation and of task, should be under-stood and managed in opposition to current practice which focusesindividuals, situations, or tasks separately (Martin & O’Connor, 1989;Anderson & Carter, 1990). This means that the supervisor or work

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

David Alex Cherin 37

FIGURE 2. The Engagement Concept in Organizations

Engagement in Situationsas the Unit of Focus

engagementprocess

work processes

Work GroupWork Group

work processes

SocialWork

Social Skills: Work Skills:

S Inquiry S Problem Solving

S Discussion S Decision Making

S Challenges S Planning/Design

S Deep Listening S Learning

When work groups engage in tasks together the engagement space becomes awhole where domains are interacting and interwoven.

group manager should focus on facilitating listening, inquiry, anddiscussion in the group setting (social interactions of the group) toensure that the context of the situation enables the tasks to beachieved, as depicted in Figure 2.

A CASE EXAMPLE

Ineffectiveness was the initial outcome of a group of home healthcare professionals, nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE WORKPLACE38

and physicians asked to form an inter-disciplinary, care managementteam for their agency to streamline care coordination between disci-plines for all home care patients. The group met twice and throughbrainstorming, facilitated by the manager of the newly formed inter-disciplinary program, the group was able to delineate a complete listof activities that had to be performed. After the second meeting, themanager formed her own steering committee to assign tasks and moni-tor progress based on the list of tasks developed by the brainstorminggroup. The members of the task group went back to their departmentsand reported the progress made in delineating the tasks necessary toform the inter-disciplinary case management program, but many of theindividual members also expressed concerns over the potential loss ofautonomy to their individual groups and expressed high levels ofanxiety over not understanding the focus, needs, and wants of theother disciplines. The manager and the steering committee, unawareof these concerns, published their task list and called for a third meet-ing of the brainstorming group for the purpose of assigning tasks anddeveloping a project calendar.Within ten minutes after the meeting started, the manager and her

steering committee were confronted by a long list of reasons why theinter-disciplinary case management program would not work. Thegroup, which seemed to perform so well in generating the tasks neces-sary to move to the new program were now huddled within their owndisciplines, adamant that the program would not work. What had beenmissed by the manager until this third meeting was the fact that whilethe group performed brainstorming excellently, nothing was done towork with the groups about listening to each other, hearing each oth-ers’ concern about forming inter-disciplinary work groups, or facilitat-ing their social interaction; the medium of this situation had beenignored.The inter-disciplinary group process described here illuminates the

fact that the tasks to be accomplished when groups engage is only aportion of the work that has to be completed. The professional groupsthat were brought together in this home care agency to form inter-dis-ciplinary case management formed a completely new system, an inter-disciplinary team. The manager needed to facilitate acknowledgmentof this fact and work with the group first on their relationships to eachother. This could have been done through utilizing group brainstorm-ing of tasks and assignments. Once this had been done, through inqui-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

David Alex Cherin 39

ry and dialogue, listening and discussing, the task at hand, generatinga task list, would have been accomplished with a great deal morebuy-in than was the case. In conceptualizing engagement in the orga-nization, managers need to pay attention to the whole system at workwhen groups engage and not simply the technical tasks to be accom-plished.

ENGAGEMENT FROM A SOCIAL WORK PERSPECTIVE

Social work’s approach to working with groups is built on an eco-logical perspective which allows working groups to be understood as awhole system; tasks, therefore, are embedded within the social con-texts where they occur. At moments when work groups come together,both the social aspects of work and the tasks required around work arecompressed into a single system of relationships and tasks.For organizational practitioners who focus on high performance

work groups, the current models fail to address the life space in whichdifferent work groups come together to learn, problem solve, or makedecisions. Instead, current organizational arrangement discussionsabout high performance work groups look at the distinct parts of thesituations created and see the individuals, the separate work groups,and tasks as discrete elements of the process. This incremental per-spective leaves questions for organizations as to what needs to beunderstood and managed: inter-relations between people, the tasks athand, or both? From the ecological perspective of social work, thesituation created by the interaction of work groups around tasks is thecentral point of understanding and management so that problem solv-ing, process design issues, or decision making becomes the focus foraction. Focusing on the whole system to understand its interactingparts is a social work perspective that demands a non-summativityapproach (Hearn, 1979). Non-summativity suggests that the wholegives meaning to the individual parts of a system, and so focus on thewhole needs to be viewed as a means of understanding and workingwith the individual parts of the system. While the ecological perspec-tive is a foundation in social work practice, it needs further explicationas a useful model in the organizational framework.Relationships within this system also become multi-dimensional.

Relationships exist not only between individuals, but also betweenpeople and tasks (Perlman, 1979). The notion of relationship from the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE WORKPLACE40

social work perspective takes on greater meaning than simply connec-tions between people. Relationship becomes the connections betweenpeople and between people and tasks so that the social aspects oforganizations and the tasks within organizations become interwovenand indistinguishable. The difficultly that many organizational writershave in describing these new organizational arrangement concepts isthat they tend to talk about high performance working groups and thetasks that they engage in as distinct structures. Social work on theother hand, views these interactions as events in process and not asstructures.

UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING MOMENTS

OF MAXIMUM LEVERAGE

When working groups interact during the life of a project to engagein decision making or problem solving, the social domains of workerrelationships and tasks are compressed into the engagement domain.This compression happens at moments when teams working on differ-ent aspects of a work process are required to meet and make decisionsor to discuss issues involving the whole work or task process. Inaddition, these moments also compress communications and learningabout the project as the parts inform each other about progress andproblems. These types of activities, once reserved for top managementteams, are the essence of high performance work group arrangements.It is, therefore, important to move key project activities down to thelevel where the work is being performed (Lawler, 1988). In a sense,these moments are critical events that leverage the effectiveness of theworking groups. Social work can make a potential contribution hereby applying group facilitation processes to the engagement process ofwork groups. Using an articulated social work perspective, managerscan view these moments as an opportunity to achieve maximum lever-age. Their goal should be the managing of the ‘‘situation’’ (the newsocial system created) in order to facilitate group effectiveness, toachieve problem resolution, or to congeal project decision making.The skills depicted in Figure 2, both social skills and task skills,

must be facilitated in the work space created by the interaction ofteams. Problem solving, decision making, and process design arewrapped within a context of how engaged workers are in the process.Engagement is a matter of the degree of involvement workers feel in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

David Alex Cherin 41

inquiry, idea development, idea testing, and dialogue about decisions.Open dialogue and empathetic listening skills (deep listening) must beconstantly facilitated by the supervisor(s) during these moments ofmaximum leverage in the life of a project. It is of these skills, directedat the inclusion of all workers involved in the process, which arecritical for supervisors to learn. Although essential, understanding,listening, and group decision making skills are not sufficient. Facilitat-ing the involvement of everyone in the deployment of these technicalskills, actively engaging everyone in the process, is critical to capital-izing on the potential of those moments of maximum leverage in workgroups’ life.Social work organizational writers have focused on aspects of these

moments in work group interactions that can leverage the effective-ness of the organization but have done so in only a limited sense,applying their unique systems perspective drawn from the therapeuticand self-help groups. The eco-systems approach, which is a founda-tion piece in the engagement concept, is an extension of open systemstheory used heavily in social work with its focus on the interactionbetween groups and the environments (Siporin, 1975; Meyer, 1983;Martin & O’Connor, 1989). The ecological systems approach gives agreat deal of attention to both the nature and intensity of connectionsand connectedness within work group environments. How workersand work groups connect (fit) with the tasks to be performed by agroup is a key question posed by social work writers who focus onengagement processes. In order for social work to bring this uniquegroup engagement approach to bear on organizations, the professionmust integrate the concepts of fit and connectiveness into a unifiedbody of knowledge focused on working groups within organizations.Many social work researchers have done a significant amount of workon the concepts that help to illuminate the engagement process. Theseconcepts need to be synthesized into a unified whole and then appliedto current organizational models.What the author hopefully has demonstrated is that current models

of organizational arrangements can be informed by social work con-cepts of practice. Engagement, conceived of as an interacting systemof social skills and technical skills around tasks, calls attention to theneed for supervisors to foster the interaction of groups and technicaltask accomplishments during critical moments in the life of a project.While these concepts are contained in social work, they need to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE WORKPLACE42

congealed by social work and understood by the current mainstreamorganizational writers. It is in the ecological perspective from socialwork that our engagement model finds its conceptual base and articu-lation.

WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PROFESSION

OF SOCIAL WORK

It has long been anticipated that social work in the workplace wouldexpand its initial role in employee assistance programs to active con-sultation on key organizational issues with organizational manage-ment (Ozawa, 1980). The reality is that social work in organizationshas remained bounded by service to individuals around issues ofstress, vulnerability, and abuse. This is in part a product of the lack ofemphasis placed in social work practice and in social work research onthe knowledge and skills base that is perceived as being important byorganizations. As a consequence, social work conceptual frameworkshave not been applied to a great extent in the organizational field ofpractice. The concerns of the profession are that expansion of socialwork practice into organizations is a move away from serving vulner-able populations and an attempt on the part of social workers toincrease incomes in lucrative private consultation. In addition the profes-sion has tended to appropriate existing organizational theories instead ofdeveloping a body of organizational practice knowledge derived fromsocial work’s practice and theoretical roots. The author suggests thatmoving into the mainstream of organizational work will enable socialwork values to permeate consultation and therefore create work placeswhich are more receptive and protective of all workers and the com-munities served by organizations. Further, with regard to developmentof organizational knowledge versus appropriation of knowledge fromother disciplines, social work has a rich body of existing literature thatcan be applied to the concept of engagement. What is needed is thesynthesis of this information into a coherent-meta-framework applica-ble to organizations and the dissemination of this work for the purposeof both educating organizations and exciting the profession to stimu-late further research, further theory development, and the expansion ofoccupational work into the field of organizational social work.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

David Alex Cherin 43

SOCIAL WORK ROLES WITH ORGANIZATIONS

Organizational needs today center around an institution’s ability tooperationalize the social domain of their organizations in the contextof high performance work teams. In essence, organizations requireassistance in learning how to understand, implement, and managework team engagement. We suggest that social workers, given thecaveat that the profession continue to develop its framework fororganizational practice with engagement process as its foundation,could provide consultation to work teams with regard to team learn-ing.Inherent in seizing the window of opportunity to expand social

work with organizations to an inclusive field of practice is the demandplaced on the profession itself to build a culture that sponsors organi-zational research and promotes scholarly work in the field of organiza-tional consulting methodologies. In addition, the profession must ac-tively engage with organizations in all sectors of this country inmutually exploring the construction of workplaces and worker andorganizational arrangements (Googins & Godfrey, 1987). The authorwould agree with David Bargal (1993) who suggests that occupationalsocial work has to engage in the mainstream of organizational activi-ties in order to gain the type of influence and respect needed to shapemodern work places in synch with social work values. The currentfocus of organizations and the body of knowledge emerging in socialwork about organizations demand that the field engage itself in the fullspectrum of services offered to organizations and fully engage in thepractice of organizational social work in order to help build sociallyresponsible workplaces.

REFERENCES

Abels, P., & Murphy, M. (1988). Administration in the human services: A normativesystems approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Anderson, R., & Carter, I. (1990). Human behavior in the social environment: Asocial systems approach. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Argyris, C. (1957). The individual and organization: Some problems of mutualadjustment. Administrative Science Quarterly, June.

Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization: The conflict between system andthe individual. New York: Harper & Row.

Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. Oxford, England: Blackwell Pub-lishers, Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE WORKPLACE44

Bargal, D. (1993) Organizational change and development in human service organi-zations. In D. Bargal & H. Schmid (Eds.). New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Beehr, T., & Bhagat, R. (1985). Human stress and cognition in organizations: Anintegrated perspective. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation, London: TavistockPublications.

Cohen, S.G., & Bailey, D.E. (1998). Trends in team effectiveness research from the

shop floor to the executive suite. In press.Delavigne, K., & Robertson, J. (1994). Demming’s profound changes: When will the

sleeping giant awaken? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PTR Prentice Hall.Deming,W.E. (1986). Out of crisis, Cambridge, MA: MIT.Denton, D. (1991). Horizontal management. New York: Lexington Books.Drucker, P.F. (1993). Concept of the corporation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction

Publishers.Fallon, K. (1978). Participatory management: An alternative in human service deliv-

ery systems. In D. Fanschel (Ed.), Research in social welfare administration: Itscontributions and problems. New York: National Association of Social Workers.

Germain, C., & Gitterman, A. (1980). The life model of social work practice In F.Turner (Ed.), Social work treatment. New York: The Free Press.

Googins, B., & Godfrey, J. (1987). Occupational social work. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Gould, G., & Smith, M. (1988). Social work in the workplace. New York: SpringerPublishing Company, Inc.

Gummer, B. (1996). The politics of social administration: Managing organizationalpolitics in social agencies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hackman, R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management: Empirical, concep-tual and practical issues. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 309-342.

Hasenfeld, Y. (1983) Human service organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hasenfeld, Y. (1993). Human services as complex organizations, Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.

Hasenfeld, Y., & Patti, R. (1992). The utilization of research in administrative prac-tices. In A.J. Grasso& I. Epstein (Eds.), Innovations for practice and administra-tion. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.

Hearn, G. (1979). General systems theory and social work In F. Turner (Ed.), Socialwork treatment. New York: The Free Press.

Homans, G. (1995). The human group. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publica-tions.

Juran, J.M. (1995). Managerial breakthrough: The classic book on improving man-agement performance (Rev. Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Kurzman, P.A., & Akabas, S.H. (1993). Work and well-being: The occupational

social work advantage.Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.Lawler, E.E., Mohrman, S.A., & Ledford, G.E. (1995). Creating high performance

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

David Alex Cherin 45

organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total qualitymanagement in Fortune 1000 companies, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E.E. (1986). High-involvement management. San Francisco: Jossey-BassPublishers.

Lawler, E., Albers, S.A., & Ledford, G. E. (1995). Creating high performance orga-nizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality in-volvement in fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E., Albers, S.A., & Ledford, G. E. (1992). Employee involvement in totalquality management: Practices and results in Fortune 1000 companies. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lawler, E.E. (1988). The ultimate advantage: Creating the high-involvement orga-nization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.

Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J.W.(1967). Organization and environment: Managingdifferentiation and integration. Boston: Division of Research Graduate School ofBusiness Administration, Harvard University.

Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J.W. (1986). Organization and environment: Managingdifferentiation and integration (Rev. ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School.

Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw-Hill.Maccoby, M. (1989). Why work: Leading the new generation. New York: Simon &

Schuster.Mackenzie, K.D. (1991). The organizational hologram: The effective management of

organizational change. Boston: Kulwer Academic Publishers.Martin, P. Y., & O’Connor, G.G. (1989). The social environment. White Plains, NY:

Longman.McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.Meyer, C.H. (1983). Clinical social work in the eco-systems perspective. New York:

Columbia University Press.Mohrman, S A., Cohen, S.G., & Mohrman, A.M., Jr. (1995). Designing team-based

organizations: New forms for knowledge work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mohrman, S.A., & Cummings, T.G. (1989). Self-designing organizations. Reading,

MA: Addison-Wesley.Nonaka, I. (1993 ). The knowledge creating company. In Learning imperative: Man-

aging people for continuous innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Books.Ott, J.S. (1989). Classic readings in organizational behavior. Pacific Grove, CA:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.Ozawa, M.N. (1982). Income maintenance and work incentives: Toward a synthesis.

New York: Praeger.Patti, R. (1985). In search of purpose for social welfare administration. Administra-

tion in Social Work, 9(3).Patti, R.J., Poertner, J., & Rapp, C.A. (1988). Managing for service effectiveness in

social welfare organizations. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.Perlman, H.H. (1979). Relationship: The heart of helping people. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.Poertner, J., & Rapp, C.A. (1992). Social administration. White Plains, NY: Long-

man Publishing Company.Quinn, R.E., & Cameron, K.S. (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4

SOCIAL SERVICES IN THE WORKPLACE46

of change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publish-ing Company.

Redding, J.C., & Catalanello, R.F. (1994). Strategic readiness. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Schmidt, W.H., & Finnigann, J.P. (1992). The race without a finish line. San Francis-co: Jossey-Bass.

Schon, D.A. (1983) The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.New York: Basic Books.

Senge, P.M. (1990) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning orga-nization, New York: Doubleday.

Shafritz, J.M., & Ott, J.S. (1992). Classics of organization theory. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.

Siporin, M. (1975). Introduction to social work practice. New York: Macmillan.Tobin, (1993). Re-educating the corporation. Essex Junction, VT: Omneo.Trecker, H. B. (1961). New understandings of administration. New York: Associa-

tion Press.Trist, E.L., & Bamforth, K.W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences

of the longwell method of goal-getting. Human Relations.Tucker, D.J., Baum, J.A.C., and Singh, J.V. (1992). The institutional ecology of

human service organizations. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human services as complexorganizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

3:39

06

Oct

ober

201

4