Power and politics are significant phenomena in social work since the two help professionals participate and succeed in advocating for policy changes. That is why social workers should not be afraid of gaining and using power to deal with their professional tasks. There are multiple power resources, and individuals can choose which one to follow. Firstly, person-to-person power originates from personal discussions with others, and there are “expert, coercive, reward, referent (including charisma), and authority (or legitimate) power resources” (Jansson, 2018, p. 337). Each of these subcategories implies that people can use different sources of power.
For example, expert resources denote that social workers impact others by displaying their own knowledge and credentials, while coercive power relies on potential penalties (Jansson, 2018). Secondly, substantive power is found when people gain the support of others by providing them with specifically tailored offers (Janson, 2018). Such a situation is widespread when social workers create proposals that fit the interests of a specific political group.
Thirdly, it is possible to rely on process power to help achieve some goals. According to Jansson (2018), this resource implies that an individual can affect external conditions, including time, place, participants, and others, to maximize their chances of promoting a particular idea. For example, a social worker can increase their process power by finding influential allies, which places their opponents in a disadvantaged position. Finally, procedural power source stipulates that attention should be drawn to how a proposal should be presented. For example, a passing probability is higher if a policy is directed to favorable committees and persons or if it is placed “in a preferred position on a meeting agenda” (Jansson, 2018, p. 342). Thus, social workers can rely on these four power sources in their practice and advocacy.
As for my social work practice and advocacy, I would rely on expert power. On the one hand, it is a type of person-to-person power, meaning that my communication skills can help me influence others and contribute to advocacy changes. On the other hand, this power source is appropriate to me because it relies on expertise and information. This statement denotes that I intend to impact policymakers by providing them with factual and evidence-based data. However, I should admit that it is not easy to benefit from relying on this power source because it is necessary to make others trust the information that I will provide. That is why I will be required to find the most credible and reliable data and sophisticate my oratorical skill. The focus on these issues will provide me with more power in promoting a policy change.
In addition to that, it is reasonable to comment on ethical issues that can be associated with expert power. Firstly, a concern can arise if intentionally false information is presented. This statement demonstrates that an individual can make up data to influence others and promote a policy change. Secondly, an issue can happen if a person unintentionally relies on false data. Such a case can occur when an individual fails to ensure that some facts are actual and credible.
This negligence can result in detrimental consequences for many stakeholders. On the one hand, a policy that was promoted by false information will not bring any significant improvement. On the other hand, the person will lose their reputation for providing inaccurate data, which will endanger their future professional practice and advocacy. Consequently, when relying on expert power, people should ensure that they deal with actual data to ensure possible ethical issues.
Reference
Jansson, B. S. (2018). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice (8th ed.). Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning Series.