Organizational analysis with reference to Social work Compare & Contrast Essay

Introduction

Organizations employ a vast range of social workers. These social workers are engaged in myriads of work within any organization. This work indeed varies from working in a large organization charged with production of goods to organizations that are predominantly engaged in designing and production of services aimed at satisfying communal and even individual needs.

Human service organizations employ an immense number of social workers. As a way of example, psychiatrists and psychologists entangle some of the social workers who work much more independently that social workers generally do. Given the complexities of social work service within an organization, many theories have been proposed to explain the nature and the relevance of social workers within an organization.

Some of such theories are feminism and human services, as discussed by Jones and May (1992, p. 56), amongst others. This paper works from a human service organization perspective to compare and contrast feminism and human service theories.

Background

Following the emergence of the second movement for liberation of women, scholars have challenged many of the traditional understanding of women’s experiences. This has prompted the emergence of a new scholarship body deploying concepts of feminism.

With respect to social work theories, feminism is deployed to refer to “a mode of analysis involving certain ways of thinking and of acting, which are designed to eliminate the oppression of women in the society to achieve women’s liberation” (Hannan, Carroll & Polos 2003, p.310).

Feminism theory provides strongly founded grounds for studying the various experiences of women with social human services organizations, especially based on the premise that social, economic and political structures shape the experiences of women.

According to Tong (1989), in social work context, “feminist thought assumes that women’s interests and perspectives are valid in and of themselves, are not inferiors or secondary to those of men’s, nor should they be defined only in relation to or as a derivation from men’s experiences” (30).

Indeed, this concern forms the criticisms of traditional psychological, philosophical, and historical scholarship. The absence of such assumptions is the building block of the feministic approaches employed in human services organizations.

Human services theoretical perspective has at its heart the perception that social work is all about helping people irrespective of the differences either in gender terms or in any other way of classification of organizations’ working population. As Reskin and Hartmann (1986) note, human service theory perceives “social work as being all about social change at an individual as well as a community’s level” (p.102).

In this context, human services theory mostly focuses on the resolution of people’s challenges within an organization amid the complexities that exist within human services organizations. In fact, this theory appreciates this nature of complexities.

Thus, it sees the solutions to such complexities as being rested on the platforms of inculcating the spirit of creativity and fostering knowledge development among social workers (Jones & May 1992, p.47).

Ideally, human services theory seeks to provide responses to various interrogatives such as the relevance of seeking to know why people suffer, people’s responsibilities in resolution of social work problems showing how mechanisms of providing knowledge about human challenges may be availed.

Similarities

Both human services and feminism theories are all advanced with the main objective of providing ways of explaining people’s behaviors, the way they view and even think about particular situations within the social work environment. Essentially then, the two perspectives provide the lens through which social workers acquire guidance.

From a different dimension, the two theories are similar since their practicability is rested on a variety of quite similar frameworks, which actually influence the two perspectives. An example of these frameworks is ecosystem perspective. According to Hannan, Carroll and Polos, the ecosystem perspective “focuses on the interplay between the person and his or her environment” (2003, p.312).

Paramount to note is that, whether from a feministic theory perspective or human services perspective, it is widely agreeable that people within human services organizations deserve to understand the functioning of various individuals. However, in an endeavor to understand people better, it is crucial that one understands the environmental context within which the person lives (Jones & May 1992, p.52).

Mohr (1998) “argues that “Individuals exist within families, families exist within communities and neighborhoods, and neighborhoods exist in a political, economic, and cultural environment” (p.355). In both theoretical perspectives, it is arguable that an individual’s environment contributes widely into shaping individual and group beliefs, choices and behaviors.

Apparently, social work, as a discipline, pays an immense focus in attempting to understand people’s problems. These problems arguably stem right from the environment in which an individual comes, something that both human services and feminism theories indebt to address.

Both theoretical perspectives deploy the concepts of human strengths in their premises. In the words of Berkun, “strengths perspective is built on the assumption that every individual, family, group and community has strengths. Focusing on these, strengths lead to growth and overcoming difficulties” (1984, p. 22).

Directly congruent with this line of thought, both theoretical perspectives perceive clients as being the most plausible determinates of the appropriate helping strategies for employment in the resolution of problems afflicting them.

In both theoretical perspectives, working from the contexts of clients are critical endeavors in contributing to coming up with a helping strategy that is both effective and efficient in resolution of challenges at hand.

Consideration of cultural perspectives is yet another essential similarity between human services and feminism approaches in addressing issues in human services organizations.

Arguably, in an attempt to come into an understating of people’s challenges within an organization, it is crucial for social workers, irrespective of the theoretical perspective they subscribe to, to ensure that they are culturally competent.

This ideally calls for “understanding and approval of cultural distinctions, taking into account the beliefs, values, activities, and customs of distinctive population groups within an organisation” (Hannan, Carroll and Polos 2003, p.314).

As a way of example, social workers working in the health services sector, whether deploying feminism or human services theoretical perspective or not, have at the back of their minds that the manner in which people discuss issues relating to their bodies impacts the way a person reacts.

This acts as a determining factor of whether the person in question accepts or rejects the health services being offered. In this context, both theoretical perspectives recognize the necessity to integrate both acceptable social work principles with the cultural principles of clients in an attempt to make social workers’ work yield substantive fruits.

Differences

Although human services and feminism approaches to social work within an organization have a number of similarities, some differences are also worth noting. While human services theory tends to treat all people working with organizations irrespective of the differences in terms of gender and or sexuality, feminism theory focuses more on women, as opposed to men claiming that women are different in a myriad of ways.

Consequently, it sounds substantial to argue that “Feminist theory examines women in the social world addressing issues of concern to women focusing on these from the perspective, experiences, and viewpoint of women” (Berkun 1984, 20). At the inner core of the feminism theory is holding the position that women have been disadvantaged for a long time, especially when perceived as lesser sex.

For this purpose, feminism theory in social work pays incredible time to introspect “feminist history, geography, literature, science, and develops ideas and approaches that are useful in a wide variety of these disciplines” (Mohr 1998, p.345). Feminism theory, as opposed to human services theory, is essentially a criticism of the convectional social work theories.

Placing more emphasis on the women’s need developed an alternative knowledge an endevour to strike a commonplace and position as compared to men. Arguably, the position taken by feminism theorists is indeed a questionable one. For instance, how can focusing more on problems related to women help in promoting equality within human services organizations while negating the concerns of men, either partially or in totality?

Apparently, the more the debate upholds the articulation women as essential social group worth of protection against the past historical gender (male) perceiving itself as being more superiors, the more the much-forgotten differences tend to resurface.

Second wave of women’s libration concerns is critical elements of feminism theory, as opposed to human services theory, which treats both genders equally in its premises. As argued before, this movement endeavors to provide an amicable understanding of experiences of women within organizations through promotion of new scholarship.

Sandell (1993) notes, “this expanding interest in women has influenced the social work profession, but not to the extent one might expect in a field dominated by women both as professionals and clients” (p.663). In this end, it is evident that feminism as a practice, ideology, or an ethical commitment has dominated the concerns of social work more as compared to human services theoretical perspectives.

Arguably, this is perhaps because feminism theory, in comparison to human services theory, deploys values that are essentially sympathetic in nature. The end effect is women social workers perceiving themselves as “integral to, and synonymous with, their personal and professional identity” (Sandell 1993, p.665).

From this perspective, it is crucial to note that feminism theory tends to offer an opportunity for people subscribing to it to deviate from deploying the theory to guide their professional practice and rather focus more on applying their personal beliefs coupled with their own values in practice.

Relevance of feminism and human services knowledge to professional social work practice

The knowledge of feminism and human services theories and their applicability in human services organizations is incredible since they aid immensely in fostering social workers’ professionalism and mastery of their areas of specialization.

This knowledge aids them in identification of the eminent points of disagreements between the two theoretical perspectives and hence evaluation of the implication of such difference in the context of the social worker-client relationship. Arguably, this may go far in aiding in integration and appreciation of the perspectives one subscribes to with other people’s ways of thinking in an attempt to create a professional body.

With regard to Thomson (2000), “the existence and use of a theory base or body of formal knowledge are strongly associated with the notion of professionalism and occupational credibility that professionalism status can be seen to bestow” (p.57).

Therefore, theory is essential since it acts as a mechanism of adding value to status coupled with respect of a given profession that often goes into fostering the practice of a given profession- in this case social work. It is important for a social worker who is working in human service organization to understand these perspectives.

The knowledge of human services theory and feminism theory or even any other theory of human services organization may help social workers in many ways. Paramount is that such knowledge is incredible in helping a social worker to understand the purpose and tasks of social work or rather the role that social work plays within the society in which he or she lives.

The theories, additionally, provide magnificent methodologies that guide a social worker on how to go about with his or her roles as a social worker. Substantive understanding of one’s profession coupled with the procedures of conducting the roles associated with the profession acts as a subtle tool for enhancing an individual’s professionalism success.

In the context of social work, this is availed through precise understanding of human services theories. Consequently, by not having this knowledge, it hinders the social worker’s practice in the sense that such a person is largely non-cognizant of the roles akin to his or her profession. Hence, he or she may be incompetent to practice what the profession entails.

Conclusion

Social workers do differing work within the organizations that employ them. This work is varied and ranges from doing social work in a large organization charged with production of goods to the organization that predominantly design and produce services aimed at satisfying communal, societal, and individual needs.

For the social workers to be conversant with their roles and methodologies of executing their tasks, it is significant that they become conversant with theories of social work. Stemming from this argument, the paper has found it plausible to work from a human service organization perspective to compare and contrast feminism perspectives and human service perspective as some of these theories.

References

Berkun, C. 1984, ‘Women and the field experience: Toward a model of nonsexist field-based learning conditions’, Journal of Education for Social Work, vol. 20 no. 3, pp-20-26.

Hannan, T., Carroll, G., & Polos, L. 2003, ‘The organizational niche’, Sociological Theory, vol. 21 no. 4, pp.309–340.

Jones, A. & May, J. 1992, Working In Human Service Organisation: A Critical Introduction, Longman, Cheshire.

Mohr, W. 1998, ‘Measuring meaning structures’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 2 no. 3, pp. 345–370.

Reskin, F. & Hartmann, H. 1986, Women’s work, men’s work: Sex segregation on the job, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Sandell, K. 1993, ‘Different voices: Articulating Feminist Social Work’, Journal of Social Welfare, vol. 3 no. 2, pp.663-669.

Thomson, N. 2000, Theory and practice in human services, Open University Press, Buckingham, Philadelphia.

Tong, R. 1989, Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction, Westview Press, Boulder.