Why Social Workers Should Rule the World

By Brian Giddens, ACSW, LICSW, June 2005

Update on Declassification
Social Services implementation delayed until 2007 or later

By Lynn Carrigan, MSW, October 2004

 

---

Why Social Workers Should Rule the World

By Brian Giddens, ACSW, LICSW

Reprinted with permission from the Society of Social Work Leaders in Health Care June 2005 Newsletter

(pull quote) In order to move our profession forward, we need to change this mindset.  If we think we are destined to be at the bottom of society, we will remain in a position of want.

I recently presented a workshop with this title to a group of health care social workers at a four-hospital system in the Midwest.  The presentation was expanded from a three-hour session presented last year at the NASW Washington State Chapter conference to a full day workshop. 

Despite the tongue-in-cheek title, I seriously believe that if social workers intervened in systems and organizations on a macro level like they do on a micro level with individuals and families, the world would be a much better place.   The idea for this workshop came from two “discoveries” I made over the past few years. 

One discovery was the realization that leaders are sometimes as lost as the followers.  I have had some marvelous opportunities to take part in leadership development initiatives, such as a Medical Management Certification program at the UW and a fellowship with the Department of Health and Human Services.  In addition, my work at the UW Medical Center has afforded me the chance to work with some wonderful leaders.  In working together with these high-achieving folks representing the best in business and health care, I realized that my skills as a social worker provide me with an advantage in understanding and analyzing systemic problems.  My skills also provide me with the ability to problem-solve in a way that other leaders cannot.  Leaders from other professions brought tremendous expertise and skills to the table, but without the skills that come so naturally to social workers, their ability to grasp an issue and work to find a solution was limited. 

My second discovery was that the world of business and leadership was acknowledging  this gap in expertise and was touting needed skills to leaders that were sounding suspiciously like Social Work 101.  Significant leadership gurus such as John Kotter have conveyed the need to learn and practice skills in communication, team-building, self-analysis, and problem-solving.  Daniel Goleman, the expert on emotional intelligence, has focused on how important emotional intelligence is in fostering outstanding performance in organizations.  The business world has employed scores of consultants to teach leaders how to be “emotionally intelligent”. 

Basically, the five components of emotional intelligence (EI) are self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, social awareness, and social skills.  Specifically, emotionally intelligent people are collaborators, possess an understanding of group process, have a high degree of empathy toward others, are excellent communicators, work for a “higher purpose”, understand the impact of change on individuals and groups, know how to manage conflict, act ethically, stay composed in the midst of chaos, and understand the connection between feelings and actions.  Are these not traits of a strong social worker?  And if these traits are being touted by high-paid consultants, does this not mean that our skills are valuable beyond the context of individual/family interventions?

One could say that training leaders to possess these traits is a good thing, and continue to focus on micro practice.  Many social workers have no desire to serve in management or to take leadership roles in their organizations or community.  But the reality is that currently our profession has little or no power in our society, and that translates to little or no real power in organizations.  Social workers are rarely at the table, and when they are it is often for their clinical expertise, not for their understanding of human resources and organizational systems.  Even in organizations where social work is the predominant discipline, the degree of societal power is diminished relative to that of other professions, such as law, business, and that of our health care counterparts in medicine and nursing.  Social work is constantly fighting for resources, for a sense of place in society.   A case in point is the work that NASW is now doing on their image campaign, finally acknowledging that many people have no clear idea of what a social worker does.  If our work is unnoticed or misperceived, how can we expect that our status can be improved?  And if our status does not change, where does that leave the people we are trying to assist?

Traditionally, I believe social workers have identified too well with the oppressed, to the point where we act as if we are the victims in an “unfair” society.  We see those with power and resources as the “elite” who lack compassion and withhold resources.  In order to move our profession forward, we need to change this mindset.  If we think we are destined to be at the bottom of society, we will remain in a position of want.  Instead, we need to see that this “elite” group needs our help too.   We need to show how our skills and problem-solving abilities not only serve to help a dysfunctional family, but can improve the success of a dysfunctional organization.  Sure, there are the robber barons, the Enron and Tyco executives who seem to epitomize greed.  But the bulk of the “elite” are people who happen to be from different backgrounds than that of social work who want to succeed.  Increasingly, it is clear that they are not going to succeed without people who understand how to work with others, how to identify systemic problems, and how to bring affected parties together to find realistic solutions.  This is the strength of social workers, and we need to stop being shy about promoting the value of our profession.

Brian Giddens, LICSW, is Associate Director, Social Work Department, UW Medical Center, and the Chapter President-Elect.

Update on Declassification
Social Services implementation delayed until 2007 or later

By Lynn Carrigan, MSW, October 2004

An ongoing exploration of the State's move to declassify social workers is uncovering a complex situation that will require action at several levels.

NASW Executive Director Glee Palmer-Davis, NASW lobbyist Nick Federici, and Legislative Action Committee member Lynn Carrigan spoke with a DSHS official last week to gain some insight into the effects of Civil Service reform on social workers. In addition, Declassification Task Force chair Brigitte Folz, M.S.W., Assistant Director of Social Work at Harborview Medical Center, has been talking with the Washington State Department of Personnel (DOP) to get further information about the reclassification process.

Driven by a new law that mandates fewer personnel classifications, the reform will give managers more discretion to hire employees from a variety of backgrounds into more general job categories. The proposal will eliminate the specific title of Social Worker and place existing employees with that title into one of two broader positions. The DOP website offers some helpful background on the reforms (http://hr.dop.wa.gov/hrreform/classplan.htm):

The Personnel System Reform Act of 2002 provides an opportunity for the state to simplify and modernize its over 40-year-old civil service system. Major improvements will:

• Simplify rules and processes for hiring, promotions, compensation, layoffs, and corrective/disciplinary action
• Streamline the job classification system to facilitate more effective use of state personnel resources and to enhance mobility and career opportunities for state employees
• Support performance-based government

The new classification system will:

• Consolidate 2,400 current job classes into broad occupational categories over a five year period
• Place more focus on key skills and responsibilities of specific positions
• Provide flexibility to adapt to changing technology and economic, workforce, citizen, and organizational needs.

Because strong objections have been raised about downgrading professional social workers, the DOP has delayed parts of the reform. . According to Melia Olsen, Recruitment and Selection Team Leader at the DOP, "the Social Service Counselor/Case Manager grouping is scheduled for a much later implementation (estimated 2007-09 biennium). Implementation for Group 1 will be June 1, 2005; and Group 2 implementation is anticipated to be early in 2006. Social Service Counselor/Case Manager is not in Group 1or Group 2." Reform recommendations are being developed by a group of approximately 100 union members, who are meeting regularly with managers throughout the State system and with the State Department of Personnel. This group needs our immediate input. Although Civil Service Reform is a given, we must work with high level managers to create the flexibility for social work positions to be reconfigured under each individual state department, if they are eliminated from the general classifications.

In addition to our main contact, Assistant Secretary, Children's Administration, Uma Ahluwalia, several persons have been suggested as key resources for receiving our feedback and input as part of this process: Ken Hardin at DOP; Carol Felton, Director of Field Operations at DSHS; and Ken Taylor, Accreditation Manager for DSHS.

The Council on Accreditation, the body setting standards for DSHS, requires that supervisors at DSHS hold masters' degrees, with MSW being a preferred but not mandated degree. We will also need to find contacts with other state departments. Glee will be talking with Uma about how best to proceed within DSHS, and will look at other state's models for classifying social workers and caseworkers.

Advocacy efforts will need to take multiple directions. The most important input we can give is to clearly delineate how the MSW education uniquely prepares us to work within child welfare, criminal justice, developmental disabilities, psychiatric services, and other systems requiring specialized knowledge of disadvantaged groups, human behavior in the social environment, and diversity. The Social Work classification should be retained for use by those with advanced training in these critical areas, and specific job functions for those with advanced degrees in social work should be created. If we can propose a system that works in other states and acknowledges all levels of training, the State managers may be able to work to create something similar in Washington.

One avenue could be to emphasize the value of an MSW degree for supervisory positions, especially for those supervising employees with MSWs. Another may be to speak with union (AFSME) representatives for social workers, to learn more about the interests and positions of DSHS social workers with and without MSW degrees regarding reclassification.

Additionally, the State has committed to professionalizing its social workers through use of federal IV-E funds to obtain MSW degrees while employed by the State. NASW could support those new MSWs in negotiating for pay increases and in articulating how their professional skills can be translated into increased and advanced responsibilities. Incentives need to be developed within the State system, across all programs, for those with specialized knowledge to be recognized and compensated accordingly. State matching funds could be added to federal IV-E dollars to increase the resources for training MSWs in Washington.

In response to its poor performance in its federal audit and as part of its settlement of a lawsuit regarding the chronic under funding of its system, DSHS must find ways to improve outcomes. At this time of greater scrutiny and more accountability for achieving expectations, the stage is set for advocacy on behalf of our profession and clients to succeed.

Since our professional mission is to serve vulnerable children and families, the Legislative Action Committee of NASW, at this time, has shifted its focus from a stand alone "title protection" effort to that of working on the re(de)-declassification effort for the upcoming year as its professional issue. Title protection continues to be a concern but NASW is hopeful that with changes in re-classification there will be a way to include title protection for degreed social workers. Concurrently, NASW is supporting DSHS in its efforts to increase resources, staffing, and outcomes to better assist families and reduce chronic neglect and maltreatment. LAC members will be writing position papers and fact sheets to assist members in talking with their legislators and colleagues about these concerns.

NASW continues to encourage social workers to become involved in their workplace union shop and bring their concerns to their shop stewards. The union represents all within the workplace, not just a few. Advocacy at that level must be achieved.

Lynn Carrigan, MSW, is a member of the NASW Legislative Action Committee and is on faculty at the University of Washington School of Social Work.