Circumstancesof Postmodern Institutionalisation in the Context of Social Services


Libor MUSIL


As the title suggests, the question to which this chapter seeks an answer is related to the
conditions of institutionalisation of social work in contemporary society. Consequently, the
chapter bases its considerations on certain suppositions regarding the notions of “institution” and
“institutionalisation”. Before asking the actual question, we shall specify these suppositions in
more detail.


Institution, institutionalisation and social work

In the present work, social work will be considered as an institution^^[1], i.e. a pattern (model)
of actions and interactions accepted by people as a standard (routinely used) and legitimate (one
they see justified) manner of addressing a problem recognised by them (Musil, 2013a:  11–15). From
the viewpoint of this concept of “institution”, “institutionalisation of social work” is a process
of crystallisation (clarification) and implementation (introduction) of a relatively complex
pattern of actions and interactions between social workers and people who face problems that social
workers should help address.

It is apparent from the literature mapping the development of social work since the beginning of
the 20^th century that social work in Europe and North America was and still is understood as a
specialised activity aimed at addressing problem interactions between people in need and the
subjects involved in their social environment.  In short, as “help specialised in addressing
problem interactions” (for more details, see Musil, 2013a; Musil, 2013b). Therefore,
institutionalisation of social work shall be regarded as a series of mutually related individual
processes which lead to a routine use of social workers’ professional help with addressing problem
interactions.

According to Musil (2013a: 15-16), the individual processes of institutionalisation of social work
as mentioned above consist in “recognition of the problem”, “formulation of a help pattern”,
“acceptance of the pattern” and “routinisation of its use” (making its use a routine).

In terms of institutionalisation of social work, problem recognition consists in accepting the idea
that where interactions between people in need (for example, clients with disabilities) and other
subjects in society (e.g. providers of social services) take an undesirable course, this represents
a specific issue that can be tackled using a specialised type of helping intervention (e.g. by
accompanying the client in the process of establishing contact with a provider, etc.).

Thus, the pattern – model^^[2] – of specialised help with addressing problem interactions is
formulated by social workers in interaction with clients and other subjects (workers of
organisations in public administration, local governments and the civil sector, inter alia
universities, the public, authors of media communications, etc.). In their interaction with
clients, social workers give a practical shape to the abstract prototype of their helping
interventions. (For example, when they help their clients address needs which the existing
providers of social services are unable to satisfy.)

Specialised help by social workers becomes recognised when it is used. People involved in problem
interactions begin to randomly use help organised based on a pattern that is being (has been) newly
formulated. In this way they become acquainted with the help prototype and learn the language which
can be used to describe the problems in interactions and to ask for help with such problems. If
they find social workers’ help effective (for example, when the provider adapts his services to the
client’s situation and needs thanks to the social worker’s intervention), they begin to regard the
new pattern as a useful means of help. Thanks to this, the provision of this help receives
financial support. The latter, if provided, can be understood as a sign of recognition of
usefulness of specialised help provided by social workers.

Subsequently, those involved in problem interactions routinely use the available specialised help
of social workers. This means that in a situation where they are unable to address troubles in
interaction with another subject, they find it quite normal to ask help from a social worker in
overcoming these difficulties. And they automatically expect that other people who have similar
troubles, and are uncertain about how to address them, will do the same. The expectation that
people with troubles in interactions will ask a social worker for help applies to both clients
(e.g. an elderly person whose provider does not respect the client’s request and persistently
provides services in a way which is incompatible with the client’s wishes) and other subjects in
their social environment (e.g. a service provider who is unable to work together with the client’s
close persons, or a local government in a municipality whose inhabitants complain about a lack of
services capable of satisfying their unmet needs).


Problem and question

This chapter focuses on the above-defined process of institutionalisation of the field of social
work in the context of Czech social services.

Relevant literature by authors writing in Czech offers five relatively clearly formulated social
work patterns in the context of social services. These shall be described below, and for the time
being we shall refer to them as “case social work as part of care work” (Vostrovská, 1998),
“arranging for services accompanying the administration of a social legislation agenda” (Musil,
Hubíková, Havlíková, 2014), “arranging for comprehensive help in a given case” (Szotáková, 2014),
“coordination of social and healthcare services in a community” (Kubalčíková, 2013) and “assistance
in client participation in the planning of services” (Kubalčíková, 2009b). The cited authors
defined these patterns theoretically and, in three of the five cases, described them also
empirically^^[3]. This means, in my opinion, that the process of formulating patterns of help with
problem interactions among various parties involved in social services in Czech society has
advanced rather far.

Unlike the relatively clear delimitation of the above-specified patterns of help, literature
describes some other individual processes of institutionalisation of social work in the context of
social services as problematic or uncrystallised.  Literature written in Czech does not provide
much information on recognition of the problems people experience in interactions with providers of
social services. The authors of relevant literature consider as problematic the utilisation of the
above patterns of help with addressing problem interactions among social service stakeholders (see,
for example, Vostrovská, 1998; Havlíková, Hubíková, 2007: 17–20; Kubalčíková: 2009a: 94–95, 2009b:
96, 98; Navrátilová, Navrátil, 2009: 82; Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, Kubalčíková, 2013: 58–69,
80–84; Kubalčíková, 2013). Examples of the use of “arranging for services accompanying the
administration of a social legislation agenda”, “arranging for comprehensive help” and “assistance
in client participation in the planning of services” are presented by the cited authors as “islands
of positive deviation” rather than a routinely used practice (see, for example, Kubalčíková, 2009b:
95–99; Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, Kubalčíková, 2013: 80-81, 83; Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, 2014;
Szotáková, 2014). Kubalčíková (2013) emphatically recommends “coordinating community-based social
and healthcare services”, which she considers absent.

All this leads to the thought that the relatively advanced formulation of patterns of social work
in the context of social services in Czech society is not (yet?) accompanied by development of
other processes of institutionalisation, i.e. recognition of a problem and routine use and
acceptance of patterns of social workers’ help. Methods of social workers’ help to people who need
social services or have difficulties with using them have been described and hence are available.
The idea that the difficulties arising in interactions among social service stakeholders represent
a specific problem, which should or could be addressed professionally by social workers, is not
very well known. Representatives of local governments (Kubalčíková, 2013) and managers (see e.g.
Musil, Kubalčíková, Hubíková, Dvořáková, 2005: 93–96; Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, Kubalčíková,
2013: 30–34, 58) usually do not take this idea into consideration in their decisions. Consequently,
the use of the established patterns of social workers’ help does not become routine in the context
of social services. These patterns are not accepted as obvious means of addressing problems arising
for people in difficulties, their close persons, employees of public administration bodies and
other parties when someone finds it difficult to handle interactions with providers of social
services.

In this chapter, I will therefore address the following question: “According to the theory of
institutionalisation of social work, what circumstances prevent routine use and recognition of the
established patterns of help in addressing problem interactions in the context of Czech social
services?”

The terms “social work”, “institution” and “institutionalisation” as defined above are of key
importance in relation to this question. The terms “social services” and “social work in the
context of social services” shall be defined first in the following text. In connection with these
notions, the present text will explain the conditions under which it makes sense to draw a
distinction between social work and social services. It will be shown how, on the basis of the
above-specified conditions, Vostrovská (1998), Musil, Hubíková and Havlíková (2014), Szotáková
(2014) and Kubalčíková (2009b, 2013) formulate five patterns of social work or, in other words,
prototypes of help in problem interactions in the context of social services.

Subsequently, the term “circumstances preventing institutionalisation of social work in the context
of social services” will be defined together with the manner of formulation of the suppositions
regarding these circumstances.

The text will further concentrate on formulation of the suppositions of the theory of
institutionalisation of social work in relation to the circumstances which, in the context of Czech
social services, hinder recognition of problem with interactions, routinisation and acceptance of
established patterns of help with problems of this type. Furthermore, the author’s suppositions
will be explained as to the manner in which recognition and routinisation of social work is
affected by the following aspects: the heritage of modern development in postmodern conditions;
existing concept of help in the context of social services; procedural approach of managers;
prevailing employee identity of social workers; coping with the consequences of managers’
procedural approach by “taking a step out of” an employment organisation to inter-occupational help
nets.


Social work in the context of social services

First, an example will be provided of problem interactions between clients of social services and
others involved in community planning. Kubalčíková (2009b: 96–99) shows, amongst other things, that
if clients are able to express their interest in negotiating a local concept of services, it
becomes apparent that their ideas differ from those of the contracting entities (local authorities)
and service providers. This, however, occurs only seldom, according to Kubalčíková (2009b: 96),
because “when exercised in practice, the method of community planning … is faced especially with a
formalised approach to client participation by both the contracting entities and providers of
services”. This is problematic from the clients’ viewpoint. From the viewpoint of local
authorities, it is in turn problematic when clients wish to express their interests. Havlíková and
Hubíková found at the research site where they studied the process of community planning that:
“Participation of a users’ representative ... was seen from the outset as a threat to the smooth
process of CPSS^^[4]. Users were seen as incompetent ... unfamiliar with the secrets of municipal
procedures and political negotiations, lacking in systematic thinking, adopting ... self-centred
standpoints and showing little flexibility.” (Havlíková, Hubíková, 2007: 18.) Thus, in context of
community planning of social services, the clients’ problem interactions with the local government
workers and service providers become an obstacle to exercising the clients’ interest.  Their
“formalised”^^[5] approach causes “clients to be disoriented and … having few opportunities to
influence how they are handled in the system” (Kubalčíková, 2009b: 100). Kubalčíková (2009b: 99)
considers that social workers should promote a change in the course of the clients’ interactions
with the contracting entities and providers towards a more effective participation of the clients
in the decision-making process by assisting the clients, i.e. “helping the clients express and
promote their own interests”.

However, social workers are almost never hired to address problems in interactions between the
parties involved in community planning and they usually do not address this problems on their own
initiative. As a result, nobody assists clients (for example, elderly people, people with a
physical or mental disability, mothers in shelters as discussed above by Kubalčíková and Havlíková,
Hubíková) in their participation. Everyone knows that it is officially desirable for clients to
influence the development of social services intended for them and everyone has long had an
opportunity to read what social workers could or should do for bringing that expectation into
reality. Despite this, nobody gives social workers the task to assist clients in their
participation in decision-making. If the task springs to the mind of a social worker, they cannot
be sure that they will receive praise for assisting client participation. There are many reasons
for this situation. To mention just one of them, social service stakeholders look at the
relationship between social work and social services in a way which does not motivate them to
delegate the above task.

Kubalčíková (2009b, 2013), as well as other authors cited above (Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, 2014;
Szotákov; 2014), recommend that social workers should have a different content of work than other
parties active in social services. For example, they would spend their working hours by helping
clients effectively express their own interests. Similar proposals will seem logical and meaningful
to those who have adopted the suppositions presented in the following paragraph on the relation
between social work and social services. However, most representatives of local governments,
managers of provider organisations and other social service stakeholders have not adopted such
suppositions. They often hold the view that social workers, like many others, should perform
administrative tasks or provide care. As a result, they do consider the possibility of having
social workers addressing problems in clients’ interactions with those involved in community
planning (or other social service stakeholders). In this arrangement, clients usually do not
receive any assistance in expressing their interests.

The idea that they should be assisted in this, or in addressing other interactions, stems from the
following suppositions. First, social service stakeholders (e.g. those participating in community
planning) experience troubles in mutual interactions and, as a result, may perceive these as
“problem” interactions. Second, addressing problem interactions among social service stakeholders
is a prerequisite for attaining a good quality in satisfying clients’ needs (e.g. those
underrepresented in decision-making on community plans^^[6]) and, therefore, should receive special
attention. The third assumption is that social service stakeholders can delegate the task of
addressing these difficulties to qualified social workers, creating for them a specific mission in
the context of social services. This gives rise to the fourth assumption – that recognition of the
specific mission of social workers allows social service stakeholders to differentiate “social
work” from “social services”.

Adoption of the fourth assumption is conditional on adoption of the preceding three. This
condition, however, is often not satisfied. Some social service stakeholders are convinced that no
troubles arise in their interactions with others^^[7]. On the other hand, there are other social
service stakeholders, who believe that although troubles in interactions do exist, they do not
deserve attention, either because they are insignificant or because people address them
spontaneously or because it is not desirable to address them^^[8]. From these points of view,
troubles in interactions do not appear as a serious problem and, consequently, there is no reason
for distinguishing social work from social services. If “social work” is regarded as help in
problem interactions, and if some believe that troubles in interactions do not exist or that there
is no reason to address them, then, in their eyes, “social work” has no subject to address. As a
result of this view, it may never come to the mind of municipal authorities or managers of provider
organisations that they could task social workers with assisting clients in their attempts to
express their interest in the process of community planning.

It is also possible that some social service stakeholders understand troubles in mutual
interactions as a serious problem but they believe that it should be addressed by someone else than
social workers. As Baláž (2011) points out, a rather common idea is that this should be a manager’s
task. In this case, the third of the above suppositions is not satisfied, because it does not seem
appropriate to delegate the addressing of troubles in interactions to social workers. In such an
arrangement, the latter have no specific mission in the context of social services (e.g. community
planning). The idea that problems in interactions should be addressed by a manager also casts
doubts on the assumption that special attention should be paid to problem interactions. If a
manager is to deal with troubles in interactions, (s)he should obviously do this in parallel with
many other, usually “more serious” management aspects. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that a
manager would pay close attention to addressing troubles in interactions (for example, clients’
troubles in negotiations with contracting entities and providers).

Differentiation between “social work” and “social services” can be expected among those social
service stakeholders who assume that troubles^^[9] exist in mutual interactions and believe that
the troubles need to be addressed and that a social worker should professionally assist in
addressing them. Those who reflect the above suppositions perceive “social work in the context of
social services” as follows:

“Social services” and “social work” can be seen as two different types of helping activities, which
differ by their focus and the helping actions of those who perform them. For decades, “peoples’
troubles in interactions with subjects in their social environment” (Wilensky, Lebeaux, 1965,
286–291, 315–316; Bartlett, 1970; Abel, 1994; Laan v.d., 1998a; Lorenz, 2004: 146–147, 2006; Payne,
2006; Musil, 2013a, and other authors) have been seen as the focus of social work. On the other
hand, the subject of focus of social services appears to consist in “unmet needs of individuals”
(Dustin, 2007; Wash, Holton, 2008). For those who assume that there are problem interactions among
social service stakeholders and that these interactions should be addressed by social workers,
social work concentrates on “help with troubles in interactions with the social environment” while
social services deal with “meeting unmet needs of individuals”.

Understood in the above-described manner, social work is not focused directly on meeting unmet
needs but rather on shaping the interactions or relationships which are essential for meeting them.
For example, it focuses on promotion of clients’ involvement in decision-making on the community
plan; on overcoming the obstacles which prevent the client from establishing contact with the
social service provider; on facilitating problematic cooperation between carers and nurses in two
NGOs; etc.

In these circumstances, social services appear as a wide range of various helping activities
characterised by the fact that they directly result in meeting clients’ unmet needs. These
activities are usually considered to include care, personal assistance, provision of housing and
related care, sometimes nursing, physiotherapy, various types of support therapies, etc.

Social service stakeholders are those who in one way or another participate in the provision of
help to users of social services or who knowingly participate in the creation of conditions for
provision of such help. Generally, there are six types of social service stakeholders: First,
potential or existing clients or users, i.e. those whose legitimate needs are not satisfied or
those who receive help in satisfying their needs. Second, informal or formally recognised helping
workers. It is useful to divide the latter into workers helping in an employment relationship and
volunteers. It is equally useful to divide them by qualification or field in which they provide
help to social services clients – for example, carers, personal assistants, social workers, nurses,
doctors, physiotherapists, psychologists, lawyers, teachers, etc. Organisations which provide help
to clients of social services and representatives of such organisations represent the third type of
social service stakeholders. The fourth type consists of public administration authorities and
local governments, which, forming policies for social services and performing tasks in the area of
public administration, influence the decision-making and activities of other social service
stakeholders. Those involved in the financing of social services are the fifth type of
stakeholders. The sixth type of social service stakeholders consists of help nets whose activities
take place with participation of stakeholders of all the above types across various groups,
occupations and organisations.

The above-described types of stakeholders mutually overlap. For example, some public administration
authorities participate in the funding of social services. Workers of helping professions may
simultaneously operate in the position of employees or representatives of organisations providing
help to users of social services and participants in inter-occupational help nets dealing with a
specific case or designing help and promoting the interests of clients from a specified target
group etc.

Interactions (in general, rather than just problem interactions) among all of the above-specified
social service stakeholders have an effect on the availability and quality of help in meeting unmet
needs of potential and existing clients. This set of interactions and their effects on the
availability and quality of help in meeting unmet needs can be understood as the “context of social
work in social services”, i.e. one in which can give rise to a prototype of social worker – a
person who provides professional help to social service stakeholders in addressing troubles in
their mutual interactions.

The following can be seen as “suitable conditions” for materialisation of the social worker
prototype: First, social workers are able to offer professional help in addressing troubles in
interactions to other parties involved in social services. Second, a social service stakeholder
requests that they provide such help. Third, the relevant social service stakeholder pays them,
either directly or through his employer, for satisfying the request. Fourth, someone employs social
workers as experts expected to provide help with troubles in interactions among social service
stakeholders. They can also become self-employed experts.

All this may occur, and sporadically occurs, if social service stakeholders adopt the four
suppositions formulated at the beginning of this subchapter, i. e., they consider that problem
interactions exist in social services; that special attention should be paid to such interactions;
that it is desirable that social workers should be asked to address them in a professional manner;
and, thus, it is appropriate to distinguish between social work and social services.


Established patterns of social work in the context of social services

With a few exceptions, the authors who described (in their texts written in Czech) the patterns of
social work in social services mentioned in the beginning of this chapter base their considerations
on the above suppositions. A more detailed discussion of those suppositions follows. It will be
explained how the authors writing about the patterns formulate their suppositions regarding problem
interactions among social service stakeholders, about the attention paid to such interactions,
about the manner in which these are addressed by social workers and the distinctions are drawn
between social work and social services.


Case social work as part of care

The pattern identified in the title of this subchapter was described Vostrovská (1998), who has
been popularising it in the environment of the Czech Care Services Society (hereinafter “CCSS”)
since the 1990s.

Vostrovská (1998: 3) considers it problematic that the caring “is persistently and incompetently
viewed as the exercise of purely auxiliary tasks“ and that it is thought that “social conscience is
sufficient” as a qualification for caring. Vostrovská (1998: 2–3) considers that where this
“incompetent view” is employed, there is an absence of appropriate support for qualification of
workers in care services and hence the quality of social work in practice which, according to
Vostrovská, “naturally emerges” in the care context.

Therefore, for the cited author, problem interactions exist between the CCSS and unspecified
advocates of improper views of care services. It is likely that, in the cited article, Vostrovská
had mainly two parties in mind: founders of care services, or rather the employers of workers in
the care service sector, and the Association of Educators in Social Work. She seems to view the
interactions between them as problematic because both of them, under the influence of prejudice,
did not support^^[10] the endeavour of the CCSS to increase the qualifications for the exercise of
the kind of social work which, according to Vostrovská’s experience, spontaneously emerges in the
care context as a response to clients’ expectations.

Vostrovská states, unfortunately without providing empirical evidence^^[11], that “the need for
provision of comprehensive services emerges very naturally in the care sector” and, consequently,
“a comprehensive approach is taken to the client’s order”. This takes place“in the
carer-territorial manager (or social worker) team“ and the comprehensive approach to the order is
conditional^^[12] on the human relationship between the client and the staff. (Vostrovká, 1998: 2.)
Thus, Vostrovská views the carer and the territorial manager (or social worker) as a collective
provider of social work. The work includes“performance of social inquiries, … definition of social
diagnosis, … proposal of measures”. The client “becomes rather strongly fixed on ‘his’ carer,
territorial manager or social worker”, spontaneously approaches this key figure and the latter
continuously provides the client and his/her broader family with advice and, if applicable, crisis
support (Vostrovká, 1998: 2–3). Improvement of this model of “case social work” would deserve
support, according to Vostrovská, because “without its involvement … care services cannot be
delivered” (Vostrovská, 1998: 1–2).

Vostrovská seems to express rather clearly certain conditions for recognition of social work in
social services. She assumes that meeting, or addressing, continuously emerging needs and
situations brings clients troubles in establishing contacts with the providers of other services.
She further considers that problem interactions exist between the CCSS and parties from which the
CCSS expects recognition of and support for case social work in care services. According to
Vostrovská, appropriate attention should be paid to resolution of such problem interactions between
clients and services and between the care sector and employers, as well as educators, in the field
of social work.

However, Vostrovská does not share the assumption that flexible response to emerging needs and
situations of the client should be entrusted to social workers. She assumes that flexible response
to the development of the client’s situation should involve “his/her” key worker – carer,
territorial manager or social worker, with whom the client established a “human relationship”
(Vostrovská, 1998: 2). The relationship ensures that the client has confidence in the key worker.
And the worker, equipped with understanding stemming from that relationship, is able to interpret
the client’s needs or troubles to those who arrange for solutions, or directly ensures that they
are addressed. Hence, according to Vostrovská, specialisation and occupational qualification of the
social worker is not a key prerequisite for a flexible response and, if appropriate, intermediation
of interactions with the full range of other providers of help. She considers that a long-term
contact and relationship with the client is a precondition for flexible response to the client’s
changing needs and situation.

It seems that the emphasis of the key person and the person’s relationship with the client gives
rise to Vostrovská’s ambiguous understanding of the relationship between care (social services) and
social work. Vostrovská distinguishes between two dimensions of care. She refers to one as
“material help”, which “satisfies the client’s elementary human needs“^^[13]. To the second she
refers to as “case social work”, the content of which is to arrange for a flexible and
comprehensive solution within the relationship of the key worker with the client. The author
assumes that: “Material help in the form of services almost always occurs in the context of
psychosocial help” and “it is necessary to combine [it] with other forms of help on the basis of a
correct social diagnosis“ (Vostrovská, 1998: 3). While she draws a distinction between social work
and social services, she does not regard them as two separate occupations. She recommends
performing them “as a pair” of two inseparable activities.


Arranging for services accompanying the administration of a social legislation agenda

We assume that the prototype of social work which is referred to in this text as “arranging for
services accompanying the administration of a social legislation agenda” is well-known not only
abroad (see, for example, Hagen, 1987; Lipsky, 1991; Brodkin, 1997; Brock, Harknett, 1998 and other
authors) but also among social workers in the Czech Republic (for example, Musil, Janská, 2011). It
seems to have established itself in the practice of district authorities and, later, authorities of
municipal self-governments (hereinafter “local governments”). From there it was transferred in 2012
by some social workers as part of their domain-specific knowledge to the contact offices of the
Labour Office (hereinafter the “contact offices”). Musil, Hubíková and Havlíková (2014:72)
described this social work pattern within their research aimed at “identifying the widest possible
range of methods of addressing cases of people with material need applied by social workers of
contact offices and local governments“.  The text of their article suggests that the three authors
were motivated to formulate the above intention by the suppositions which are identified above as
the preconditions for differentiation between social work and social services. However, Musil,
Hubíková and Havlíková formulate them rather specifically within the topic of social work with
people with material need^^[14].

In contrast to Vostrovská (see above), Musil, Hubíková and Havlíková (2014: 72 et seq.) base their
considerations on the assumption that helping clients with a wide range of problems, and arranging
for further help for them, including help by social services providers, should be performed
specifically by social workers. They believe that any troublesome interactions between clients and
social services providers should be professionally treated by social workers. They refer to social
services as a method of help social workers should arrange for, but not exercise. Consequently,
they regard social services and social work as two different helping activities. Although they do
not explicitly specify this assumption, it is implicitly present throughout the cited article.

For example, the authors note that, according to their findings, in contact with clients with
material need, social workers at contact offices and local governments quite often do not address
the problems which lead to, or result from, the clients’ material need (Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková,
2014: 72). As a result of the lack of attention paid to these problems, social workers “do not pay
attention to arranging for services which could help address these problems and the overall
situation of people with material need” (Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, 2014: 72). The three authors
believe that if interactions between social workers and people with material need do not result in
arranging for help in addressing a wide range of problems of people with material need through the
provision of social services (or some other type of help), they must be regarded as problem
interactions. They do not make it possible to “comprehensively address... the life situation” of
people with material need (Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, 2014: 72).

It follows that arranging for a more comprehensive solution of the situation of people with
material need is not entirely common. Contact offices commonly believe that help to these people
should consist in processing their applications for benefits of assistance in material need (Musil,
Hubíková, Havlíková, 2014: 72), while in the opinion of local governments, they should receive
assistance in processing  their applications (Musil et al., 2013: 64). Consequently, according to
the cited authors, it is necessary to find out whether social workers know and use patterns of help
which address, in addition to processing of applications for benefits, also other problems of
persons with material need and are able arrange for help with these problems. If so, Musil,
Hubíková and Havlíková (2014: 72–73) consider that such patterns should enrich the range of
activities of social workers and support their ability to respond more effectively to the diverse
problems and situations accompanying material need. Thus, the cited authors think that problems in
interactions between social workers oriented towards administrative work and their clients with
material need should be addressed, that the attention of social workers should be directed towards
a wider range of problems of people with material need and arranging for help with these problems
and that social workers should be offered methodological help with this task. It was for this
reason that they tried to study the ideas of social workers at contact offices and local
governments with respect to the methods of addressing the cases of people with material need in
order to learn the widest possible range of such methods.

During the thus-oriented research, the social workers at selected contact offices and local
governments described eleven methods of help to people with material need. The three researchers
divided them into four sets^^[15] (Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, 2014: 77–78). Each set encompasses
methods of help showing congruent features and each can thus be interpreted as a specific pattern
of help to people with material need. One of the four patterns is related to the context of social
services. For the purposes of this chapter, it shall be identified as “arranging for services
accompanying the administration of a social legislation agenda”. The reason for this terminology
shall be explained below.

Musil, Hubíková and Havlíková (2014: 78, 80–81) consider that this pattern is characterised by
social worker s’ endeavour to help satisfy the needs of a (successful or unsuccessful) applicant
for benefits using actions directed at subjects in the applicant’s social environment. This
includes service providers, e.g. housing providers. In addition to actions aiming at service
providers, social workers also mentioned actions targeting other types of subjects, such as
creditors, employers, providers of benefits, etc.

The cited authors described two versions of “arranging for services accompanying the administration
of a social legislation agenda”. In some cases, the social worker “does not try to address the
client’s situation in a comprehensive manner but responds to the immediate risk of general
degradation of the situation, e.g. as a result of lost housing”. Thus, (s)he endeavours to “direct
his/her action towards those whose conduct appears to them [social workers] to be an obstacle to
resolution of the client’s urgent problem” – in the case concerned, the housing provider. In other
cases social workers address the client’s situation more comprehensively. They try to “instruct
[clients] in skills or habits unknown to them so far through learning, supervision or advice”. In
addition, “in an endeavour to arrange, for example, for a change in the conditions of debt
repayment, use of a social service ..., provision of a benefit, etc.“, they try to “act towards
creditors, service providers or clerks. In doing so, they employ diverse combinations of advocacy
(defending the interests) of the client, accompanying or representing the client in
negotiations.“(Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, 2014: 80–81.)

The above prototype of social work includes the idea that the agenda of benefits of assistance in
material need offers contacts with people with material need that should be used as an opportunity
to provide further help. Such contacts need not necessarily arise from standard processing of
applications for benefits but also preparation of such applications, handling the consequences of
unsuccessful applications and addressing the client’s problem with meeting the relevant
obligations. This idea is not presented explicitly in the cited article; however, some statements
of the cited authors can be interpreted as indirect proof of its presence in social workers’
thoughts. For example, as an example of arranging for help by a social worker at a contact office,
Musil, Hubíková and Havlíková (2014: 81) chose the situation of a homeless person who had lost
entitlement to the benefit of assistance in material need and hence ceased to be able to pay
housing in a shelter as a result of his removal from the records of the Labour Office as a form of
penalty. It was this particular bagatelle trouble with authorities that motivated the social
worker’s endeavour to keep the client in the shelter. Another (and not isolated) citation in the
text quotes a social worker of a local government, who comments on the transfer of the benefit
agenda to contact offices as a lost opportunity for helping people with material need: “While we
[as the local government] also paid out ... the benefits, ... we were able to work with the clients
far easier, to direct them far easier” (Musil et al., 2013: 63–64).

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that arranging for services in itself is not a constitutive
element of the pattern of social work described by Musil and his co-authors. It seems that, in the
minds of the social workers on whose testimonies Musil, Hubíková and Havlíková rely, the contacts
established in connection with the administration of the relevant benefit agenda are an absolute
prerequisite for the arrangement for services. This seems to indicate that the pattern of social
work discussed in this sub-chapter should be relatively easy to transfer to the context of
administration of any analogous agenda anchored in social legislation, from benefits of various
kinds to social and legal protection.


Arranging for comprehensive help in a given case

The pattern referred to here as “arranging for comprehensive help in a given case” and the
above-described pattern identified by Musil, Hubíková and Havlíková share a characteristic feature
consisting in the fact that the social worker focuses on case work and on arranging for further
help. The difference is in the definition of the role of the social worker and the target group
(s)he works with.

The above-described pattern combines arranging for provision of services and administration of a
specific social legislation agenda and is therefore based on the assumption that the social worker
specialises in the relevant agenda. From this point of view, the problem addressed within the
relevant agenda is a key factor in defining the target group and the role of the social worker. (In
the following text, it shall be referred to as the “agenda-relevant problem” or just “relevant
problem”). People with the relevant problem, e.g. poverty, which may or need not become “material
need” according to the standards of the relevant agenda, are considered to be one of the possible
target groups. The social worker as the administrator of the given agenda is expected to help
people in addressing the relevant problem as well as other troubles, especially those which have an
effect on resolution of the agenda-relevant problem. As a rule, the social worker informs the
client of the available means of help with these problems and (s)he may arrange for help with other
troubles. It is admitted that, in a certain situation, it may be appropriate to reduce help to
administration of the given agenda.

This is not true in the pattern referred to in this text as “arranging for comprehensive help in a
given case”. Its initial suppositions are presented in Szotáková (2014). There are two such
suppositions. First, the client has more than one, or even many, mutually related problems and
needs help in addressing them. Second, effective help in addressing a set of problems is
conditional on cooperation among more than one, or many, helping subjects, which need to be linked
together in order to ensure such cooperation. Therefore, it is crucial to create a coordinated net
of helping parties capable of responding adequately to the cluster of the client’s interwoven
problems (Szotáková, 2014: 63–64, 65). From this point of view, people with “multiple problems” are
primarily seen as the target group (Szotáková, 2014: 62, 63, 65). This primary focus on clients
with numerous problems does not rule out intentional arranging for comprehensive help as an
approach to help to people from a specific target group, such as people with a mental disease or
addiction (Szotáková, 2014: 64–65). It is not expected, however, that help limited to resolution of
a single problem of the client could be effective.

In this framework, the key worker is referred to as the “case manager”. Szotáková (2014: 62–64)
points out the ambiguity of this term^^[16] and clearly defines her understanding of the role of a
case manager. The task of the case manager is to work together with the client in defining the
problems and the help the client needs in addressing them; to arrange for and co-ordinate a net of
helping subjects to provide the necessary help to the client; to facilitate client’s orientation in
the range of services and other sources of help; and to accompany him/her in cooperation with those
participating in the helping net.

Thus, Szotáková assumes that the key task of a case manager is to create and coordinate a help net
appropriate to the set of the client’s problems and to accompany the client through that net. She
explains that the emphasis on this definition of the task is a “response to fragmentation of
service provision” and assumes that “coordination of services and accompaniment of the client in
their use” should make it possible to eliminate this problem (2014: 64–65). It is therefore
possible to say that, in Szotáková’s eyes, “arranging for comprehensive help in a given case” is a
response to the little-comprehensive and hence problematic interactions between clients and service
providers. The cited author explains that the above problems in interactions started to receive
attention in early 1970s as endeavours to transit clients from institutional to community care
began to gain ground in the United States. However, adequate sources of support for the former
patients’ lives in communities outside institutions were not available and it was necessary to
“provide clients with a relationship and, at the same time, help them ensure coordination of the
individual elements of the system and sequence of care”. (Szotáková, 2014: 63.) A method of help
was created for clients “who need resources from various service sectors”, concentrating on
coordination of individual services that, according to Summers (2012:  47), each specialise solely
in satisfaction of isolated types of needs and accompaniment of specific individuals through the
net of such services.

In this method of help, the client can be accompanied and the services coordinated by “social
workers, nurses, psychologists and other helping workers” (Szotáková, 2014: 67, 69). The cited
author does not place emphasis on the professional qualification of the case manager and pays
attention to the list of skills expected of him/her^^[17] (Szotáková, 2014: 67). She seems to base
her considerations on the assumption that social workers, in the same way as specialists from other
occupations, can act as competent mediators of comprehensive help in a given case if they have the
required skills.

Szotáková believes that where social workers (or workers from other helping professions) have these
skills, they play a different role as case managers than workers providing social services. The
task of a social worker in the role of a case manager is not to provide social services but to
arrange for them within the case and coordinate the help provided by social services organisations
to individual clients.


Coordination of community-based social and healthcare services

Similarly to Szotáková, Kubalčíková (2013) also points out the need for coordination of help. The
latter author, however, pays attention to the lack of coordination of services at the “local
level”, rather than within a single case.  Specifically, she considers administrative districts of
“municipalities with extended competence” where such a municipality, i.e. one of several
administratively linked municipalities, plays the role of an administrative centre. (Kubalčíková,
2013: 62–63.) Therefore, she deals with interactions among clients, service providers and local
governments operating in several municipalities within a broader administrative unit. In
Kubalčíková’s words (2013: 62–63), Szotáková contemplates coordination of services from the “micro”
perspective, while Kubalčíková approaches it from the “macro” perspective.

From the latter perspective, she identifies problems in interactions among municipalities, clients
and providers of healthcare and social services.

The problem, according to Kubalčíková, lies in “poor preparedness of municipalities to assume an
active role in providing social care and health care for elderly people with limited
self-reliance”. Amongst other things, this results in a lack of help provided to the elderly and
their families at the right time. According to the author’s findings, municipal authorities provide
for help to elderly people “intuitively”, sometimes “influenced by their personal experience of
care for a close person”. They provide for help to elderly people if they receive an impetus from a
social worker at the administrative centre, i.e. the municipality with extended competence. On the
other hand, they do not specifically create grounds for managing future situations of elderly
people and their families that can and do occur in many households in the municipality. As
Kubalčíková found, municipal authorities consider it a matter of the family to provide for the
necessary help. However, they do not see family carers as clients in need of support. Therefore,
problems in care for elderly people with limited self-reliance are not monitored in the
municipalities and there is a lack of staff to coordinate social and healthcare services from the
viewpoint of appropriateness of their response to the potential of family carers. According to
Kubalčíková, representatives of municipalities which are not administrative centres admit that, in
dealing with individual cases, it is necessary to respond to the requirements of social workers
from the municipality with extended competence, i.e. one which performs the administrative centre
role. However, according to the cited author, they usually do not consider that they should create
grounds for future provision of timely help appropriate to the situation of elderly people and
their families. They hence do not establish long-term cooperation with service providers from the
broader area. This is true despite the fact that their municipalities are usually unable to ensure
help that would appropriately respond to changes in the needs of elderly people and the
possibilities of their families. (Kubalčíková, 2013: 62–63.)

The necessary interactions, i.e. negotiations on the provision of appropriate capacities, structure
of the services offered and cooperation of service providers – local governments, service providers
and representatives of families – do not take place. Consequently, the existing capacity and
structure of the services unlinked to one another makes it impossible to respond reasonably to the
overall development of the situation of the given target group. As a result, in providing for care
for their close persons, families do not have an adequate opportunity to compensate for the
deficits in their possibilities by using previously prepared external resources.

Kubalčíková (2013: 63) holds the view that the cooperation platform offered by community planning
could be used in addressing the above problems. However, according to the author (Kubalčíková,
2013: 56), such a platform can only be used if “macro approaches are applied in social work”. This
means, more specifically, using “specialised social workers dealing with coordination of ....
services”, thus providing for “appropriate setting of comprehensive social care and health care for
elderly people through out-patient and field services”, as well as “adapting the environment,
including availability of follow-up services and suitable housing”. Kubalčíková assumes that
specialised social workers should attain these objectives inter alia by monitoring the relation
between the needs of elderly people, the possibilities of their families and the social care and
health care services available in the municipalities within the relevant administrative district.
In addition to this, they should intermediate negotiations on an appropriate set-up of services and
proper timing of their provision. One of the means of such intermediation should consist in a
support for the “operation of multidisciplinary teams at the local level where decision-making and
setting [of the services] … would take place with participation of social workers, doctors and
other medical personnel, ergotherapists ... the family ... and the elderly person”. (Kubalčíková,
2013: 56).

The proposed way of addressing problems in interactions among clients, providers and local
governments in municipalities is based on the assumption that social workers and workers of social
services would assume clearly distinguishable roles. From the “macro” perspective, social workers
would continuously coordinate the negotiations between local governments, clients and the net of
providers from the entire administrative district of the municipality with extended competence on
adapting the services offered to the development of the target group of elderly people and their
families. Being familiar with the agreements in the formulation of which they participated,
providers would respond in time to changes in the lives of elderly people with limited
self-reliance and carers from among their family members, satisfy their diverse needs and, if
appropriate, provide other specialised professional help.


Assistance in client participation in the planning of services

The description of the pattern following which a social worker should help the client express and
promote his/her own interest in the process of community planning (Kubalčíková, 2009b: 99) was used
as an example above, in the introduction to the sub-chapter discussing the term “social work in the
context of social services”. Therefore, we shall only briefly mention its main premises.

As shown by individual studies in negotiation of local concepts of services, if clients and, where
appropriate, their close persons are able to express their interests, it becomes obvious that their
ideas of the necessary help differ from the ideas of the representatives of local governments (i.e.
contracting entities) and service providers (Kubalčíková, 2009b: 96–99). Nonetheless, or rather,
for this reason, participation of clients in community planning is faced with a “formal approach”
of contracting entities and service providers to clients’ participation in the decision-making
(Kubalčíková, 2009b: 96; Havlíková, Hubíková, 2007: 18). Kubalčíková (2009b: 95, 100) considers
this problematic, believing that it deprives clients of sufficient opportunity to influence which
of their needs will be satisfied by service providers and the way in which this will be done. In
this situation, services satisfy other needs than preferred by the clients. Or they do not satisfy
them in a manner that would suit clients.

Kubalčíková (2009b: 95, 99–96) believes that this can be prevented if social workers assist clients
in expressing and promoting their interests. They should help them understand the procedures of
negotiation and decision-making and, if needed, help them clarify, formulate or express their
interests; support their ability to identify sources of resolution of difficult situations; defend
their right to express their standpoint in their own way; make sure that arguments expressed by
clients are taken into consideration, inter alia where clients are not present, and that their
standpoints are not neglected as “marginal” or “incompetent”, for example when formulating
conclusions from negotiations; reflect clients’ requirements and everyday difficulties and try to
understand better how clients think and what they need, including what they need from social
workers, etc. Fulfilment of the thus-defined role of a social worker should help clients gain
control over the allocation of resources and create a system of help in the interest of those who
will use that help.


Circumstances of recognition and routine use of social work patterns in the context of social
services

The above-specified patterns of social work in the context of social services have support in
foreign literature from which most of the authors draw their inspiration (Musil, Hubíková,
Havlíková, 2014: 73–74; Szotáková, 2014: 62–67; Kubalčíková, 2009b: 95–96; Kubalčíková, 2013:
55–57). They were published in Czech; some of them are rather popular among social workers and
used, though not very systematically. What, in Czech society, prevents politicians, representatives
of state authorities and local governments, managers of helping organisations, social workers and
people who are uncertain about ways of dealing with other people, authorities and organisations
around them, from recognising the problems to which these patterns respond, accepting the ways of
dealing with the problems offered by these patterns and beginning to use them routinely? At the
time being there is no answer to this question that would rely to systematic empirical research.
However, the individual empirical findings as cited above are available, as well as the concept of
postmodern institutionalisation of social work (see Musil, 2013a). On the basis of the latter, we
shall try to formulate suppositions concerning the circumstances which dampen, or influence, the
process of institutionalisation of social work in the context of social services.

We shall intentionally not refer to “factors” but rather “circumstances” which influence
recognition of problems in interactions among the parties involved in social services and also
acceptance and routine use of the known methods of addressing them.

The word “factors” suggests conditions whose effects can be seen notwithstanding the framework of
their everyday action and which can be clearly operationalised and empirically verified in a
straightforward manner. An example of this concept of factors is the effect of employers’
willingness to invest in higher salaries enabling administrators to deal with more problems of both
eligible and non-eligible applicants and to employ client participation assistants at municipal
authorities.

It is reasonable to assume that the effect of factors such as “willingness to invest”, which are
obvious “at first glance”, follows from a wider context of circumstances “hidden” behind them and
in fact causing the “willingness to invest” or some other factor of similar nature. Such “less
visible” circumstances seem to be manifold and combined in various manners in individual
organisations, territories and networks. It follows that their effect could not be recognised if
someone wished to observe them irrespective of the context of everyday life in an organisation,
territory or network of helping subjects. In addition, the circumstances are often cultural or
personal (psychological) and have the nature of subjectively and often inadvertently constructed
and applied assumptions or meanings. An example of such a circumstance can consist in employee and
professional identity and loyalty, variously constructed and experienced by managers and frontline
workers of a helping organisation. Other examples of cultural and personal circumstances of
institutionalisation of social work include “formal approach to client participation” and
“intuitive approach of municipal authorities to ensuring help to elderly people” which, as noted
above, were described by Kubalčíková. Considering that these and similar circumstances are
variously combined at various places in society, observing their effects without taking account of
their everyday effect means to giving up the understanding of their effect on institutionalisation
of social work.

 For example, at a place where there is a group of citizens who defend the interests of people with
disabilities, a formal approach of authorities to client participation in community planning can
inspire a social worker to assist the citizens. On the other hand, at a place where there is no
such group, the social worker may inadvertently apply the formal approach of the local government.
However, everything may depend on the professional focus of the social worker, his/her personality
or his/her loyalty with the authority. Openness or authoritarian approach on the part of his/her
superiors can also play a role. A straightforward operationalisation of the effect of these, and
similar, circumstances is not possible because their effect on institutionalisation of social work
patterns is always modified by specific and often cultural characteristics of specific
organisations, territories or networks, and also psychological characteristics of the people active
in them. It follows that the effect of the thus-understood circumstances of institutionalisation of
social work patterns cannot be empirically “verified” because their combinations and modifications
cannot be hypothetically foreseen in the given social context. Instead, some degree of patience
must be employed in order to understand their effect in an organisational or local context.

Therefore, the following text shall not discuss “factors” but “circumstances” of
institutionalisation of social work in the context of social services. General suppositions
concerning such circumstances shall be formulated on the basis of the theory of postmodern
institutionalisation. It does not seem correct to believe that these suppositions are automatically
valid for individual organisations, territories or help nets. In order to understand specific
organisations, territories or networks, it is necessary to apply them – consider whether and in
what sense they can help understand how a pattern of addressing problems in interactions among
social service stakeholders is employed within a specific social system or what prevents
application of that pattern.

By outlining several types of such circumstances, this text hopes to provide theoretical
inspiration to social workers and perhaps also managers and local policy makers who wish to gain a
systematic understanding of the combination of circumstances which influences institutionalisation
of established patterns of social work in their organisation, administrative district, territory or
help net. They can take the above assumptions to focus their attention on the theoretically assumed
circumstances of postmodern institutionalisation of social work in social services and ask
questions as to whether, in what context and how these operate in their organisation, territory or
network.


Suppositions concerning effects of the heritage of modern development in postmodern conditions

In literature written in Czech, the following are identified as problems in interactions among
social service stakeholders: lack of support for the exercise of social work in care services; lack
arrangements for help with a more comprehensive way of addressing the situation of applicants for
assistance provided by the state; lack of coordination among social service stakeholders within a
case and within a territory; formal approach to clients’ participation in decision-making. These
problems in interactions have been described but not recognised and if established patterns of
their addressing by social service stakeholders are accepted and used, this is done randomly rather
than routinely, and only sporadically (Vostrovská; 1998; Musil, Hubíková, Havlíková, 2014;
Szotáková, 2014; Kubalčíková, 2013; 2009b). To be fully institutionalised and hence routinely used,
it is reasonable to assume that this must be done in contemporary Czech society and hence
postmodern conditions, in a contemporary, i.e. postmodern, manner.

What does this mean? First, full institutionalisation of social work in the context of social
services has not occurred through the methods of modernity, i.e. professionalisation, and can no
longer occur using such methods because the conditions of modernity have passed. Second, if it does
occur, this happens in a manner which corresponds to postmodern conditions. Third, aspirations
towards postmodern institutionalisation cannot build on any recognition of social work in the
context of social services in the conditions of modernity – social work in the context of social
services has not won recognition because it did not undergo the process of professionalisation in
the time of modernity^^[18]. Fourth, aspirations towards postmodern institutionalisation of social
work are dampened by the routine presence of professions which established themselves in a modern
way in the past.

In order to detail these four suppositions and point out their likely links with the difficulties
of institutionalisation of social work in the context of social services, we shall first
typologically^^[19] define the  concept of “modern” and “postmodern” institutionalisation of social
work (according to Musil, 2013a).

The idea of “modern institutionalisation” is based on the assumption that social work gained
recognition in society at the end of the 19^th and the initial two thirds of the 20^th
century^^[20]. This shall be further referred to as “modern” society.

People who perceive themselves as living in modern society assume that individuals and families are
organised in it into a relatively small number of large and culturally homogeneous groups (Beck,
1992), nations, social classes and corporations^^[21]. Actors of state power who build on this
assumption organise public services (e.g. propaganda, subsidised art, schooling, social services,
etc.) in such a way as to promote citizens’ identification with the proper standard of a member of
the national entity (Lorenz, 2006). Individuals adopting the same assumption find models for their
personal identity in collective ideas of those large, culturally homogeneous groups (Giddens, 1991;
Beck, 1992). People find important those public authorities (e.g. politicians and experts) that
offer them “grand narratives”, visions of a progress towards a better future for all. In them,
future appears as materialisation of the values on which collective prototypes of individual
entities are based (e.g. social security, growing living standard of families, better quality of
life, etc.). As a result, people have confidence in grand narratives. (Lyotard, 1993.)

With the above suppositions, the idea of institutionalisation of social work is based on the term
“professionalisation” (see Wilensky, Lebeaux, 1965: 283–308). From this point of view, a national
consensus on the standard of proper behaviour of a professional should exist in modern
society^^[22]. If social workers meet the expectations of this consensus, society accepts social
work as a “profession” (also “professional occupation”)^^[23].

The word “professionalisation” refers to a process in which a group of specialists attains the
characteristics of the profession and meets the standards of behaviour of a professional, where the
attainment of those characteristics and meeting of the standard are interdependent (Wilensky,
Lebeaux, 1965: 283–285, 299). In relation to social work, this means that a group of specialists in
addressing problems in interactions creates an autonomous disciplinary organisation which defines
the specific activities of its members and regulates access to their exercise. This way it ensures
that social workers act in accordance with the ethos of prioritising the interests of clients and
other standards of proper professional conduct. This gives the professional organisation a
reputation – in the eyes of the public and the elite, it becomes a guarantee that social workers
act in accordance with the consensual expectations of the national entity. This reputation enables
the organised group of specialists in addressing problem interactions to gain public acceptance of
their monopoly on the performance of its specific activities and perhaps also to negotiate with
politicians on legislative guarantees for that monopoly.

The concept of “postmodern institutionalisation” substantially differs from the understanding of
modern professionalisation. Postmodern institutionalisation is based on the assumption that social
work gains recognition in present-day society, which is further referred to as “postmodern”
society^^[24].

According to theoretical suppositions, people in that society lose sight of the idea of large
groups, and mass identification with collective ideas of such large groups is vanishing (Giddens,
1991; Beck, 1992). Crimes organised by the state were legitimised in the 20^th century by the
promise of a future public good. Therefore, people began to suspect that history was not advancing
towards a better world and distrust prevailed over the grand narratives that were promising such
goals. (Lyotard, 1993.) This suggests that, in decision-making, people do not take account of the
prospects of long-term direction towards the collective values of large groups and grand
narratives; instead they find useful what they believe can be done “right now”, when addressing a
current problem (Payne, 2012). In order to resolve what they perceive as a current problem, they
temporarily unite and work together in temporary social nets, i.e. pragmatic alliances with those
who right now feel the need to deal with a similar problem. (Beck, 1992; Lyotard, 1993 and other
authors.) In the context of helping work, “inter-occupational help nets” are a specific type of a
temporary pragmatic alliance. These are temporary groupings in which workers from various helping
professions and organisations temporarily work together with clients or others involved in their
situations in addressing the problems of a client or a target group (Musil, 2013a). According to
Giddens and Beck, the range of identity models proliferated based on electronic communication. As a
result, personal identities of individuals become individualised, i.e. everyone must choose from
among the diverse models available and establish his/her personal life project. This results in a
considerable differentiation of personal identities and subcultures. (Giddens, 1991; Beck, 1992.)
It is assumed that the individualisation of identities, proliferation of subcultures and
abandonment of the perspective of collective ideas of large groups changes the view of truth and
the nature of communication. All truths and interpretations based on them, notwithstanding
endorsement of their contents, are respected as valid; all of them are hence relative and none is
recognised as absolute. This also applies to the truth of the experts which no longer has the
authority of specialised knowledge incomprehensible to laypersons. Instead of the “expert –
layperson” pair, e.g. doctor and patient, two experts now emerge in people’s eyes, each of them
seeing the knowledge of the other from the distance of his/her own truth. (Howe, 1994;
Nečasová, Dohnalová, Rídlová, 2012.) In this arrangement, it becomes meaningless to distinguish
between situations in which one communicates with people inside and outside of his/her own culture.
Every communication is inter-cultural because it takes place among people with different identities
and different understanding of what topics should be discussed and what “truths” can be said about
them. (Lorenz, 2006.) It is possible to negotiate and reach temporarily valid agreements on what to
discuss, with what suppositions and how (Lyotard, 1993; Lorenz, 2006; Fawcett, 2012).

If institutionalisation of established patterns of social work in the context of social services
takes place under the above suppositions, it consists in “negotiation of resolution of current
problems in inter-occupational help nets on a case-by-case basis”. This means, according to Musil
(2013a), that social workers may gain recognition of usefulness of some of these patterns by
negotiation in temporary groupings of workers from various helping professions, organisations,
clients or others involved in their situations who together address a current problem. A social
worker can make an original proposal to win those involved in an inter-occupational help net where
the worker presently operates for the usefulness of a social work pattern. In other words, the
social worker complements the shared idea of the way in which the problem at hand should be
addressed by proposing how to address an individual aspect of the problem and others accept that
proposal as a viable one. This is possible only if the social worker’s contribution uses a pattern
of help in addressing problem interactions among social service stakeholders with which the worker
is familiar; as such the contribution must concern an aspect of the situation of the client or the
target group which is not subject to professional attention of people from other occupations
involved in the net; the social worker must be able to convince the others that his/her proposal is
useful not only because of its originality but also the social worker’s ability to engage in
further negotiations on it, to present arguments and, if needed, to modify the proposal; in
retrospect, the others involved in the net must view the implementation of the contribution by the
social worker as a success.

All the above takes place on a case-by-case basis, again and again. In postmodern conditions, the
institutionalisation of a pattern and its modifications takes place repeatedly. A social worker’s
contribution becomes an institution (recognised pattern) if the social worker and the other members
of the net expect that the pattern could prove successful again in an analogous situation, e.g.
when addressing a similar case. This does not mean, however, that it will be seen as valid next
time without further consideration. Problems, clients and cases differ and nets change. It is
likely that those involved in addressing the next problem will understand a “tried and tested”
pattern as a possibility which needs to be discussed in terms of its appropriateness. Advocates of
various truths will get together in the new situation and it will again be necessary to negotiate
with them the recognition of usefulness of the previously established pattern.

Thus, the social worker is forced to improvise while establishing a routine in improvisation thanks
to experience from the previous negotiations. (S)he cannot expect that the previously tested
addressing pattern will be automatically recognised as useful. The social worker must respond to
the possible doubts of others and be able to “connect” his/her proposals with their ideas,
understand what they propose and determine what (s)he can add. Nevertheless, if a clear definition
of the field of his/her activity is available to him/her (for example, (s)he specialises in
addressing problem interactions), knows the repeatedly tested patterns of addressing them and has
experience from discussion on their modification, his/her improvisation is not unprepared. (S)he
can rely on the institutionalised knowledge of his/her field and can therefore assume that the
other participants generally expect him/her to propose what (s)he actually proposes.

The transient nature of social nets, relativity of truths and impermanency of negotiation results
creates uncertainty in the people of the postmodern era. According to Lorenz, they cope with that
uncertainty in two ways: mutual inter-cultural clarification and returning to a clear validity of
some concepts of modernity. In the latter case, they face the feeling of chaos by postulating
generally valid ideas of what is desirable and, using these ideas, classify people’s conduct as
“right” or “wrong”. (Lorenz, 2006.) In order to personally adapt to the conditions they perceive as
unstable, they reach for those modernity ideas that lost confidence of the public due to their
“universal validity”. This way, however, they do not become part of large groups of people with
whom they would intrinsically and in the long term share their clear standpoint. They use modernity
ideas such as Fordist management methods^^[25] (Dustin, 2007: 13–30), exclusivity of
domain-specific knowledge (Witkin, Iversen, 2008: 489), competent expert and incompetent layperson
(Nečasová, Dohnalová, Rídlová, 2012: 14–15, 18–21) etc. in an individualised manner. They see them
as clear standpoints, from the perspective of which they can “arrange” for themselves the chaotic
world, thus reducing their personal uncertainties. Therefore, if seems that if we encounter
decision-making according to the universally valid modernist truths in contemporary discourse, this
does not mean that we have again entered a world of large groups which, led by authorities, aspire
for the remote horizons of grand narratives. Instead we are faced with individuals or pragmatic
alliances which use modernist truths in an entirely postmodern style – as means of accomplishment
of their personal difficulties and partial projects. This seems to apply to the actions of social
service stakeholders who take part in attempts at institutionalisation of social work patterns.

It is therefore not likely that the processes of modern and postmodern institutionalisation take
place in parallel in the present framework of Czech social services. These two methods of
institutionalisation are based on conditions so different that, similar to Kuhn’s paradigms, they
seem incapable of dominating in parallel in society. Thus, if social service stakeholders express,
for example, modernist convictions of the “need for a uniform methodology” etc., this is not meant
to say that unified by the vision of a single authority, they are determined to devoutly fulfil a
remote goal by acting according to strictly set rules. Instead, they try to cope in an
individualised manner with the confused rules and unpredictable decision-making by politicians,
managers and clients as well as the ensuing personal uncertainties.

So far we have discussed a purely present, and hence individualised, use of modernist truths. This
postmodern phenomenon must be differentiated from the effects of the results, or “traces”, of
modern development in the current attempts at winning recognition for usefulness of social work
patterns. The development of professionalisation has left two such traces in Czech society: first,
the routinely established professions set up in the 19^th and the initial two thirds of the 20^th
century, and second, a vague indication of an idea of the social work discipline. It seems that,
today, the difference between axiomatic acceptance of established professions and the vagueness of
the picture of social work is retarding the postmodernist attempts at institutionalisation of
social work in the context of social services. It is likely that individual social workers
negotiate their original contribution to addressing the problems of social service stakeholders in
various inter-occupational help nets (for example, case conferences, triads of community planning,
as part of the agenda of allowance for care with review doctors, etc.). Their endeavour could lead
to clarification of patterns of help with problem interactions and recognition of their usefulness.
However, such acceptance is prevented by the contrast between the vague picture of social work and
the clear status of long-established professions. The perception schemes of the public, politicians
and experts from helping professions with whom social workers negotiate are dominated by the idea
of modern, explicitly established professions such as medicine, psychiatry, the legal profession or
judiciary, perhaps also psychology and special pedagogy. From the everyday perspective, these
professions appear to have been present “from time immemorial”. Therefore, politicians, managers,
the public, helping workers and often even social workers spontaneously consider as serious those
problems and methods of addressing them that were defined by doctors, lawyers, psychologists and
special pedagogues. We assume that, in contrast to their robust image of clearly established and
routinely used institutions, something as vague and blurred as social work is not taken seriously
by the public, managers, politicians and colleagues from other occupations. Being so overshadowed,
it is difficult to bring attention to addressing troubles in interactions.

Therefore, social workers must often strive to ensure that the hypothetical partners notice their
attempts at proposing something. As a manifestation of the incomplete institutionalisation of
social work, nobody expects them to come up with a specific and original contribution. A positive
feedback operates between two traces from the past: the less obvious institutionalisation of social
work has been so far in the context of social services, the more further attempts at its
establishment are dampened by the fact that people’s attention focuses on the authority of the
professions established earlier. The less clear an idea people have of social work, the more its
already blurred image disappears in contrast with the clear image of the professions established
earlier. While modern methods of institutionalisation do not flourish any more, the institutions
which they allowed to emerge prevail and remain in operation.


Suppositions on the effects of the existing approach to help in the context of social services

Modern professionalisation also gave rise to the notion of help as support for managing the
personal deficits of an individual.

At a recent conference of the Association of Shelters, the author of this text analysed the premise
that help with problems in interactions is important for work with homeless people and consists in
actions directed at the client and others in his/her environment. After the lecture the author was
approached by a shelter worker: “You want us to work with the environment!? That’s too complicated;
it is easier to deal with an individual.”At first sight he did not argue. He just pointed out that
there is not enough space for work with both parties to problem interactions in his personal
project. However, considering that he took my premise seriously and that it was said at the
conference that the homeless face involuntary rather than voluntary social isolation, he in fact
indirectly argued with my position. In my opinion, the colleague from the shelter inadvertently
admitted that the problems of the homeless who end up in isolation can be addressed by working with
homeless individuals.

Similar views are common among Czech social service stakeholders and they rely on the popular
belief that “help” should consist in compensating those personal deficits of clients that prevent
them from satisfying their needs. The idea of help that consists in actions aimed at all parties to
problem interactions is not in accordance with this approach. If the concept of help as
compensation for personal deficits of clients is very widespread, it could operate as one of the
obstacles to the full institutionalisation of established patterns of social work in the context of
social services. If those social service stakeholders understand “help” as work with clients’
personal deficits, it is understandable that it is not common to accept troubles in interactions as
a specific problem whose resolution requires professional help.

The established modern professions as discussed above have a great influence on the ideas of social
service stakeholders concerning work with people. They share the characteristic of spontaneous
acceptance of the idea of help as work with an individual. In the process of modern
professionalisation, medicine, psychiatry, psychology and special pedagogy each specialised
separately in compensation for a certain type of personal deficits. It thus appears that social
service stakeholders inherited from the modern professions a grand narrative indicating that
problems in society stem from deficits of individuals and can hence be addressed through provision
of help specialising in the individual types of these deficits. In the context of that heritage,
social work finds it difficult to promote its understanding of help with problems in interactions
between clients and the social environment.

The effect of the above-mentioned idea of help with the individual on institutionalisation of
social work patterns is formulated here as a hypothesis not just because we do not have many
empirical findings on this phenomenon. The other reason is that the existence of help conceived as
work with clients’ personal deficits, and perhaps other circumstances of the effects of such help,
are likely to differ between organisations, territories and help nets. Therefore, when the need
arises, the effects of the discourse of individual-oriented help on the acceptance of social work
patterns needs to be examined individually in each such organisation, territory and help net. For
the purposes of such examination, the concept of help as “compensation for personal deficits” shall
be described in more detail below.

From this perspective, the problem to be addressed by the helping person is that the needs of an
individual are not satisfied due to a personal deficit of that individual. A personal deficit can
consist in a medical, psychological, cultural, economic or some other limitation of the individual.
If the helping person assumes that the deficit can be mitigated, (s)he will consider that his/her
actions should be directed at the deficit. If the helping person does not expect the deficit to be
reduced, (s)he will consider satisfaction of the unmet needs of his/her clients as the desired
course of action. In both cases the individual with the deficit is considered to be the subject of
the helping person’s action.

From the perspective of “compensation for personal deficits”, it is considered that the objective
is to satisfy the needs of the individual with the deficit. It is assumed that these can be
satisfied in four different ways: by saturating unmet needs through provision of resources (such as
subsistence, housing, contact, etc.); by substituting the individual’s deficient function (for
example, cleaning performed by some other individual, provision of a compensation aid, etc.); by
changing the deficient function of the individual which can be achieved by remedying that function
(treatment, rehabilitation, physiotherapy, memory training, etc.); or by teaching (for example,
training of an activity, teaching to understand a situation, training of behaviour in a role,
stimulating a change in attitudes, etc.). It is assumed that the above methods of attaining the
objective, i.e. satisfaction of needs by the individual with the deficit, can be combined.

Ideas on appropriate combinations are often stereotypically established in individual organisations
or territories. Where this is the case, helping persons are not favourably disposed towards trying
to find a unique combination of methods of compensating for individual deficits that would be
adapted to the specific combinations of deficits of the individual concerned. In such cases, the
inclination of social service stakeholders to provide help with personal deficits obstructs the
application of social work patterns aimed at coordination or comprehensiveness of help.

From the perspective of the discourse of help with personal deficits, it is possible to concentrate
on support for interactions. This topic can emerge, for example, when help is provided in
saturating needs in personal relationships or when it is necessary to coordinate the use of a
combination of the above methods of fulfilment of the expected objective of help. In the discourse
of compensating for personal deficits, support for interactions, if the helping worker pays
attention to it at all, is seen as means of satisfying needs rather than the primary object of the
helping person’s actions. Therefore, it can be assumed that in helping organisations, territories
or nets in which social service stakeholders understand help as work with an individual, the idea
of troubles in interactions as a specific problem remains outside the focus of their attention and
the patterns of addressing this problem are not accepted.



Suppositions on the effects of managers’ procedural approach

According to suppositions on postmodern society, social service stakeholders regard as useful what
they believe is done successfully, or appears useful, when addressing the problem at hand. It is
also assumed that evaluation methods are individualised or negotiated on a case-by-case basis and
hence considerably variable. A social worker cannot expect that what other social service
stakeholders regard as useful and successful in one case will be evaluated using the same criteria
and in the same way in another case.

In this respect, according to Musil (2013a: 63–67), literature written in English refers to four
types of criteria for evaluating usefulness encountered by social workers in the present context of
social services. These are: “practical help successfully delivered to an individual”, “problem
interactions successfully arranged for”; “the requirements for performance, efficiency and budget
control successfully met”; “it was successfully ensured that the disobedient behaved appropriately,
thus limiting risks” (Musil, 2013a: 63–67).

At the first glance, we are facing contradictory statements. On the one hand, a considerable
variability is expected of the evaluation of what is successfully done and hence regarded as
useful. On the other hand, an empirical description is provided of a few types of evaluation
criteria for immediate usefulness or success. The contradiction vanishes if we distinguish between
the purpose and criterion of evaluation of immediate usefulness, where a criterion is understood as
a means used by the evaluator to meet the intended objective of the evaluation. The evaluator need
not publicly declare the objective and (s)he may legitimise the use of a criterion or the resulting
evaluation by referring to some other purpose accepted by the public or some other party. We shall
assume that social service stakeholders use “methods of evaluation of usefulness” which consist of
the “objective” of evaluation of immediate usefulness, the applied “evaluation criterion” and the
“method of legitimisation” of the applied evaluation criterion or result.

This seems to be Dustin’s line of thought when she explains why Fordist management methods, which
are based on a predetermined delimitation of subordinates’ activities promoted as an “absolute”
truth, became widespread in the individualised society of relative truths. Dustin argues that
social services managers welcome observance of prescribed procedures and budgetary limitations in
order to curtail unpredictability in social workers’ actions, thus coping with their own personal
uncertainty. Managers find it important that social workers be interested in controllable outputs.
On the other hand, social workers find it important to communicate with clients, as a result of
which they respond to hardly predictable circumstances of communication with clients. This creates
feelings of uncertainty in managers, and they try to address these by applying the Fordist
approach. (Dustin, 2007: 13–30.)

It can be concluded that, in Dustin’s eyes, the Fordist evaluation of usefulness is a tool, escape
from the personal uncertainty which accompanies the unpredictability of responses of subordinates
to the changing circumstances of communication with clients, i.e. the objective. Dustin does not
claim this explicitly but, in her story, managers do not present the above personal objective of
the use of the Fordist evaluation and they legitimise their approach by the interest of the state
or organisation in efficiency.

If we distinguish between objective, criteria and legitimisation as three elements of the method of
evaluation, the paradox of the four types of criteria and expected variability of evaluation
vanishes. The diversity of evaluation of usefulness by managers does not result for the variability
of the applied criteria. It can be caused by three types of criteria: diversity of evaluation
objectives, which is based on individualised life plans and pragmatic arrangements of managers;
transience and variability of the objectives of evaluation that managers negotiate on a
case-by-case basis within the transient pragmatic alliances; variability of the interests of
managers, who respond to changing conditions, e.g. changes in political tasks, legislation,
methodical instructions, funding sources and methods of financing, financial standing of the
organisation, personal situation, etc. Managers look at changes from the viewpoint of their
individualised personal plans, which makes them change their interests. The evaluation criteria are
constant but the objectives of their use change and become differentiated.

According to English-written literature (McBeath, Webb, 1991: 759; Howe, 1994: 527–530; Harris,
2003; Dustin, 2007: 129–134 and other authors), it seems that managers in social services
organisations find it useful to use the “performance, efficiency and budget control” criteria when
evaluating usefulness of social workers’ actions and the criteria of “limiting risks by ensuring
that the disobedient behave properly”. The criteria of “help to a specific individual” and
“intermediation of interactions which were problematic” are less important to them.

For example, Dustin says that politicians’ order is to provide citizens with services the state is
obliged to provide under the law, in the most economical way possible. Therefore, managers of
social services organisations require their subordinate social workers to: identify legally
recognised client needs; propose and contractually ensure services intended to satisfy such needs;
in doing this, observe the budgetary limitations set by their superiors; all this without
establishing a relationship with the client and having any interest in the client’s personal
problems. The managers’ approach is Fordist-procedural: they want the social worker to proceed in a
predefined way: identify predetermined needs; select and purchase services from a predefined list;
select and purchase services in such a way as not to exceed a previously permitted amount of total
costs; and deal with nothing in the client’s life that was not set beforehand. Thus, according to
Dustin, social workers’ actions are useful in the eyes of managers at organisations to the extent
that they are “calculable” and can be audited. Subordinate social workers respect the above
limitations on their activities. However, led by their domain-specific knowledge, they take
interest in clients’ problems and negotiate and intermediate services that help them resolve these
problems more appropriately than services that are given by the pre-defined list and “fit into” the
budgetary limit. They do this despite the superiors’ procedural requirements and mostly at variance
with the superiors’ expectations. (Dustin, 2007: 129, 134–139.)

Howe shows that in the eyes of state policy makers and managers, even the criterion of “limiting
risks by ensuring that the disobedient behave properly” has a procedural nature. According to him,
policy makers do not expect helping organisations to attain a change in the behaviour which
deviates from the standards of mainstream society by working with the causes of that deviation.
According to Howe, expecting them to do so would be compatible with the standard knowledge of
social work. They do not demand any understanding of the problems of the “disobedient” or a change
in his/her attitude. Instead, they expect that his/her conformity and compliance will be ensured.
From this perspective, it is a success when a social worker negotiates conditions with the
“disobedient” client under which (s)he will act in a conform manner. The conformity standard is set
beforehand. The objective is not to ensure that the “disobedient” accepts the standard. Instead,
the objective is to show that (s)he has fulfilled it. (Howe, 1994: 527–530.)

Here again, what matters is to ensure that the result of the social workers’ actions can be
audited. From the viewpoint of social work knowledge, a useful result could be, for example, if the
client changed his/her attitude to the risks of his/her “disobedient” behaviour (Hepworth et al.,
2010) or if (s)he overcame his/her scruples and decided to talk about the psychosocial problems
that cause his/her “disobedience” (Laan v. d., 1998), etc. On the other hand, this does not appear
to be useful or successful from the viewpoint of the political strategy discussed by Howe. Success
is deemed to exist when a demonstrable change in behaviour occurs which is controllable and
reportable, or measurable in terms of costs.

Both from the viewpoint of “performance, efficiency and budget control” and from the viewpoint of
“limiting risks by ensuring that the disobedient behave properly”, it appears useful to effectuate
the set procedures, which is to ensure that the actions of social workers can be audited. According
to the English-written literature written so far, the thus-understood criteria of usefulness are
employed by state policy makers and managers at social services organisations. The question is
whether and, if so, in what respects this assumption is relevant for policy makers and social
service stakeholders in Czech society.

To be able to answer this question, it is necessary to examine the situations where insistence on
set procedures and the possibility of auditing social workers’ action can become an appropriate
tool. In the context of Czech social services, there seem to exist at least four types of purposes
of evaluation of usefulness that place an emphasis on observance of set procedures: economic
rationality; bureaucratic rationality; rationality of power; and rationality of a ritualised
procedural approach. In terms of economic rationality, emphasis on procedural approach attains a
favourable input/output ratio for social workers’ actions and actions of other social service
stakeholders. In terms of bureaucratic rationality, emphasis on procedural approach seems to
operate as a means of ensuring that all citizens’ requests are handled in the same way without any
bias on the clerk’s part. In terms of rationality of power, emphasis on procedural approach is a
means of ensuring or maintaining influence on subordinates. In terms of rationality of a ritualised
procedural approach, emphasis on procedural approach appears to be an end in itself: those who
demand and view the procedural approach as useful do not pursue economic ends, the citizens’ right
to having their request administered according to set rules or personal power. They simply consider
that people in an organisation should all proceed in the same way, in a pre-set manner.

In our opinion, Czech social service stakeholders often perceive the procedural approach to
usefulness as an obvious thing; they are often motivated by the rationality of the ritualised
procedural approach. They are often unable to imagine any actions other than procedural and any
evaluations of usefulness other than such that emphasise procedural actions as the means of
attainment of their individualised personal strategies. There is no empirical support for this
statement other than that experience has shown that social service stakeholders justify proposed
innovations by an existing lack of a “uniform approach” and the need to introduce one. We have also
seen social service stakeholders reluctant to accept a proposed innovation after realising that it
did not lead to a “uniform approach”.

The assumption that Czech social service stakeholders experience the procedural approach and
evaluation of usefulness as important per se is not to say that individuals, groups, parts of
organisations or local help nets cannot be motivated by the rationality of power, economic,
bureaucratic or some very specific, individualised rationality. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to
assume that the declaration of objectives that are based on these types of rationality are often
used as a means of legitimisation of a ritualised approach to procedurally perceived usefulness and
its evaluation.

These suppositions give rise to the belief that the arguments brought forward by Dustin, Howe and
other authors writing in English, according to whom those involved in social services policies and
managers find it useful to effectuate previously set procedures that can be audited, are also
relevant in the context of Czech social services. However, it seems reasonable to believe that the
cited authors’ emphasis on “calculability” and “auditability” does not make it possible to fully
understand the entire range of objectives in relation to which Czech social service stakeholders
consider that observance of set procedures is useful. The following can be recommended to those
examining such objectives: to understand them as individualised; to differentiate the authentic
objective of the use of procedural evaluation and its public legitimisation; to take into
consideration the assumption that observance of set procedures may be based on rationality of
ritualised procedural actions.

We therefore assume that Czech social service stakeholders often regard procedural actions as
useful and prefer evaluations that are based on the assumption that this type of actions is
appropriate. It is a question whether this aspect limits institutionalisation of social work
patterns in the context of social services.

One of the key premises of social work is that clients’ situations are unique and multilayered,
encompassing several interdependent problems and that successful help to clients is hence
conditional on the social worker’s ability to recognise the unique combination of circumstances in
the clients’ lives, understand them and apply this knowledge in helping the clients address the
entire range of their life difficulties. In other words, the client’s troubles in interactions with
subjects in his/her social environment emerge, and can be addressed, in the context of the unique
set of his/her various life circumstances.  It follows that from the viewpoint of social work,
“situational approach” is seen as a prerequisite of effective help with troubles in interactions.
From the perspective of situational approach, a social worker operates with a comprehensive, and
hence unique, combination of various life circumstances, which needs to be recognised in
interaction with the client in order to allow for a search for a comprehensive set of means of
addressing that combination.  This premise lies behind each of the five patterns of social work
cited above in this chapter.

The emphasis placed by policy makers and social services managers on procedural actions and
positive evaluation of conformity with pre-set procedures is accompanied by negative perception of
actions that are based on the social worker’s situational approach. If a predetermined solution is
considered appropriate, there is a negative perception of any actions that are aimed at studying,
for an undefined period of time, a situation that was not understood beforehand, and “only” then
beginning to look for a previously unknown combination of approaches to resolution and creating
grounds for application of such approaches. From the proceduralist viewpoint, situational approach
has all conceivable negative features. If the established social work patterns in the context of
social services are based on the situational approach, they are hardly acceptable for policy makers
and managers in social services. It is unknown how much time will be required and what parties will
need to be involved, it is impossible to estimate the costs, and the desired outcome is not clear
from the outset. If the characteristics of a social worker’s actions are not known beforehand, it
is impossible to say beforehand what parameters his/her actions should have and, consequently,
auditing them is impossible. It is impossible to determine clear inputs (the problem to be
addressed, costs), conduct (method and time of addressing the problem), and outputs (result to be
achieved, economic outcome).

The parameters of the social worker’s action can be pre-set in the language of finance, using words
such as costs, working hours, profits, etc. (see above – Dustin and the criterion of “performance,
efficiency and budget control”) or in the legal language, using words such as standard appropriate
course of action (see above – Howe and the criterion of “limiting risks by ensuring that the
disobedient behave properly”). If the legislature or manager accepts that the social worker should,
in the first place, use his/her professional knowledge to identify the problem and the required
solution, they are unable to define the parameters of the social worker’s actions through the
language of finance and the language of law. This seems to be the reason why established patterns
of social work are alien or hardly acceptable for policy makers and managers in social services.


Suppositions on employee identity

The above statement that “institutionalisation of social work takes place in a postmodern way”
means that, in the context of negotiations with social service stakeholders in inter-occupational
help nets, social workers use patterns of help with troubles in interactions. Furthermore, it
indicates that social workers use these patterns as a starting point for their specific
contribution to addressing the problem which exists in the given net at the given time. To be able
to succeed with this contribution in negotiations, i.e. to win acceptance for its usefulness, they
need to improvise. This does not mean to act without any preparation, but to proportionately apply
and modify the previously acquired domain-specific knowledge and skills. In order for such
procedure to be taken, social workers must be well acquainted and take ownership of the patterns of
help related to interactions among social service stakeholders. In other words, in the necessary
improvisation, they must be able to rely on their domain-specific knowledge and professional
identity, know what they can specifically offer as social workers and perceive this as a part of
their personal projects.

However, the condition of clear domain-specific knowledge and a strong professional identity often
remains unmet because social workers’ identity in social services seems to be an employee identity
rather than an professional identity. This means that social workers tend to construe their
personal role in the process of help from the perspective of loyalty to the rules determined by the
employer rather than from the perspective of the expectation that they will independently and
proportionately apply specialised domain-specific knowledge and skills.

A social worker’s idea of his/her own role in the process of help may include both elements –
employee loyalty and independent application of domain-specific knowledge. However, it is
reasonable to assume (and the reasons for this assumption are specified below) that loyalty to the
employer’s rules and expectations is what usually prevails. If this assumption is valid, it is
likely that, in negotiations in an inter-occupational net, a social worker will offer primarily
solutions that will allow him/her to preserve his/her loyalty to the employer. This reduces the
likelihood that within the help net, (s)he will attempt to offer a specific contribution based on
social work knowledge and patterns. If (s)he attempted to do so, and this attempt collided with
loyalty to the employer, (s)he would likely prefer to save his/her loyalty to the employer.

It seems logical that loyalty to the employer and endeavour to offer a specific contribution of
social work need not be mutually exclusive. A situation may occur where the employer expects the
social worker to offer applications of the domain-specific knowledge of social work in
inter-occupational nets (for example, at case conferences) using his/her own judgement.
Nevertheless, such situations can only occur if the employer’s rules and expectations are based on
the knowledge and interests of social work as a field. This is rather unlikely in contemporary
Czech social services organisations. Employers and managers tend to promote their interests by
emphasising observance of the procedural rules given by the valid legislation, central guidelines,
funding providers and intra-organisational regulations.  In the context of Czech social services,
these types of rules are only rarely based on domain-specific knowledge.

Therefore, it can be assumed that social workers in social services organisations prefer employee
identity in their personal projects, although not without reservations. What motivates them to do
so? In terms of the concept of postmodern institutionalisation, the reason can be at least
threefold: social workers are not self-employed – they see their employer as the source of status
and security and use their roles in the organisation as protection against the chaos of
postmodernity.

Since they are not self-employed, the position of social workers always depends, to some extent, on
loyalty to the role defined by the employer. However, employers usually do not formulate the role
of social workers from the viewpoint of the specific knowledge of social work. Managers of Czech
social services organisations rarely have the professional identity of a social worker and,
consequently, the knowledge and language of social work do not play a significant role in the
organisations they manage. Therefore, a social worker with a strong professional identity faces the
following dilemma: “I will either apply my professional knowledge on the basis of my own judgement
but will not meet the expectations of the managers who are indifferent to the professional aspects
of social work or I will meet the expectations of the employer but will resign to the possibility
of independently using my professional knowledge.”Even a social worker who is strongly identified
with his/her field will find it difficult, in these circumstances, to define and maintain his/her
role in the organisation so as to ensure it is based on the professional identity and specialised
knowledge of social work.

The second reason for preferring employee identity is historical. It seems that Czech social
workers see the source of their status and security in the employer and their own position in the
organisation rather than in their profession and domain-specific knowledge. This premise relies on
the arguments presented by Freidson (1986), according to whom there are two ways in which
specialists traditionally acquired status and protection of their position on the market. In the
Anglo-American tradition, this was done through negotiations of organised specialist groups in
political arenas, while in the continental tradition specialists acquired status and protection of
their market position in state-controlled elite schools which were a reliable qualification for
elite positions in the civil service. The Anglo-American tradition supported specialists to
identify with the specialised knowledge of the profession and professional association, while the
continental tradition supported identification with a position in the civil service. (Freidson,
1986: 32–35; see also Wilensky, Lebeaux, 1965: 283–308 and McBeath, Webb, 1991: 747–748.) Šamalík
(1995) documents the presence of the continental tradition in the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Therefore, it can be assumed that Czech social workers as those continuing this tradition will
expect status and its protection from the employer’s organisation and not from affiliation with
their profession.

The third reason for the prevailing emphasis on employee identity stems from the above assumption
that people sometimes escape from the uncertainty posed by postmodernity by returning to
quasi-modernist, authoritative truths. Life in a postmodern organisation creates uncertainty in
social workers. The factors by which managers assess what was successful are diverse and variable.
Managers change them as the measures introduced by the legislature and changes in the methods of
funding modify their own interests. Managers and clients do not see social workers’ knowledge as an
obvious authority and treat it as any other relative “truth”. In such circumstances, every solution
must be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it seems that nothing is automatically
guaranteed. In this situation, many social workers prefer the procedures and evaluation schemes
prescribed by managers. This gives them a feeling of stability and simplicity in the flow of
impermanent changes. Frontline social workers avoid negotiation, and the improvisation of
inter-occupational negotiations with workers from other organisations, by concentrating on the
roles and procedures prescribed by their managers. This consolidates their identification with the
role in the organisation and employee identity.

It seems that the aforementioned factors promoting employee identity dampen the attractiveness of
inter-occupational negotiations, in which it is necessary to try and reach transient arrangements
under circumstances which are not fully guaranteed. This is the reason why social workers with a
prevailing employee identity are careful to enter inter-occupational nets, where they are able to
seek acceptance of effectiveness of their occupation’s patterns, or they enter such nets only to a
limited extent. This means that opportunities for institutionalisation of social work patterns are
often missed.


Conclusion: stepping out of the employement organisation ambit and into inter-occupational help
nets

The above suppositions regarding the circumstances which prevent acceptance and routine use of
established patterns of help in addressing problem interactions among social service stakeholders
can serve as a basis for seeking an answer to the question of this chapter in individual
organisations, territories and inter-occupational help nets.

In terms of the concept of postmodern institutionalisation, these factors are interdependent. The
above-described chain of circumstances creates the impression that any continued
institutionalisation of social work patterns as defined in the first half of this chapter is
unavoidably blocked. It should be added, therefore, that the door remains open at the end of the
chain of circumstances. We are disregarding the fact that managers in some organisations apply a
less procedural approach to their subordinates than others and that there exist a few organisations
where the above patterns of social work in the context of social work are pursued. Without these
exceptions, it would not be possible to cite the examples provided by Musil, Hubíková and Havlíková
and also Szotáková.

Our attention is focused on social workers who, in their employment organisations, face the dilemma
between a loyal employee who follows the set procedures and an autonomous user of domain-specific
knowledge. Some of them cope with this dilemma by “stepping out” of the employment organisation
into inter-occupational help nets.

This happens in two ways: in “case” and “thematic” help nets. First, in “case help nets”, the
parties involved sometimes negotiate, with the assistance of the social worker, a solution to a
case, including arranging for help with several problems faced by the client. This can take place
at “case conferences”. There are organisations and geographical territories in which managers
taking the procedural approach are able to transform the official guidelines of a case conference
into a set of binding procedures, which the parties involved ritually exercise only to accomplish
the rituals. On the other hand, some case conferences become grounds of a creative
inter-occupational negotiation, in which various perspectives are combined into an original
solution of the set of problems faced by the client.

Second, in addition to “case inter-occupational help nets”, there also exist “thematic
inter-occupational help nets” (see Musil, 2013a: 54–58). In these nets, helping workers with
various types of specialised knowledge together discuss theoretical, methodological, strategic,
financial and other aspects of work with a specific target group (for example, drug addicts,
foreigners, minorities, homeless people, etc.) or an analogous set of aspects relating to a
specific help provision method (for example, field work, social rehabilitation, comprehensive help
in a given case, work in healthcare facilities, low-threshold services). Thus, instead of a certain
case, this type of inter-occupational net focuses on a set of questions related to a certain topic.

Some social workers, motivated by their interest in a comprehensive discussion of a specific topic
with people from various occupations, join these thematic nets. Together with others, they form
shared knowledge of “their” topic with which they identify, according to the findings of Růžičková
and Musil. Simultaneously, they clarify in the discussion with people from other occupations and
organisations what “unique” contributions they can offer, thus refining their social worker’s
identity. (Růžičková, Musil, 2008: 86–87.) In the inter-occupational discussion, they contemplate
help to their clients from diverse viewpoints and, as a result, their ideas of work with clients
can take a different direction than when directly influenced by the procedural requirements of
employers and superiors. In the inter-occupational environment of a thematic help net, the ideas of
help close to social work patterns can be accepted as useful more likely than in the procedural
environment of employment organisations. Evidence of this is available, for example, in Szotáková
(2014).


References

ABEL, E. K. (1994) Benevolence and Social Control: Advice from the Children’s Bureau in the Early
Twentieth Century. Social Service Review, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 1