This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]On: 15 October 2014, At: 03:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Teaching in Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20

Teaching Organization Theory andPractice: An Experiential and ReflectiveApproachMark Cameron MSSW PhD a , Rita M. Turkiewicz b , Britt A. Holdawayc , Jacqueline S. Bill d , Jessica Goodman e , Aisha Bonner f , StaceyDaly g , Michael D. Cohen h , Cassandra Lorenz i , Paul R. Wilson j &James Rusk ka Associate Professor, Southern Connecticut State University , NewHaven, CTb Social Worker, Veterans Hospital of Western New York , Buffalo, NYc Social Worker, People, Inc. , Buffalo, NYd University of Rochester Medical Center , Rochester, NYe Social Worker , Kidspeace, Lockport, NYf Research Specialist, American Association of Retired People ,Woodbridge, NYg Vocational Counselor, De Paul WorkGuide , Rochester, NYh Operations Analyst , City of Rochester, NYi Program Manager , People, Inc. , Buffalo, NYj Community–Based Clinician , Hillside Children's Center , Rochester,NYk Clinical Social Worker , Child and Adolescent Treatment Services ,Buffalo, NYPublished online: 11 Feb 2009.

To cite this article: Mark Cameron MSSW PhD , Rita M. Turkiewicz , Britt A. Holdaway ,Jacqueline S. Bill , Jessica Goodman , Aisha Bonner , Stacey Daly , Michael D. Cohen , CassandraLorenz , Paul R. Wilson & James Rusk (2009) Teaching Organization Theory and Practice: AnExperiential and Reflective Approach, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 29:1, 71-84, DOI:10.1080/08841230802237999

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841230802237999

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,

our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Teaching Organization Theory and Practice: AnExperiential and Reflective Approach

MARK CAMERONAssociate Professor, Southern Connecticut State University,

New Haven, CT

RITA M. TURKIEWICZSocial Worker, Veterans Hospital of Western New York,

Buffalo, NY

BRITT A. HOLDAWAYSocial Worker, People, Inc., Buffalo, NY

JACQUELINE S. BILLUniversity of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY

JESSICA GOODMANSocial Worker, Kidspeace, Lockport, NY

AISHA BONNERResearch Specialist, American Association of Retired People, Woodbridge, NY

STACEY DALYVocational Counselor, De Paul WorkGuide, Rochester, NY

MICHAEL D. COHENOperations Analyst, City of Rochester, NY

CASSANDRA LORENZProgram Manager, People, Inc., Buffalo, NY

PAUL R. WILSONCommunity–Based Clinician, Hillside Children’s Center, Rochester, NY

JAMES RUSKClinical Social Worker, Child and Adolescent Treatment Services, Buffalo, NY

71

Thanks to Alex Gitterman and Karen Staller for their contributions to this article, and toLarry Shulman for his support and encouragement.

Address correspondence to Mark Cameron, MSSW, PhD, Southern Connecticut StateUniversity, Department of Social Work, 101 Farnham Avenue, New Haven, CT 06515. E-mail:cameronm3@southernct.edu

Journal of Teaching In Social Work, 29:71–84, 2009Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0884-1233 print / 1540-7349 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08841230802237999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

The organization is often the overlooked level in social work’secological perspective. However, organizational realities exert aprofound influence on human development and well-being as wellas the nature and quality of social work practice. This article describesa model of teaching organization theory and practice which requiresmaster’s social work students to assess their school of social work aswell as their field placement agencies. Teaching organization theoryand practice experientially may help students understand howorganizations influence practice and empower them to see organiza-tion practice as a legitimate and important aspect of their work.

KEYWORDS Teaching, organization, practice, macro, fieldeducation

INTRODUCTION

Social work’s embrace of an ecological perspective includes a focus on therole of organizations in shaping people’s lives and impacting their well-being, as well as the ways in which organizations influence servicesprovided by social workers practicing in them. Organizational structures,procedures, cultures, their relationships with external systems, and otherrealities exert subtle but profound effects on the ways in which socialworkers practice (see Brager & Holloway, 1978; Dane & Simon, 1991;Hasenfeld, 1992; Lipsky, 1980; Lubove, 1977; Resnick & Patti, 1980; Schorr,Weissman, Epstein, & Savage, 1983; Wasserman, 1971). Underscoring thesignificance of the role of the organization in social work, William Schwartz(1969) suggested that the historic rift between micro- and macro-practicemight be resolved by social workers’ efforts to make their agencies moreeffective and humane in their transactions with clients. While this mayrepresent an as yet unachieved ideal, at the very least, social workers whounderstand how organizations influence practice are better able to takeadvantage of organizational supports as well as to overcome constrainingorganizational forces in order to most effectively serve clients.

However, though there was great zeal for organizational study andpractice in the late 1960’s through the early 1990’s, this appears to have waned.While in the past ten years there have been numerous studies and theoreticalworks on agency management and administration, there has been relativelylittle research on other important aspects of organizations and their relationshipto social work and our clients. There has been little research in social workfocusing on the nature of organizations’ influences on practice, or onorganization practice—systematic efforts of non-administrative employees toinfluence the policies and programs of their employing agencies. Further,while social work texts clearly describe the ecological perspective of social

72 M. Cameron et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

work and assert its usefulness, these texts tend to give discussion oforganizations short shrift. Social work practice texts, even including macro-practice texts, tend to give little detail regarding the skills and processesrequired by organization practice (see Compton & Galaway, 2005; Hepworthet al., 2006; Netting, Kettner, & McMurtry, 2003) though a few do a better job ofthis (see Gambrill, 1997; Germain & Gitterman, 1996; Shulman, 2006). A classictext, Brager & Holloway’s Changing Human Service Organizations (1978), hasnot been revised in over a quarter of a century.

Additionally, there has been little scholarship on the teaching oforganization practice in social work in recent years. A search in Social WorkAbstracts on-line revealed only two articles related to teaching organizationpractice (Butler & Coleman, 1997; Kasper & Wiegand, 1999). Meanwhile,there is a voluminous literature on teaching community practice (‘‘macro-practice’’ seems to mean ‘‘community practice’’). Instructors who teachorganization theory and practice are faced with multiple challenges ofteaching material that students are often not passionate about and, for some,with minimal expertise. The lack of discussion of instruction methods in thesocial work literature appears to represent a lack of support for the teachingof organization theory and practice in social work, as well as the profession’sunstated ambivalence toward the subject.

Twenty-six years ago, Weissman, Epstein, and Savage (1983) referred tothe various roles taken by social workers to influence agencies’ practices as‘‘neglected aspects of clinical practice.’’ This unfortunately appears still to betrue. Why so little attention is paid to organization theory and practice isunclear (research in this area is needed). Consequently, however, socialwork students may not come to understand the impact of organizationalpolicies and practices on clients’ lives, the ways in which organizationalfactors determine and constrain practice, and the methods social workerscan use, as Schwartz suggested, to systematically push organizations towardmore effective connection with those in need of help. Given the pervasiveimpact of organizations on social work practice and the lives of social workclients, preparing practitioners to skillfully challenge and change unrespon-sive and ineffective agency policies and practices should be viewed as afundamental objective of social work education.

Toward this end, this article will describe a model of teaching organizationtheory and practice that engages students, social work educators, and fieldeducators and agency personnel in experiential and reflective activities. Thismodel was inspired by a course designed at the Columbia School of SocialWork by the faculty, including Alex Gitterman, George Brager, StevenHolloway, and other faculty members there, and taken by the lead author inthe early 1980’s. This teaching model was also inspired by the educationaltheories of John Dewey, Argyris and Schon’s (1974) work on the nature of theprofessional relationship, Schon’s (1983) work on the importance of reflectionin practice, and writings of social work scholars on critical thinking and

Teaching Organization Theory & Practice 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

experiential learning (Gambrill, 1990; 1997; Goldstein, 2001). The purpose ofthis article is to contribute to the literature supporting instructional methodsregarding organization theory and practice, and also to challenge social workeducators to more carefully consider the extent to which this form of practice isvalued relative to other forms of practice. This model will be described in detailand an evaluation of the impact of this teaching approach on students, as wellas the reactions of faculty, and agency personnel, will be discussed.Implications for the instructor adopting this type of approach will beconsidered. The importance of promoting organization practice activities forsocial work students will be considered.

THE COURSE

I have used this approach for four years and approximately two hundredstudents at one school of social work have taken this course with me. Abouthalf of the students involved in this course were full-time and half were part-time students, most of whom were working full-time in social service agencies.This course was part of the foundation year HBSE sequence. The coursepresents a historical and sociological perspective of social welfare and socialservice agencies in the U.S., using sociological and critical theoreticalframeworks (Brager & Holloway; Lipsky, 1980; Lubove, 1977; Margolis, 1997;Morgan, 1996; and other materials). Course topics include theories oforganizations, including bureaucratic structures and processes, power, culture,communications, group dynamics (using Johnson & Johnson, 2000; Hirschorn,1992; Shafritz, Ott, & Jang, 2004; and Stohl, 1995), and organizational changepractice methods (Brager & Holloway).

PEDAGOGICAL PHILOSOPHY

The pedagogical philosophy informing the class includes the use of eachperson’s life experiences to shed light on organizational issues, includingexperiences from jobs, schooling, group, or even family relationships and othersthat may in some way be analogous to organizational experiences. In thisapproach the instructor models nonhierarchical relating and a flexible, student-centered approach to draw a contrast with more formalized and rigidbureaucratic processes that are often typical of organizations and some class-rooms. Demonstrating appropriate and non-cynical skepticism about conven-tional bureaucratic structures, processes, and functions can help to producemore open-mindedness about phenomena that students might otherwise simplyaccept as inevitable and proper. Additionally, an autobiographical posture,discussing issues that the instructor has dealt with as a social worker and socialwork educator models reflection and enables reflection among students whooften have been socialized to not say things that they believe are true to avoidarticulating perspectives if they might make others uncomfortable. Students areencouraged to discuss their experiences in their field agencies and/or places of

74 M. Cameron et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

employment. Much class time involves students and the instructor discussingexperiences that illustrate the concepts of the course.

ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSES

The instruction model essentially involves two key projects: students’analysis of the school of social work and, following this, their analysis oftheir field placement agencies or the agency at which they are employed.

Organizational Analyses: The School of Social Work

The first half of the semester requires students to work in teams to assess theschool of social work (see AppendixA). Work teams of approximately sixstudents divide responsibilities for collecting information about the six areas ofthe assessment: the school’s mission, funding, and overarching philosophies;external influences; structure; power; culture; and communications. Smallerfield teams of three or four students interview organization members andcollect other sorts of information which they then share with the larger team.The students write reports, using findings they and their other team membershave collected. At mid-semester, an organizational case conference is heldwhich is attended by the school’s dean or associate dean who responds to thequestions and positions raised by the students’ findings, providing more in-depth information about some issues and sometimes challenging students’perceptions. This first project sets students into motion and requires that theyenact a range of skills associated with organization practice: data collection viaspeaking with organization members; analysis of documents; working co-operatively with colleagues to develop shared understandings; and speakingwith organization administrators about views and concerns.

Field Agency/Employing Agency Analysis

During the second half of the semester, students work individually, assessingtheir field agencies or their employing agencies using essentially the sameframework but also focusing particularly on the ways in which organizationalfactors influence social work practices. Students write two reports on theiragency analyses; the first focuses on an overview of agency mission and pro-gramming as well as external factors impacting on the agency. The secondserves as the course final, and requires students to discuss course readings andkey concepts and synthesize them with their school and agency considerations(see AppendixB). The agency analysis project requires students to work inde-pendently and in the real world of social service organizations. It also requiresthem to actively consider the ways in which theory on organizations relates towhat they experience there and what they learn about the relationship of

Teaching Organization Theory & Practice 75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

organization and social work practice. The field assignments were developedwith cooperation and support from the field education department.

THE MODEL IN ACTION

Students in Action: Instructor’s Observations

The beginning stage of the school of social work assignment has often beenmarked with excitement as students eagerly make appointments withfaculty, administrators, and staff for interviews. There has also been someamount of confusion and anxiety for some of the students at the beginningof the course. Students generally have little intuitive appreciation for orunderstanding of the concepts involved in an organization analysis. Also,many students are not used to interacting with instructors and schooladministrators in ways in which they are not primarily obsequious. Somestudents are not comfortable talking with faculty about aspects of theschool’s culture or communication patterns and especially about the realitiesof formal and informal power arrangements at the school. Additionally, thegroup processes have often proven frustrating for students who do committime to the project while others invest less to it.

Students have had both an easier and harder time doing their field agencyanalyses. After having performed the school of social work analysis, studentshave gained a good sense of what is required in the agency analysis and proceedwith more clarity and confidence. They understand their questions better andknow how to help their interviewees understand what they are asking.However, their investigations are not always supported or encouraged by fieldpersonnel, which can be daunting and discouraging for students. Classroomdiscussion with peers who have a strong understanding of course concepts andthose who have been able to get more information from field personnel oftenhas helped students who have found these exercises especially challenging.

Students writing their final papers show increased understanding ofagency mission, funding, structure, programming, and power arrangements.Many students demonstrate an awareness of the ways in which informalprocesses influence agency decision making. They are also good at identifyingways in which client services may not be as responsive or as effective as theymight be. However, most students still struggle to identify and explain aspectsof agency culture, prevailing practice philosophies, complex issues such asdisplaced goals and latent purposes, and the ways in which agency realitiesinfluence micro-practices. These appear to be especially challenging conceptsand questions that are not solved for most students by the course.

‘‘Permission to Make an Inquiry’’: Students Describe Their Experiences

To evaluate the perceptions of students about doing these assignments andto further assess what they had learned, students in two sections (N 5 42) of

76 M. Cameron et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

the class were asked to write about their experiences in the course. Tenstudents volunteered to participate and wrote brief essays about what it waslike doing the assignments, what they thought that they got from doingthem, and their overall thoughts and comments about the course. Studentsvaried by age, sex, experience in the field, and part-time and full-time status.These essays were content-analyzed using a grounded theory coding system(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). These students were those who believed that theyhad had a beneficial experience in the course, and so these tentative findingscannot be generalized beyond these students and not to students who maynot have enjoyed the course. The findings of the analysis suggest that amongthese students there was a shared belief that doing these assignments helpedthem to understand organizations better. This applied to both formal andinformal organizational realities; a theme that appeared in many of thestudents’ essays was a sense that they had pushed past an academicunderstanding to a more real appreciation of how things work (and don’twork) in the world of agency-based social work. As James put it, ‘‘this classhelped me crystallize my thinking by precisely naming and defining whatthe components of organizational dynamics are. I found I had an intuitiveknowledge of these concepts, but that the course and its related assignmentslent an immediacy and clarity to how I’d been thinking.’’

More particularly though, two main themes were emphasized by students.Primarily, students were struck by the uneasy reactions of some of the faculty,staff, and field personnel to the assignment. They wrote about the trouble theyhad getting time with people to talk about the assignments. They also wroteabout the nature of the responses, which in their view were sometimesincomplete, carefully couched, and as described by Jackie, ‘‘politically correct.’’People were sometimes anxious about responding and some wantedassurances of confidentiality. Students saw these as inconsistent with messagesthey had been given about the support that would be given to them and aboutthe openness that would be extended to them. To these students, these actionsindicated a conservatism in both the school and the field agencies thatsuggested resistance to change, especially change from below. As Aisha put it,‘‘I was disappointed that social workers would succumb to the type oforganizational pressures that many agencies face. If the people who educatedus about social work cannot find the bravery to challenge the status quo…whathope is there that we the students will learn the skills and find the courage to doso in our own practice?’’

In a very direct and powerful way, these students came face-to-face withthe taboo regarding the open discussion of organizational realities byorganization members, as well as social work’s reluctance to take the stepsnecessary to make organization theory and practice a real part of itsprofessional repertoire of methods. The students understood that when pushcame to shove the rhetoric did not always match the reality, that agency-basedsocial workers and social work educators, teaching them to practice, struggle to

Teaching Organization Theory & Practice 77

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

do the things that they teach their students to do: to fully embrace social work’secological perspective, including the organization level, and to heed the chargeof scholars such as Schwartz, Specht and Courtney (1993), and others whoknew that simply focusing on the individual client is not enough.

However, these students also stressed that these assignments hademboldened them to feel as though asking questions about how organizationswork and challenging the issues that they saw in these organizations waspositive and important and something that they could now do. As Paul wrote,‘‘I tentatively approached [organizational] considerations in deference to theauthority I ascribed to the school and faculty as an institution. Theassignment…provided a degree of permission and encouragement to makesuch an inquiry. I appreciated the challenge and reflection required of theassignment and certainly feel empowered to apply the same critical analysis toany formal system I am associated with.’’ Jessica stated ‘‘I no longer simply sitback and accept the ways things are. The assignment taught me to questionwhy things are that way and what can possibly be done to make thingsbetter….I learned not only is it okay to ‘‘rock the boat’’ but also in theprofession of social work, this is often necessary in order to make a positivechange. We were able to experience the process of becoming empowered andcan in turn apply these skills to our work with clients. I also learned thatlooking at things in a new way is often the first step towards helping ourclients.’’ Rita wrote ‘‘In completing the agency assignment, I felt confident andempowered….In a way that assignment allowed me to grow from a childlikeinterpretation of agency dynamics to an adult understanding, which in the endbetter served my clients.’’

Jessica, perhaps best summarizing students’ reactions, wrote ‘‘The assign-ment taught me the best work is done only after we allow ourselves to riskbeing uncomfortable in order to get a better understanding of the whole truth.’’

Responses of Faculty and Field Personnel

Most faculty and staff are supportive of the assignment and are glad to speakwith students about the school. Faculty are generally appropriately candidand supportive of students’ work. Sometimes, though, faculty and agencystaff are uncomfortable with speaking about some of the issues regardingorganizational matters, such as power arrangements and informal processes.Some faculty and staff decline to allow students to interview them, and somefaculty and field practitioners have been concerned that the assignments maycross professional boundaries. However, a number of positive outcomes forthe school have come from the course, including the institutionalization of adirect feedback mechanism linking students to school administrators, whichled to modifications to student orientations, the way the school commu-nicates with students, the way the school schedules and structures meetingswith students, and other improvements.

78 M. Cameron et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS

Students do not often relish organization theory and practice courses andstruggle to comprehend and master the content and skills presented in thesecourses. Students in this course, designed to emphasize active learning andreflection-in-action as they engage their school of social work and their fieldagencies report both enthusiasm and learning in the course. They learn aspectsof organizational theory and practice, including the identification andassessment of organizational mission, funding, structures, programs, powerarrangements, communications, informal processes, and limitations in servicedelivery. More challenging concepts such as aspects of organizational culture,prevailing philosophies, and latent purposes, however, appear to be relativelymore challenging for students to comprehend. Perhaps most important,students are enthusiastic about organization concepts and the ways in whichthey are challenged to participate in the cultures and decision makingprocesses of their school and agencies. These students pull themselves out ofthe professional obsequiousness that many of them had assumed to be theappropriate posture for students, and perhaps, for social workers. They areboth more skilled and emboldened by working with faculty and agencypersonnel to assess key aspects of organizational life in their school andagencies and these organizations’ effectiveness. In short, students learn manyskills and adopt the posture of the committed organization practitioner.

This assignment engenders a variety of reactions from faculty and fieldeducators, symptomatic of social work’s ambivalence about organizationpractice. The instructor adopting this kind of approach with students thereforenecessarily invites some amount of criticism. Support for these assignmentsfrom deans, directors, and field education and agency personnel is key. In spiteof this, the risks posed by this kind of instructional approach are worth taking.Instructors who do not take risks will produce students who are unlikely totake risks, including warranted ones. Organization practice is crucial to goodsocial work practice, and it involves some measure of risk.

This instructional approach and others like it that put students intomotion in ways that require them to inquire and challenge institutional andpractice conventions may help to make the necessary paradigmatic shift‘‘from being believers to being questioners’’ (Gambrill, 1997, p.322). Anexperiential and reflective model of teaching organization theory andpractice directs students’ attention to the institutional framework of theirpractice to legitimize and empower them as effective organizationpractitioners and to avoid developing what Robert Merton (1957) calledthe ‘‘bureaucratic personality,’’ the mien of the functionary who succumbs toagency routine and concern for career over concern for clients.

Alex Gitterman and Sam Miller wrote this in 1989: ‘‘By engaging theproblem, by trying once again and still once more we often discover that what‘goes without saying,’ the received truths about organizational life, are often

Teaching Organization Theory & Practice 79

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

myths—myths which comfort those who fear change and restrain those whowould wish it…[E]fforts which may seem to be seeking change for its own sakecan, in fact, beuseful since the effort itselfmaydisrupt complacency, confront theunexamined obvious, and stimulate new understandings.’’ Teaching organiza-tion theory and practice by encouraging social work students to ask questionsabout organization realities and to think critically about the impact ofbureaucratic forces on practice can play a role in removing the taboo againstorganizationpractice and full enactmentof ecologically-orientedpractice.Unlesssocial work educators come to embrace organization practice in ways that areauthentic and model all of the skills and the courage required by the work of thisprofession, our rhetoric regarding organization practice will remain just that.

REFERENCES

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professionaleffectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brager, S., & Holloway, G. (1978). Changing human service organizations: Politicsand practice. New York: Free Press.

Butler, S. S., & Coleman, P. A. (1997). Raising our voices: A macro practiceassignment. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 15(1/2), 63–80.

Compton, B. R., Galaway, B., & Cournoyer, B. R. (2005). Social work processes (7th

ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Dane, B., & Simon, B. (1991). Resident guests: Social workers in host agencies.Social Work, 36(3), 208–213.

Gambrill, E. (1997). Social work education: Current concerns and possible futures.In M. Reich & E. Gambrill, Social work in the 21st century (pp. 317–327).Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Gitterman, A., & Miller, S. (1989). The influence of the organization on clinicalpractice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 17(2), 151–164.

Goldstein, H. (2001). Experiential learning: A foundation for social work educationand practice. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Hasenfeld, Y. (Ed.). (1992). Human services as complex organizations. NewburyPark, CA: Sage.

Hepworth, D. H., Rooney, R. H., & Larsen, J. (1997). Direct social work practice:Theory and skills (5th ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole.

Hirschorn, L. (1992). The workplace within: Psychodynamics of organizational life.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (2000). Joining together (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn andBacon.

Kasper, B., & Wiegand, C. (1999). An undergraduate macro practice learningguarantee. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 18(1/2), 99–112.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: The dilemmas of the individual in publicservices. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lubove, R. (1977). The professional altruist: The emergence of social work as acareer 1880–1930. New York: Atheneum.

80 M. Cameron et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Margolis, L. (1997). Under the cover of kindness: The invention of social work.Charlottesville, NC: The University Press of Virginia.

Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.Morgan, G. (1996). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Resnick, H., & Patti, R. J. (Eds.). (1980). Change from within: Humanizing social

welfare organizations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action.

New York: Basic Books.Schwartz, W. (1969). Private troubles and public issues: One social work job or two?

In The Social Welfare Forum, 1969 (pp. 22–43). New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.

Shafritz, J., Ott, J. S., & Jang, Y. S. (2004). Classics of organization theory (6th ed.).Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.

Shulman, L. (2006). The skills of helping individuals, families, groups, andcommunities (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.

Specht, H., & Courtney, M. E. (1993). Unfaithful angels: How social work hasabandoned its mission. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Stohl, C. (1995). Organizational communication: Connectedness in action.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wasserman, H. (1971). The professional social worker in a bureaucracy. SocialWork, 16(1), 89–95.

Weissman, H., Epstein, I., & Savage, A. (1983). Agency-based social work: Neglectedaspects of clinical practice. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Wineman, D., & James, A. (1969). The advocacy challenge to schools of social work.Social Work, 14(2), 32.

APPENDIX A

School of Social Work Analysis

As a case study of an organization, you and your classmates will form workgroups to study the SSW. Though classmates should share information witheach other in your work groups, each individual group member will write uptheir findings and analyses in their report on their own. You will alsoinformally present your analyses in class during the organizational caseconference at mid-term during which we will discuss as a class findings andyour thoughts about the process of studying the school and workingtogether as a group. Large work groups will focus on analyzing the followingaspects of this organization. Each group should have one person focus onone of the six areas of focus listed below.

N Organizational mission, purpose, operating philosophies, and programsN External/environmental forces influencing the schoolN StructureN PowerN CultureN Communication

Teaching Organization Theory & Practice 81

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

The group members focusing on one of these particular area will also meetin smaller groups to co-ordinate data collection for that area. Smaller workgroups will focus on one of these areas and report findings back to thelarger groups. You should carefully read the materials assigned during thefirst six weeks of class that pertain to your specific area. You and yourwork team colleagues will need to use a number of methods ofobservation and data collection to learn about the school. These methodsmay include:

N Reading the school’s literature, including its websiteN Interviewing key informants, including administrators, committee chairs,

office managers, faculty, field educators, and studentsN Observing the physical environments of the school, including classrooms,

meeting rooms, the student lounge, faculty offices, hallways, and other spaces

Explain to interviewees that information will be used ONLY for classdiscussions and a written assignment and offer to keep their identitiesconfidential. Report findings and then assess those findings in your paper,supporting your judgments with evidence from your research.

1) Organizational mission, purpose, operating philosophies, and programs

N What is the stated mission of the school?N What programs are offered?N What philosophies and theorieswere used to determine the curriculumcontent?N What philosophies and theories about teaching are used by instructors?N How is organizational effectiveness determined?N What are the latent functions of the school?N What are the displaced goals of the school?

2) External/environmental forces

N How is the school funded?N What are the regulatory organizations that influence the school’s policies

and curriculum? What are some of the examples of these regulations?N What is the school’s relationship to the local communities (including

neighborhoods, organizations, and groups)?N In what ways and to what extent do research and theoretical advances in

teaching and learning influence the instructional practices of the school?N What is the relationship of the school to its students? How are students

involved in the operation and governance of the school?

3) Structure

N Describe the responsibilities and membership of faculty committees,including student roles

N What is the degree of formalization? Give examplesN What is the degree of complexity? ExplainN Identify patterns of coordination

82 M. Cameron et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

N Describe organizational turbulenceN Describe organizational timing

4) Power

N What is the degree of centralization of power? ExplainN Identify critical actors for key aspects of decision making, including

curriculum changes, hiring faculty, and resolution of student problemsand grievances

N Describe informal power held by those not in official positions of powerN Describe power held by students

5) Culture

N Describe climateN Describe group normsN Describe habits of thinkingN Describe root metaphors/integrating symbols and the messages that they

conveyN Identify and describe subculture groupsN Describe organizational defenses

6) Communication

N Describe the indirect messages sent between administrators and facultyabout their relationship and power differences between them

N Describe the indirect messages sent between administrators and studentsabout their relationship and power differences between them

N Describe the indirect messages sent between faculty and students abouttheir relationship and power differences between them

APPENDIX B

Agency Paper One: Agency Overview and External Influencing Forces

Answer the following questions regarding aspects of the foundation featuresof organizations:

N What is the stated mission?N Who are the targeted populations?N What are the social work practice philosophies?N Describe the programs offered.N Where are services delivered?N Describe the neighborhood in which the agency is located.

Consider forces external to the agency that have influence on agencyprograms:

N Describe all sources of funds to the agency.N Describe any conditions that are a part of funds given to the agency by

external organizations and government bodies, including HMO’s andregulatory agencies.

Teaching Organization Theory & Practice 83

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4

N Describe the relationship of the agency to the surrounding neighborhood.N Describe how the agency uses the findings of research, theoretical

advances, and advances in social work practice.N Describe the ways in which clients influence and participate in agency

governance. Is there a client representative on the agency board? Is therean ombudsman?

Agency Paper Two: Internal Factors and Analysis of Forces InfluencingAgency Practices

1) Describe the following agency structures, features, and processes

N The relationship of the social work department to other departmentswithin the organization

N The centralization of powerN Power of ‘‘lower participants’’N Leadership styles and attributes of administratorsN ComplexityN FormalizationN Patterns of coordinationN Diagnostic/assessment practices and their organizational functionsN Culture: organizational norms, climate, habits of thinking, subcultures,

root metaphors/integrating symbolsN Organizational defensesN The connotative/indirect messages/metacommunications embedded in

communications between administrators and practitioners and betweenadministrators and clients; include messages about power and requestsbeing made indirectly

2) Assess the ways in which these various factors may influence agencypractices:

N How do social workers characterize clients and their problems?N How do social workers choose the modalities and techniques they use

with clients?N How do social workers relate to clients?N How do social workers define success with clients? Describe formal

measures of effectiveness.N What is the impact of the latent functions of your agency on social work

practice?N What is the impact of displaced goals on agency social work practice with

clients?N How do the conditions of funders influence social work practices with clients?N What is the impact of regulatory agencies on agency social work practices

with clients?N How do research and theory on social work practice influence work with

clients?N What is the impact of the attributes of decision makers on social work practice?N What is the impact of formalization on social work practice?

84 M. Cameron et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

idad

de

Sevi

lla]

at 0

3:25

15

Oct

ober

201

4