Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T17:36:49.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Approaches to the Analysis of Social Service Organizations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Gordon Rose
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Organizations have some similarities, although they also vary widely. Various modes of conceptualizing and analysing Organizations have developed largely from work in industry, but also from studies in the public sector, but one has to consider which of these are particularly relevant to the study of social service Organizations. The approach commonly used in comparing Organizations to Weber's description of bureaucracy is not very productive; and neither is a similar usage of Goffman's ‘total institution’. A critical examination is made of analytical categories set up by one author, but these also are of limited usefulness, and it is suggested that it is better to approach the problem by looking at important general problems which are central to many kinds of Organizations. Some of those which seem to be particularly relevant to social service Organizations are discussed. These are: the relationship between technology and structure; organizational climates; occupational conflicts; and organizational environments. Various examples are given to illustrate how these affect particular sectors of the field. Entering an area of study by selecting problems which are of key importance has a long tradition in social administration, as in other disciplines, and the study of social service Organizations is no exception.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , July 1976 , pp. 225 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Such as that in Hall, R. H., Organizations: Structure and Process, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1972, chapter 2.Google Scholar

2 Blau, P. and Scott, W. R., Formal Organizations, San Francisco: Chandler, 1962, p. 43.Google Scholar

3 Hall, R. H., ‘The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment’, American Journal of Sociology, 1963, 69, 32–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Hickson, D., ‘A Convergence in Organization Theory’, Adm. Science Quarterly, 1966, 11, 224–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Goffman, E., Asylums, New York: Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1961.Google Scholar

6 Barnard, C., The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938.Google Scholar

7 Argyris, C., Integrating the Individual and the Organization, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964.Google Scholar

8 Weeks, D. R., ‘Organisation Theory – Some Themes and Distinctions’, in Salaman, G. and Thompson, K., People and Organisations, London: Longmans (Open University), 1973.Google Scholar

9 Parsons, T., ‘Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the Theory of Organizations – I and II’, Adm. Science Quarterly, 1956, 1, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G., A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963.Google Scholar

11 Titmuss, R. M., The Gift Relationship, London: Allen & Unwin, 1970.Google Scholar

12 Woodward, J., Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, London: Oxford University Press, 1965.Google Scholar

13 Royal Commission on Local Government in England, Research Studies No. 1, Local Government in South East England, London: HMSO, 1968, pp. 69–120.Google Scholar

14 Report of the Butterworth Inquiry into the work and pay of probation officers and social workers, Cmnd 5076, London: HMSO, 1972.Google Scholar

15 Rowbottom, R. W., ‘Organising Social Services: Hierarchy or…?’, Public Administration, 1973. 51. 291–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Rowbottom, R. W. et al. , Social Services Departments, London: Heinemann, 1974.Google Scholar

17 Department of Health and Social Security, Management Arrangements for the Reorganised National Health Service, London: HMSO, 1972.Google Scholar

18 Scott, W. R., ‘Professional Employees in a Bureaucratic Structure: Social Work’, in Etzioni, A. (ed.), The Semi-Professions, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1969, pp. 82–140.Google Scholar

19 Brill, M., ‘The Local Authority Social Worker’, in Jones, K., The. Year Book of Social Policy in Britain, 1971, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.Google Scholar

20 Burns, T. and Sinclair, B., The Child Care Service at Work, Scottish Education Department, Edinburgh: HMSO, 1963Google Scholar; Grey, E., Workloads in Children's Departments, Home Office Research Studies, No. 1, London: HMSO, 1969.Google Scholar

21 Carver, V. and Edwards, J. L., Social Workers and their Workloads, National Institute for Social Work Training, London: Allen & Unwin, 1972.Google Scholar

22 Walker, R. et al. , Social Workers and their Workloads in Northern Ireland Welfare Departments, National Institute for Social Work Training, London: Allen & Unwin, 1972.Google Scholar

23 Davies, M. and Knopf, A., Social Enquiry Reports and the Probation Service, Home Office Research Studies, No. 18, London: HMSO, 1972, p. 36.Google Scholar

24 Rose, G. and Marshall, T. F., Counselling and School Social Work, London: John Wiley, 1974Google Scholar, chapter 3.

25 Blau, P. M., The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955.Google Scholar

26 Halpin, A. W., Theory and Research in Administration, London: Macmillan, 1966.Google Scholar

27 Hemphill, J. K. et al. , Administrative Performance and Personality, New York: Columbia University Press, 1962.Google Scholar

28 Gross, N. and Herriott, R. E., Staff Leadership in Public Scltools, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965.Google Scholar

29 Halpin, , op. cit.Google Scholar, chapter 4.

30 Street, D., Vinter, R. D. and Perrow, C., Organization for Treatment, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1966.Google Scholar

31 Meehl, P., Clittical vs Statisticol Prediction, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956.Google Scholar

32 Crozier, M., The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, London: Tavistock Publications, 1964.Google Scholar

33 Rusling, W. A., The Psychiatric Professions, Chapel Hill, N. Carolina: University of N. Carolina Press, 1964.Google Scholar

34 Ben-David, J., ‘The Professional Role of the Physician in Bureaucratized Medicine: A Study in Role Conflict’, Human Relations, 1958, 11, 255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Friedson, E., ‘Dominant Professions, Bureaucracy, and Client Services’, in Rosengren, W. R. and Lefton, M., Organizations and Clients, New York: Merrill, 1970, p. 82.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., p. 84.

37 Kornhauser, W., Scientists in Industry, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962.Google Scholar

38 Sykes, G. M. and Matza, D., ‘Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency’, American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 664–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Op. cit.

40 Ministry of Health, First Report of the Joint Working Party on the Organisation of Medical Work in Hospitals, London: HMSO, 1967.Google Scholar

41 Forsyth, G. et al. , In Low Gear? An Examination of ‘Cogwheels’, London: Oxford University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

42 Litwak, E. and Meyer, H. J., ‘A Balance Theory of Co-ordination between Bureaucratic Organizations and Community Primary Groups’, Admin Sci. Q., 1966, 11, 33–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reproduced in Thomas, E. J., Behavioral Science for Social Workers, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1967.Google Scholar

43 Thompson, J. D., Organizations in Action, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967, p. 9.Google Scholar

44 Ibid., p. 29.

45 Litwak, E. and Meyer, H. J., ‘Administrative Styles and Community Linkages of Public Schools’, in Reiss, A. J. (ed.), Schools in a Changing Society, New York: Collier-Macmillan, 1965Google Scholar; Litwak, and Meyer, , op. cit., 1966Google Scholar; Litwak, E. and Meyer, H. J., ‘The School and the Family: Linking Organizations and External Primary Groups’, in Lazarsfeld, P. F. (ed.), The Uses of Sociology, New York: Basic Books, 1967.Google Scholar

46 Deshler, B. and Erlich, J. L., ‘The School Community and A New Agent of Change’, The Record – Teachers College, 1968, 69/6, 543–53.Google Scholar

47 Schools Council, Young School Leavcrs, Schools Council Enquiry No. 1, London: HMSO, 1968.Google Scholar

48 Merton, R. K., ‘Bureaucratic Structure and Personality’, in his Social Theory and Social Structure (2nd ed.), Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957.Google Scholar

49 Stevenson, O., Claimant or Client?, London: Allen & Unwin, 1973.Google Scholar

50 Jordan, B., Poor Parents, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974Google Scholar, chapter 7.

51 Titmuss, R. M., Social Policy, London: Allen & Unwin, 1974Google Scholar, chapter 8.

52 Rose, and Marshall, , op. cit.Google Scholar, chapter 8.