The Impact of Bureaucracy and Managerialism on Relationship-Based Practice: Threatening the Foundational Values of the Social Work Profession

Background: Regardless of the specific tasks or field of practice setting, the relationship between practitioner and service user has long been considered central to all social work practice, recognised as the basis for meaningful engagement, accurate assessment, appropriate intervention and sustainable change (Howe, 1998; Ingram & Smith, 2018, Ruch, 2005; Winter, 2019). Relationship based practice argues that relationships must be placed at the heart of social work and cannot be considered secondary or tangential (Hamilton, 1970; Ward, Ruch & Turney, 2018). Such approach promotes the ethos of working alongside individuals, families or communities in active partnership and positions them as experts over their own lived experience. The clear connection to professional values of empowerment, social justice and self-determination is illustrated in policy documents including professional practice standards (NISCC, 2019), National Codes of Ethics (BASW, 2021) and strategy documents (Northern Ireland Department of Health 2019) all of which articulate the importance relationship-based practice. However, the bureaucratisation and rise of managerialism in social services throughout the United Kingdom since New Public Management reform in the 1990s has seen a shift in conditions and priorities focused on efficiency over effectiveness whereby with top down structures are perpetuating a culture of form-filling, data collection, standardisation and performance management (Ferguson, 2008; Harlow, 2003; Munro, 2011; Tsui & Cheung, 2004).

Method and findings: Combining quantitative data from a national survey (n=252) with qualitative interviews with frontline social workers (n=16) drawn from a nested sample (Yin, 2006), this paper examines how bureaucracy and managerialism has impacted social work in Northern Ireland, with specific attention to the implications for relationship-based practice. Reporting on descriptive statistics examining the distribution of time and perceptions of bureaucracy captured through Likert scales, a reflexive thematic analysis methodology was employed for the qualitative interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2020). Both sets of data demonstrate social workers are spending substantial time on administrative tasks to the detriment of direct work with service users. Applying a theoretical framework of Street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 1980), the study illustrates reduced space for discretion and ongoing power struggles in prioritising relationships in frontline practice.

Implications: Findings argue for institutional wide responses to develop conditions conducive to placing relationships at the heart of practice. The strategies of individual social workers and promotion in practice guidelines and policy documents alone is insufficient for substantial change. The bureaucratic rationalism promoted through standardisation has worked to entrench hierarchical divisions in service delivery, infringing on the core values of empowerment, social justice and self-determination. Despite these challenges, social workers expressed a continued commitment to relationship-based practice, with clear narratives of resistance. Developing communities of practice for facilitating shared learning is also recommended as one step towards enabling potential for collective action to challenge the pervasive bureaucratic norms that dominate practice.