Supervisors within Neoliberal Managerialism: Findings of Working Conditions Survey of Minnesota Social Workers

Background: Neoliberal managerialism applies business management to social work practice. Direct-line social workers experience this as emphasis on efficiency and standardization and limits to professional discretion. Yet, how supervisors who are social workers experience managerialism is less understood. A scoping review of neoliberalism’s effects on US social work practice over 40 years revealed only eight such articles. This is unfortunate; positioned between management and direct-line workers, supervisors are key arbiters of neoliberal policies. Furthermore, supervisors, managed themselves, may also experience pressures of managerialism and limits to professional discretion. We know little about how supervisors interpret and apply managerialist directives, uphold or limit professional discretion, and if they engage in resistance.

Methods: All Minnesota licensed social workers were emailed a 20-minute Qualtrics anonymous survey; 283 social work supervisors responded. Largest practice areas included behavioral/mental health (35.1%), children and families (21.3%), and health (11.1%). The total was comprised of 49.3% private non-profit; 40.2% public; and 10.5% private for-profit. Managerialism and professional discretion scales and resistance items were developed based on previous literature scoping review, other survey workforce items, professional practice experience, and expert consultation (validation ongoing).

Results:

Managerialism: Two scales asked to what extent management required supervisors to ensure workers follow managerialist rules. Related to productivity and efficiency, respondents reported that taking on more clients (78.3%), getting more done in same amount of time (68.8%), and closing cases quickly (52.2%) were problematic. Regarding standardization: respondents reported adhering to appointment length-limits (85.6%) and number-of-session limits (83.5%), following pre-set practice methods (55.4%), following pre-set treatment goals (52.3%), and requiring evidence-based practice (46.1%) were problematic. Two scales asked about their supervision. Regarding monitoring 37.1% indicated that management monitoring computer usage was problematic. Regarding incentives and sanctions increased management oversight if productivity goals weren’t met (81.3%) and increased pay for exceeding performance goals (33.5%) were problematic. Supervisors worked an average of 6.8 hours of unpaid overtime per week.

Professional Discretion: Respondents were asked to what extent they can encourage workers to engage parts of professional discretion. Of the 7-item scale, five were commonly problematic: Addressing client issues at macro level (84.9%), shaping practice based on social, economic, and political history (77.4%), incorporating the ecological framework in assessment (72.2%), engaging with other agencies to support clients (41.9%), and practice professional values (36.0%).

Resistance: Nine resistance activities were coded into “yes, had done this at least once,” or “no, had not:” 96.3% expressed disagreement to management; 92.2% expressed disagreement with management among co-workers; 62.5% loosely interpreted eligibility guidelines; 49.1% organized with co-workers; 34.6% practiced outside of management-approved interventions. Few had altered performance reports, contacted their professional association or board of social work. Only 9.5% belonged to a union. Of the rest, 67.5% said they would join a professional union.

Conclusions: Social work supervisors identified their administration of managerialist policies and their own experiences of it as problematic. They also reported as problematic the ability to encourage social workers’ professional discretion. Yet, supervisors indicated resistance in a number of ways, and the majority who were not unionized, were interested.