Content uploaded by Mark S Preston
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark S Preston on Sep 12, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mandatory Management Training
for Newly Hired Child Welfare Supervisors:
A Divergence Between Management
Research and Training Practice?
Mark S. Preston, MSW
ABSTRACT. Little scholarly attention has been directed at verifying
whether the skills and competencies stressed in social welfare manage-
ment training programs are consistent with the management literature. In
this study, 31 state-sponsored management training programs for newly
hired child welfare supervisors were assessed using Menefee and
Thompson’s (1994) 12 social work managerial dimensions. Research
has suggested strategic, interpersonal, and technical skills and compe-
tencies are important for successful social welfare management. Most
states, however, tended to ignore the strategic component in their man-
agement training programs. By discounting this aspect, states not only
overlook the very factors that make social welfare management chal-
lenging, they potentially inhibit the practice effectiveness of their current
supervisors and future managers. [Article copies available for a fee from The
Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
© 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Child welfare, supervisory training, managerial skills
and competencies
Mark S. Preston is a doctoral student in public administration at the State University
of New York at Albany, 19 Avenue B, Apt. #4, Albany, NY 12208.
This manuscript is dedicated to the memory of Joseph Lozano.
Administration in Social Work, Vol. 28(2) 2004
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/ASW
2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J147v28n02_06 81
INTRODUCTION
State administered social welfare agencies provide essential pre-
ventative, supportive, rehabilitative, and protective services to mil-
lions of children, families, elderly and disabled individuals. For many
social welfare researchers, improving the performance of these orga-
nizations is ultimately a question of enhancing managerial effective-
ness (Healy and Weiner, 1988; Rapp and Poertner, 1992; D’Aunno,
1992). Under the general rubric of skills and competencies, this topic
has attracted the interest of numerous scholars (Patti, 1977; Cashman,
1978; File, 1981; Shulman, 1993). Little academic attention, however,
has been directed at verifying whether research on managerial effec-
tiveness actually reaches frontline social welfare management practi-
tioners and trainers. Since the relevance of any applied social science
is strongly linked to its capacity to influence practitioners, all efforts
to collect empirical evidence germane to this issue would be of con-
siderable value. The present study addressed this topic by asking: Are
the skills and competencies that state child welfare agencies stress in
their mandatory management training programs for newly hired su-
pervisors consistent with those identified by social welfare manage-
ment researchers? In analyzing the convergence (or divergence)
between research and practice, this study sought to contribute to an
important but under explored area of inquiry.
LITERATURE REVIEW
By the mid-1980s, the social welfare practice environment had
changed significantly. Tax revolts, budgetary constraints and cutbacks,
accountability concerns, demands for improved organizational effi-
ciency and effectiveness, privatization and contracting, technology, and
devolution of federal authority were all major transformational trends.
Subsequently, scholars began analyzing how this new environment af-
fected social welfare managers (see Table 1). Interpersonal and techni-
cal skills, such as empowerment and information systems management,
continued to be stressed by some (Poertner and Rapp, 1987); however, a
notable number of scholars also began identifying strategic skills con-
nected with the external practice environment. Edwards (1987), for in-
stance, identified strategic skills pertaining to boundary spanning,
while the cultivation of constituency relationships was highlighted by
Gummer (1987). Patti and Ezell (1988) stressed strategic skills relating
82 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
to “power politics,” suggesting social welfare managers must “keep
abreast of [a] fluid field of interests,” maintain “frequent ongoing con-
tact with key constituents” and amass “a good deal of knowledge re-
garding the power of these groups...”(p.88). In asserting that a
commitment to advocacy is what separates social welfare management
from other professional disciplines, Kaye and Albert (1990) champi-
oned advocacy as an essential strategic skill. Behn (1991), on the other
hand, singled out leadership as an essential strategic skill, asserting that
a social welfare manager must define success, promote it “in front of his
organization, the legislature, his elected political boss, the press, and the
voters” and then produce (p. 204).
Menefee and Thompson (1994) conducted an important empirical
study analyzing the skills and competencies needed in the new practice
environment. They surveyed 80 social welfare managers, asking them to
describe and prioritize their daily tasks. While the study addressed many
important issues, two are especially pertinent. First, their work recon-
firmed the view of social welfare managers as generalists who require in-
terpersonal and technical skills and competencies (Patti, 1977). Second,
and more importantly, they confirmed the shift toward strategic skills and
the “outward” orientation forecasted by File (1981). Because the factors
contributing to this new orientation are contextual, Menefee and Thomp-
son (1994) argued that the contemporary social welfare manager:
1. cannot focus solely on “structure, process, and conditions within
the agency,” attention also must be directed at “monitoring and
managing the boundary between the external environment and the
internal organizational arrangements”;
2. cannot plan predominately, at the “operational/program level”;
visioning, strategic planning, and innovation must be promoted;
3. cannot ignore strategic alliances between their agencies and exter-
nal stakeholders; participation in agency decision making must
now include the “community, clients, staff, and other constituen-
cies”; and
4. cannot function as merely “custodians of agency resources”; effi-
cient resource utilization must be achieved through analyzing agency
budgets, long-range financial planning, implementing public rela-
tions campaigns, creating new service markets, optimizing computer
technology, and developing accountability reporting system (pp. 14-15).
In essence, they declared that a “transformation” in the function of the
social welfare manager has occurred which required “substantive changes
Mark S. Preston 83
in the scope, complexity, and priority of the competencies and skills”
needed (p. 14). This transformation has forced managers to shift their at-
tention away from interpersonal and technical skills focused primarily
on internal operations and more towards skills aimed at aligning the or-
ganization with its external environment (i.e., strategic). In an effort to
substantiate these findings, Menefee (1998) replicated his original
study and found a “remarkable” level of consistency (p. 58).
Some social welfare management researchers have disputed the asser-
tions of Menefee and Thompson (1994). Zunz (1995), in one of the few
studies to examine the self-perceptions of child welfare managers, found
that the interpersonal skill of mentoring was valued most. Additionally,
Martin, Pine, and Healy (1999), while acknowledging the dynamic nature
of contemporary social welfare practice environment, strongly suggested
that interpersonal skills remain “most crucial to the managerial mission”
(p. 78). In their survey of 113 social welfare managers with “specific aca-
demic and field training in management,” respondents rated interpersonal
skills over technical and strategic (i.e., conceptual) skills in importance.
Martin, Pine, and Healy suggested that the emphasis that Menefee and
Thompson placed on strategic skills lacked cogency, because participants
in their study (i.e., Menefee and Thompson) rated managing and leverag-
ing resources, two skills one could potentially construe as strategic, least
important. In short, while researchers differ on salience, convergence ap-
pears to exist around the notion that social welfare managers must possess
a diverse set of interpersonal, technical and strategic skills and competencies.
The Context of Business, Public, and Social Welfare Administration
Although the relative importance may vary across organizational cir-
cumstances, the overall set of skills and competencies, according to
84 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
TABLE 1. Changing Social Welfare Practice Environment
Early 70s to Mid-80s Mid-80s to Present
Task Environment stable dynamic
Key Skills and Competencies socio-technical strategic; socio-technical
View of Organization closed rational system open natural system
Role of Manager ensure efficient execution align organization with external
of internal operations environment; ensure efficient
execution of internal operations
some, is largely the same. Au (1994), for instance, identified several
scholars who see no salient difference between the skills and competen-
cies required for various management professions (Cupaiuolo and
Miringoff, 1988; Ginsberg, 1988; Turem, 1986) while Jacques (1998)
put forth four attributes she considers common to all management disci-
plines. First, all managers seek to attain an acceptable level of effi-
ciency, effectiveness and equitability in their internal operations.
Second, in their quest to fulfill the organization’s mission and objec-
tives, all managers operate from a rational goal-oriented paradigm.
Third, all managers must work cooperatively with a variety of compet-
ing interest groups if organizational objectives are to be fulfilled.
Finally, all managers are task-oriented and engage, on a daily basis, in a
series of diverse activities. For these scholars, management is manage-
ment, regardless of context; skills and competencies are universal, cut-
ting across all fields and professions.
Other scholars, however, believe that substantive distinctions do ex-
ist, especially between the private and public sectors (see Table 2). Wil-
son (1989), for example, has pointed to performance outcomes as a
discriminating feature. Unlike the private sector, public sector out-
comes are dependent on interagency partnerships, often not easily
quantifiable and are slow to develop. Defining differences for Denhardt
(1995) were the public sector’s commitment to democratic values, plu-
ralist decision making, transparency, and addressing pressing social
concerns. Kettl (1993) has asserted that business management is built
upon a set of economic assumptions, which, when placed inside the
sociopolitical environment of public management, are difficult to main-
tain. Stated another way, basic free market mechanisms–supply and de-
mand, perfect competition, utility maximization and rationality–tend to
fall apart in a “public” context. Gummer (1997) succinctly summarized
the debate by suggesting that business and public management were sim-
ilar, but only in unimportant ways. For these scholars, to truly grasp the
subtle and complex nature of management, managerial skills, and com-
petencies must be coupled with their particular practice environment.
Social welfare scholars also have sought to establish the distinctive-
ness of social welfare management. Slavin (1977) suggested “profes-
sional technolog[ies], value base[s], and ethical prescriptions” associated
with “establishing, organizing, and directing direct client service” were
what distinguished social welfare management from other managerial
contexts (p. 255). Patti (1985) argued that “service effectiveness” or,
more specifically, “[c]hanging people and/or the social conditions in
which they live is the raison d’etre of the human service agency...”(p.9).
Mark S. Preston 85
Austin (1983) asserted that social welfare management possessed “[dis-
tinct] characteristics that distinguish it from...public administration”
(p. 141).
Austin (1983), however, offered no concrete examples in support of
this assertion. As for content areas, the 12 domains of study that Slavin
(1977) identified as “relevant for the preparation of social [welfare
managers]” are strikingly similar to the typical master of public admin-
istration (MPA) program:
1. organizational and interorganizational perspectives (i.e., political,
sociological, and psychological analysis);
2. theoretical perspectives (i.e., value assumptions and philosophi-
cal propensities);
3. organizational and structure of authority and decision making;
4. resource allocation, control, and accountability (i.e., budgeting
and financing);
5. policy planning and related program development;
6. personnel management and labor relations;
7. organizing and directing service delivery;
8. evaluation and research;
9. managerial technology (i.e., information systems, computer use,
and selected aspects of operational research);
10. public relations and information;
11. training, consultation, and supervision;
12. organizational conflict and change (p. 253).
Additionally, the “New Public Management,” with its mission of mov-
ing public sector agencies towards outcome-oriented results, customer
satisfaction and quality service delivery via decentralization of author-
86 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
TABLE 2. Defining Differences Between Business and Public Administration
PRIVATE SECTOR PUBLIC SECTOR
Product/Service product or service produced is product or service produced is often a
responsive to market mechanisms “public good” and not responsive to
(i.e., supply and demand) market mechanisms
Objective maximize private profit maximize public interest/good
Accountability to shareholders to general public
Decision Making important decisions do not important decisions often require citizen
require citizen input input in the form of a vote, comment
period or public meeting
Outputs/Outcomes easy to quantify and measure difficult to quantify and measure
ity and reductions in red tape, stresses service effectiveness as a princi-
pal concern for both public and social welfare management. In short,
while a reasonable level of congruence seems to exist between the so-
cial welfare and public administration literature, business administra-
tion, while well endowed with a rich management literature, possesses a
different normative and contextual orientation.
METHOD
Sample
State agencies responsible for providing training to newly hired child
welfare supervisors were located using the 1995/1996 Public Welfare
Directory. Once the appropriate agency for each state was located, key
informants were identified and contacted (several times in some in-
stances) between July 1999 and January 2000. Informants were asked to
fax, mail, or e-mail their state’s management training agendum for
newly hired child welfare supervisors. Forty-three of the 50 state agen-
cies contacted agreed to send their agendas; however, 12 states failed to
follow through. Of the remaining 31 states, nine offered no manage-
ment training for their newly hired child welfare supervisors, resulting
in 22 sets of training agendum analyzed. Daily training agendas were
seen as ideal, because they offered clear empirical evidence of the types
of topic areas that state trainers were expected to address. Agendas were
obtained from a variety of sources, including state training centers and
nongovernmental agencies. Each agency that supplied an agendum was
responsible for providing management training to all child welfare of-
fices in their respective state.
Analytic Framework
Categories for the content analysis were based on Menefee and
Thompson’s (1994) 12 managerial dimensions (see Table 3). This tax-
onomy was adopted as the analytic framework of this study for several
reasons. First, it is specific to the management of social welfare agen-
cies. Second, the 12 managerial dimensions were derived empirically
and replicated in a follow-up study. Third, social welfare managers situ-
ated in public sector agencies represented a substantial portion of the
sample. Finally, the taxonomy captured the three important sets of man-
Mark S. Preston 87
agerial skills and competencies identified in the social welfare manage-
ment literature (i.e., interpersonal, technical and strategic).
Coding
A content analysis of the topic areas outlined on each state’s training
agendum was performed. Content areas were compared with the that
Menefee and Thompson (1994) taxonomy. Each topic area listed on
each state’s training agendum was matched with one of the 12 manage-
rial dimensions. The title, substantive description and training objec-
tives of each topic area listed on the training agendum for each state was
matched with the definition and examples that Menefee and Thompson
offered for each of their dimensions. For example, topic areas identified
as “boundary spanning” on state training agenda included interagency
collaboration, interagency communication and political awareness. Topic
88 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
TABLE 3. Twelve Managerial Dimensions
*ADVOCATING *FUTURING
Representing Reading Environment
Lobbying Strategic Planning
Innovating
ALIGNING LEVERAGING RESOURCES
Organizing Contracting
Delegating Developing Resources
Staffing Allocating Resources
*BOUNDARY SPANNING MANAGING RESOURCES
Managing Relationships Managing Finances
Networking Managing Physical Resources
Influencing Managing Information
COMMUNICATING POLICY PRACTICE
Exchanging Information Developing/Interpreting/
Complying
EVALUATING SUPERVISING
Assessing Needs Coordinating
Evaluating Effectiveness Supporting/Consulting
Advising
FACILITATING TEAMING
Empowering Managing Meetings
Developing Coalition Building
Modeling Team Building
*Strategic Dimensions (Menefee and Thompson, 1994)
areas identified for “teaming” were effective conferences, effective
meetings, group development, and team building. Employee discipline,
labor relations, hiring and personnel law were topic areas placed in the
“policy practice” dimension. For topic areas which did not fit the Menefee
and Thompson taxonomy, a category titled “Other Dimensions” was cre-
ated. Self-care, time management, decision making, and ethics were topics
placed in this category.
MANAGERIAL LEVELS
For some scholars, analyzing state training agendas designed for su-
pervisors against a taxonomy developed from managers is, at best,
questionable. This is due primarily to the fact that a clear distinction in
orientation, between supervisors and managers, has been suggested in
the social welfare management literature (Kadushin, 1992; Kettner,
2001; Lohmann and Lohmann, 2002). In essence, supervisors have been
described as inward looking, while managers have been viewed as look-
ing inward and outward. The position taken in this study is that a cross-
over in orientation, between supervisors and managers, is far more
prevalent in practice than suggested by the social welfare management
literature. Child welfare supervisors in rural communities, for instance,
typically balance both an internal and external orientation; they super-
vise frontline workers and manage their respective local office (and of-
ten one or two person satellite offices). In urban communities, child
welfare supervisors regularly assume the role of “acting” manager for
limited and extended periods of time. Additionally, both rural and urban
child welfare supervisors routinely participate on multidisciplinary teams,
mediate conflict between their unit and outside organizations, advocate
and negotiate with external agencies on behalf of clients, and perform a
variety public relations activities. Thus, the premise of this study was
that the literature on social welfare management presents an overly pa-
rochial view of supervision, one that may not accurately or adequately
capture the full experiences of many child welfare supervisors.
Interestingly, this particular sample of child welfare agencies offered
comprehensive and mandatory management training only when em-
ployees initially became responsible for staff supervision. Such exten-
sive training was not reintroduced when these employees were promoted
to middle management. An implicit assumption, on the part of these
states, appears to be that the management training provided to a new
child welfare supervisor is germane to middle management as well.
Mark S. Preston 89
Given the substantial investment made by states in training supervi-
sory level staff, along with the suggested crossover in orientation be-
tween child welfare supervisors and managers, applying a taxonomy
developed for managers to evaluate training for supervisors has merit.
Convergence between the management training agendas analyzed and
Menefee and Thompson’s (1994) model offers support for the implicit
assumption made by states (i.e., supervisors are receiving the requisite
mix of interpersonal, technical and strategic skills and competencies
to function adequately in their current supervisory and future manage-
rial positions). Divergence, however, may imply the need for states to
critically reexamine the utility and comprehensiveness of their man-
agement training curricula for newly hired child welfare supervisors.
RESULTS
As shown in Table 4, 13 of the 31 states included in the study pro-
vided management training specifically developed for child welfare su-
pervisors. Nine states provided management training that was classified
as “general” because curricula were developed for all newly hired su-
pervisors, regardless of department or division. In other words, newly
hired child welfare supervisors in these states received the same man-
agement training as newly hired food services, public safety, or engi-
neering supervisors. Lastly, nine states offered no management training
to their newly hired child welfare supervisors.
Content coding for states with child welfare specific training agendas
revealed supervising, evaluating, facilitating, teaming, policy practices,
and communicating as the six most frequently appearing managerial di-
mensions. The strategic dimensions of futuring, boundary spanning and
advocating all were in the bottom half of the percentage distribution.
Four states (Arizona, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Washington) in-
cluded two of the three strategic dimensions in their training agendum,
while one state (Washington) included all three. As for states with “gen-
eral” management training, content coding indicated policy practice,
evaluating, supervising, facilitating, teaming, and futuring were the six
most frequently included managerial dimensions. Futuring was the lone
strategic dimension present in the upper half of the percentage distribu-
tion. No single state included all three or two of the three strategic di-
mensions in their training agendum. Finally, for the total sample, futuring
was again the sole strategic dimension represented in the upper half of
the percentage distribution (see Table 5).
90 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
DISCUSSION
Nascent empirical studies from the 1970s and early 1980s (Patti,
1977; Cashman, 1978; Shulman, 1982) identified social welfare man-
agers as generalists engaged in a wide variety of complex and diffuse
activities aimed at enhancing organizational performance. Since effec-
tiveness was measured by goal attainment, managerial skills, and com-
petencies that strengthen and maximize the organization’s internal
functioning (i.e., supervision, coordinating, controlling, planning, bud-
geting, etc.) were valued most (Menefee and Thompson, 1994). As the
practice environment of social welfare managers was transformed in
the mid-1980s and early 1990s, new contextual concerns arose. First,
job scope expanded. Second, managerial activities and tasks became
more complex. Lastly, environmental demands increased requiring a
higher level of managerial attention, involvement, and commitment.
Thus, managerial effectiveness in the new practice environment called
for a broader and more comprehensive set of skills, and competencies.
Social welfare managers today must master strategic as well as interper-
sonal and technical skills. Why? Because, strategic skills unlike interper-
sonal and technical ones, focus on assessing and aligning individual
service units and/or the larger organization with it’s ever-changing exter-
nal environment.
The results from this study, however, suggest that the 13 states with
child welfare specific management training tended to ignore strategic
skills and competencies. The management training for newly hired
child welfare supervisors, in these states, was heavily slanted toward in-
terpersonal and technical skills (supervising, evaluating, facilitating,
teaming, and policy practices). As for states with “general” management
training, one strategic dimension (futuring) was present in the upper
Mark S. Preston 91
TABLE 4. Management Training Curriculums
CHILD WELFARE SPECIFIC* GENERAL** NO TRAINING**
AL MN AK FL ID KY
AR NC SD HI MT MS
AZ NV UT MO NE NH
GA PA VA OR OH VT
KS SC WI WY
MA WA
ME
*n = 13; **n = 9
half of the percentage distribution. None of these states, however, incor-
porated boundary spanning or advocacy in their management training
agendas. Additionally, although present in the upper half of the percent-
age distribution for the total sample, futuring was included in only 39%
of the training agendas, while boundary spanning and advocating ap-
peared in merely 23% and 3% of the agendas. Lastly, only 13% of the
sampled states incorporated two of the three strategic dimensions in
their management training agendum, and just one state incorporated all
three. These findings appear to support the research of Zunz (1995).
Child welfare managers, in her study, rated brokering with the external
environment as their least important managerial skill (i.e., role).
The social welfare profession learned long ago that sound clinical
practice required assessing individuals and families within the context
of their environment. Ironically, however, this core social welfare value
is absent from the management training philosophy of the vast majority
of state child welfare agencies in this study. In an age of privatization,
contracting, fiscal constraints, and strong public distrust and skepticism
towards government, this lack of macro-level awareness and sensitivity
may inhibit the service effectiveness of these agencies. As Weil (2000),
in her recent overview of the challenges confronting the field of child wel-
fare, points out, “responding to...diverse expectations, mediating forces,
and...difficult practice issues and decision” underscore “boundary span-
ning skills,” “leadership,” “collaboration,” and “interorganizational deci-
92 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
TABLE 5. Proportion of States Addressing Each Managerial Dimension
CHILD WELFARE AGENDAS GENERAL AGENDAS TOTAL SAMPLE
(n = 13 states) (n = 9 states) (n = 31 states)
Supervising (100%) Policy Practice (89%) Evaluating (65%)
Evaluating (92%) Evaluating (89%) Supervising (61%)
Facilitating (92%) Supervising (67%) Policy Practice (58%)
Teaming (92%) Facilitating (56%) Facilitating (55%)
Policy Practice (77%) *Futuring (56%) Teaming (55%)
Communicating (62%) Teaming (56%) *Futuring (39%)
Managing Resources (54%) Communicating (44%) Communicating (35%)
*Boundary Spanning (54%) Managing Resources (11%) Managing Resources (26%)
*Futuring (54%) Aligning (11%) *Boundary Spanning (23%)
Aligning (15%) Leveraging Resources (11%) Aligning (6%)
Leveraging Resources (8%) *Boundary Spanning (0%) Leveraging Resources (6%)
*Advocating (1%) *Advocating (0%) *Advocating (3%)
*Strategic Dimensions
sion making” as “critical to improving [service] outcomes for...children
and families” (p. 482).
Implications for States
Based on this study, there are several issues for state child welfare
agencies to consider. First, states that currently offer no management
training to their newly hired child welfare supervisors may want to de-
velop and implement such a curriculum. Patti (2000) notes, “the supply
of social welfare students who specialize in management is far outpaced
by the demand” (p. 19). Therefore, it may be safe to assume that a sig-
nificant number of supervisors, in these states, engaged in critical man-
agerial activities without the benefit of formal training. Such a practice
can only hinder the delivery of quality services to children and families.
Increasing the number of topic areas included is a second issue states
may want to address. Stressing purely interpersonal and technical skills
and competencies may be sufficient for supervisors not expected to as-
sume an outward orientation. The demands placed on child welfare su-
pervisors, however, often require looking beyond the purely internal
aspects of their agencies. Thus, omitting strategic skills and competen-
cies from state management training agendum may, in the long run, un-
dermine the practice effectiveness of a considerable percentage of child
welfare supervisors.
Another issue for states to consider is the creation of a training curric-
ulum for mid-level managers. Providing a second level of management
training to supervisors promoted into middle management affords states
the opportunity to address the training gaps identified in this study. Topic
areas could include leadership as well as previously highlighted strategic
skills and competencies. House and Adtiya (1997), in their review of the
leadership literature, identify numerous studies that correlate leadership
with a wide range of positive organizational outcomes. Finally, decision
making in the public sector is driven not by market forces, but by consti-
tutional concerns and democratic values. As such, states may wish to re-
view their training agendas to ensure these unique aspects of public
management are sufficiently stressed. Examples of potential topic areas
include administrative law and pluralistic decision making.
Limitations of the Study
Several limitations exist in this study that merit comment. While ev-
ery effort was made to remain consistent and objective during the cod-
Mark S. Preston 93
ing process, the lack of an additional verification method is a concern
methodologically. Second, although 31 states were included in the
study, large influential states such as California, Texas, and New York
were absent from the analysis. Data on how these states approached
training their newly hired child welfare supervisors would have been in-
formative. Additionally, because the study was based at the state level,
training provided at the county level was not captured. For instance,
universities in California provide extensive management training to su-
pervisors working in county social welfare agencies. Fourth, the study
does not account for conferences that supervisors might have attended
or a one-time training session states may have offered as a way of in-
stilling skills and competencies of a strategic nature. Lastly, given the
study’s specific focus on state administrated child welfare agencies,
generalizing to the larger population of social welfare organizations is
questionable.
AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Empirically uncovering the extent to which supervisors engage in
strategic activity and how this activity may differ in focus, intensity and
duration from middle managers and top-level administrators is one of
several areas for future research. Determining the uniqueness of this di-
vergence between research and practice is a second area. Simply put, is
the divergence between the training of newly hired state child welfare
supervisors and the social welfare management literature present in or
representative of management training in other areas of social welfare?
The answer to this question is of critical importance, for if scholarly re-
search is not admonishing social welfare management practitioners and
trainers, what is?
A third area for future research is comparing differences in manage-
rial activity due to contextual factors (i.e., community size, agency size,
and type of service delivered). Some (Hoefer, 1993; and Zunz, 1995)
suggest these variables play a significant role in shaping and directing
managerial activity, while others (Kotter, 1982) are more skeptical.
Supplementary research is required to substantiate, clarify, and delin-
eate the moderating influence of basic contextual variables. Further in-
sight in this area addresses a key issue in management research: Are
managerial skills and competencies universal or contextually bounded?
Ultimately, adding to the current body of scholarly knowledge in all
94 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
these areas can play a valuable role in improving the practice effective-
ness of social welfare supervisors, managers, and administrators.
CONCLUSION
The dynamic nature of today’s social welfare environment means
strategic skills and competencies are important for the effective man-
agement of social welfare agencies. This study, however, highlighted a
divergence between social welfare research and practice. Contrary to
the social welfare management literature, states focus almost exclu-
sively on interpersonal and technical skills and competencies when
training their newly hired child welfare supervisors. By ignoring or in-
adequately emphasizing strategic skills and competencies, states not
only overlook the very factors that make social welfare supervision
challenging, they potentially inhibit the practice effectiveness of their
current supervisors and future managers.
REFERENCES
Au, Chor-fai. (1994). The Status of Theory and Knowledge Development in Social
Welfare Administration. Administration in Social Work, 18(3), 27-57.
Austin, David, M. (1983). Administration Practice in Human Services: Future Direc-
tions for Curriculum Development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences,
19(2), 141-161.
Austin, D. M. and Hasenfeld, Y. (1985). A Prefatory Essay on the Future of Administra-
tion of Human Services. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 21(4), 351-364.
Behn, R. (1991). Leadership Counts: Lessons for Public Managers from the Massa-
chusetts Welfare, Training, and Employment Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Cashman, J. (1978). Training Social Welfare Administrators: The Activity Dilemma.
Administration in Social Work, 2(3), 347-358.
Cupaiuolo, A. and Miringoff, M.L. (1988). MBA, MPA, MSW: Is There a Degree of Choice
for Human service Management? In P. R. Keys & L. H. Ginsberg (Eds.), New Manage-
ment in Human Services. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
D’Aunno, T. (1992). The Effectiveness of Human Service Organization: A Compari-
son of Models. In Y. Hasenfeld (Ed.), Human Services As Complex Organizations.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Denhardt, Robert B. (1995). Public Administration (2nd Ed.). Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Mark S. Preston 95
Edwards, R. L. (1987). The Competing Values Approach as an Integrating Framework
for the Management Curriculum. Administration in Social Work, 11(1), 13.
File, L. (1981). The Human Services Management Task: A Time Allocation Study.
Public Administration Review (November/December).
Ginsberg, L. H. (1988). Applying Modern Management Concepts to Social Work. In
P. R. Keys & L. H. Ginsberg (Eds.), New Management In Human Services. Silver
Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
Gummer, B. (1987). Are Administrators Social Workers? The Politics of Intraprofessional
Rivalry. Administration in Social Work, 11(2), 19-31.
Gummer, Burton. (1997). Public versus Business Administration: Are They Still Alike
in Unimportant Ways? Administration in Social Work, 21(2), 81-98.
Healy, L. and Weiner, M. (1988). Cornerstone of Social Work Administrative Tech-
nology? A Study of the Utilization of Classic Program Management. Administra-
tion in Social Work, 12(4), 1-14.
Hoefer, R. (1993). A Matter of Degree: Job Skills for Human Service Administrators.
Administration in Social Work, 17(3), 1-20.
House, R. and Adtiya, R. (1997). The Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?
Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.
Jacques, Gloria. (1998). Functional Reciprocity of Organizational Management and
Social Work Practice. International Social Work, 41(1), 53-69.
Kadushin, Alfred. (1992). Supervision in Social Work (3rd Ed.). New York, New
York: Columbia University Press.
Kaye, L. W. and Albert, R. (1990). The Technology of Social Planning and Program
Development: An Advocacy Training Model for Professional Social Workers.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 4(1), 101-112.
Kettl, Donald (1993). Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets. Wash-
ington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.
Kettner, P. (2001). Achieving Excellence in the Management of Human Service Orga-
nizations. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Kotter, J. (1982). The General Manager. New York: The Free Press.
Lohmann, R. and Lohmann, N. (2002). Social Administration. New York, NY: Colum-
bia University Press.
Martin, M., Pine, B. and Healy, L. (1999). Mining Our Strengths: Curriculum Ap-
proaches in Social Work Management. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
18(1/2), 73-97.
Menefee, D. and Thompson, J. (1994). Identifying and Comparing Competencies for
Social Work Management: A Practice Driven Approach. Administration in Social
Work, 18(3), 1-25.
Menefee, D. (1998). Identifying and Comparing Competencies for Social Work Man-
agement II: A Replication Study. Administration in Social Work, 22(4), 53-61.
Patti, R. J. (1977). Activity in Social Welfare Agencies. Administration in Social Work,
1(1), 5-18.
Patti, R. J. (1985). In Search of Purpose for Social Welfare Administration. Adminis-
tration in Social Work, 9(3), 1-14.
Patti, R. J. and Ezell, M. (1988). Performance Priorities and Administration Practice in
Hospital Social Work Departments. Social Work in Health Care, 13(3), 73-90.
96 ADMINISTRATION IN SOCIAL WORK
Patti, R. J. (2000). The Handbook of Social Welfare Management. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pflanczer, S. I. and Miringoff, M. L. (1978). Toward Management Training in Social
Welfare. Journal of Education for Social Work, 14(3), 93-99.
Poertner, J. and Rapp, C. A. (1987). Designing Social Work Management Information
Systems: The Case for a Performance Guidance System. Administration in Social
Work, 11(3/4), 177-190.
Rapp, C. A. and Poertner, J. (1992). Social Administration: A Client-Centered Ap-
proach. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of Level in Organizational Research: Multi-level and
Cross-level Perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1-37.
Shulman, L. (1982). Skills of Supervision and Staff Management. Itasca, IL: Peacock
Publishers.
Shulman, L. (1993). Interactional Supervision. United States of America: NASW Press.
Slavin, S. (1977). A Framework for Selecting Content for Teaching About Social Ad-
ministration. Administration in Social Work, 1, 245-257.
Turem, J. (1986). Social Work Administration and Modern Management Technology.
Administration in Social Work. 10(3), 15-24.
Weil, M. (2000). “Services for Families and Children: The Changing Context and New
Challenges” in Rino J. Patti’s The Handbook of Social Welfare Management. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Wilson, James Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They
Do It. United States of America: Basic Books, Inc.
Wolk, J. L., Way, I. F. and Bleeke, M. (1982). Human Service Management: The Art of
Interpersonal Relationships. Administration in Social Work, 6(1), 1-10.
Zunz, S. J. (1995). The View from Behind the Desk: Child Welfare Managers and
Their Roles. Administration in Social Work, 19(2), 63-80.
Mark S. Preston 97
