Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wasw21
Administration in Social Work
ISSN: 0364-3107 (Print) 1544-4376 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wasw20
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work
Management: A Review of Theories and Related
Studies
Elizabeth A. Fisher
To cite this article: Elizabeth A. Fisher (2009) Motivation and Leadership in Social Work
Management: A Review of Theories and Related Studies, Administration in Social Work, 33:4,
347-367, DOI: 10.1080/03643100902769160
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03643100902769160
Published online: 25 Sep 2009.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 76320
View related articles
Citing articles: 28 View citing articles
347
Administration in Social Work, 33:347–367, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0364-3107 print/1544-4376 online
DOI: 10.1080/03643100902769160
WASW 0364-3107 1544-4376 Administration in Social Work, Vol. 33, No. 2, February 2009: pp. 0–0 Motivation and Leadership in Social
Work Management: A Review
of Theories and Related Studies
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration E. A. Fisher ELIZABETH A. FISHER
Department of Social Work, Shippensburg University, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, USA
Social work managers are confronted with the responsibilities of
leading employees and motivating them to succeed. Managers
may yield better results when they couple their practice wisdom
with a theoretical foundation. This conceptual paper may help
social work administrators and educators by providing an overview of relevant theories of motivation and leadership and how
they apply to social work. The theories that are introduced include
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Herzberg’s two-factor or motivatorhygiene theory, McClelland’s trichotomy of needs, McGregor’s Theory X – Theory Y, Likert’s System 1 – System 4, Blake and Mouton’s
managerial grid, Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership,
and Atwater and Bass’s transformational leadership.
KEYWORDS leadership, motivation, theory
Social work managers are often charged with motivating employees to perform well in their jobs. While management skills may suffice for task-related
issues, motivation and organizational innovation requires leadership (Shin &
McClomb, 1998; Pearlmutter, 1998). Some managers have learned to lead
successfully based on their practice wisdom and personal experience, but
as a group social work administrators may rely too heavily on these two
facets. Classic studies of leadership have demonstrated that managers who
conform to the tenets of one leadership theory or another, versus none at all,
achieve more in their own eyes and those of their workers (Hall & Donnell,
1979). While this suggests that it is important for managers to know and
Address correspondence to Elizabeth A. Fisher, Department of Social Work, Shippensburg
University, Shippensburg, PA 17257, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
348 E. A. Fisher
apply leadership theories, the topics are not often covered outside of social
work classrooms or beyond textbook readings (Latting, 1991). Part of the reason for this may be that many leadership positions in social service agencies
are held by professionals from other fields and therefore studied by academics in other fields. The call for attention to social work leadership has
been echoing for several years (Wimpfheimer, 2004; Perlmutter, 2006).
The goal of this paper is to apply and update classic theories of motivation and leadership to the social work field, using practical illustrations. While
social work management textbooks present some of this information, the purpose is to introduce social workers to foundation theories, illustrate their
application, and allow readers to consider the theory that will match their
own style. Educators may find this article useful to students as an introduction
to management theories before moving into more comprehensive readings
and discussions or as an update of the empirical literature. The tables that follow the narrative offer a snapshot of how to apply these theories to practice.
Motivational theories are first discussed and divided into two categories,
content theories and process theories. Content theories are those related to
specific motivating factors or needs. Process theories describe the interactions between needs, behaviors, and rewards (Lewis, Lewis, Packard, &
Souflee, 2001). The three content theories described include Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Herzberg’s two-factor or motivator-hygiene theory, and
McClelland’s trichotomy of needs. Several leadership theories are then introduced, including McGregor’s Theory X – Theory Y, Likert’s system 1 –
system 4, Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid, Hersey and Blanchard’s
situational leadership, and Atwater and Bass’s transformational leadership.
MOTIVATION THEORIES IN SOCIAL WORK MANAGEMENT
Theories of motivation are important for social work managers. One of the
tasks of a manager is to promote productivity among workers, which
requires motivation. Social work administrators often supervise people who
arrived in the human services field for different reasons and with various
educational backgrounds. In order to encourage staff, managers must
understand what motivates people, beyond the traditional notion that social
workers “just want to help people.” Table 1 summarizes several content and
process theories of motivation that are described in this section.
Content Theories of Motivation
MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS
Perhaps one of the most well-known theories of motivation is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. While this theory is often taught in social work human behavior
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 349
TABLE 1 Motivational Theories
Theory What motivates workers Example
Implications for social
work managers
Maslow’s
Hierarchy
of Needs
There are five levels
of needs –
physiological,
security, social,
ego, and selfactualization.
Workers will be
motivated by the
needs that
correspond with
the level that they
are currently at. The
lower level needs
will not motivate
them (unless the
situation changes).
A worker who is
operating at the social
needs level will be
motivated by
opportunities to
connect with
co-workers and
work as a team.
Salary, benefits,
and job security
are no longer
primary motivators
for this employee.
Managers should be
aware of the level
that workers are
operating at so
they can offer
opportunities to
fulfill needs at the
appropriate level,
thus motivating
employees to
achieve.
Herzberg’s
Two-Factor
or MotivatorHygiene
theory
There are two types of
needs that motivate
workers – hygiene
and motivator.
Hygiene factors
include things like
salary, benefits,
policies, working
conditions, and
relationships and are
best for preventing
job dissatisfaction.
Motivator factors are
best for promoting
achievement and
satisfaction with work
and include things
like recognition,
accomplishment and
responsibility.
A manager at a public
child welfare agency
carefully considers
the job functions of
her employees and
looks for ways to
increase positive
working conditions
(hygiene factor) and
opportunities for
workers to diversify
their work and be
recognized for
success (motivator
factors).
Managers must give
attention to both
factors, even
though in social
work it is often
difficult to meet
hygiene needs.
McClelland’s
Trichotomy
of Needs
People are motivated by
three needs – power
affiliation, and
achievement. Although
everyone is motivated
somewhat by all three,
most workers will be
motivated most
strongly by one of the
three.
Knowing that her
employee is most
strongly motivated by
a need for power, a
social work manager
provides an
opportunity for that
employee to direct a
team meeting.
It is important for
social work
managers to
understand which
type of need
motivates their
employees and
offer opportunities
to fulfill these
needs.
(Continued)
350 E. A. Fisher
classes in relation to work with clients and their social environments, it can
also be applied to motivating social workers in their agency environment. The
basic premise of the theory revolves around a pyramid, or hierarchy, of
needs. The needs at the bottom of the pyramid must be met before higher
level needs can be met (Lewis et al., 2001). Social work managers may apply
this theory by identifying the level of needs for each employee and understanding that people will be motivated by the factors that exist at this level.
The specific levels of needs begin with physiological, then security needs,
social needs, ego needs, and finally self-actualization (Weinbach, 1998).
The social work manager can consider the types of motivators apparent
at each level of the hierarchy. Food, clothing, and shelter are motivators at the
physiological level. Security needs include motivators of protection from loss
or threats, including job security. Affiliation and acceptance are important
motivators at the social needs level. At the ego needs level, self-esteem,
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Theory What motivates workers Example
Implications for social
work managers
Equity or Social
Comparison
Theories of
Motivation
Workers are motivated
by comparing their
performance to the
performance of others.
A director of the local
Boys and Girls Club
realizes that there is
confusion about who
earns merit bonuses
and what the salary
scale is so she makes
this information
public. This helps
workers to
understand how they
are being rated in
comparison to their
peers.
Social work managers
should be careful
not to ignore
the important
influence of peers
on worker
performance and
that issues that the
manager does not
discuss publicly
(i.e. salaries) can
become sore issues
because of rumors
and informal
conversations.
Goals and
Objectives as
Motivational
Theory
Workers will be
motivated by setting
goals and objectives
for both the individual
and the organization.
The more these two
goals intersect, the
more likely the worker
is to achieve for the
good of the
organization (and thus
herself).
The director of the
American Red Cross
meets quarterly with
individuals to
determine their
progress towards
individual goals,
which are tied to
organizational goals.
Social work
managers can
utilize their goalplanning skills as
practitioners in the
administrative
field. Realistic,
attainable goals
should be set and
their connection to
organizational
goals should be
clear. Employees
should understand
how they fit into
the organization.
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 351
status, and recognition are substantial motivators. At the highest level of
needs, self-actualization, an employee will be motivated by opportunities to
use their talents, be creative, and achieve their fullest potential (Weinbach,
1998).
These levels of needs are the cornerstones of motivating employees.
Managers must understand that employees will be motivated by unmet
needs and that once a need is satisfied, it is no longer a motivator. For
instance, if a social worker feels that she is well paid and secure in her job
position, the first two levels of needs (physiological and security) will not
serve as effective motivators. The manager will need to motivate based on
higher level needs, such as those at the social level (Weinbach, 1998).
Further, people may move up or down on the pyramid of needs. When job
security becomes an issue due to budget cutbacks or other limitations, a
worker at the social needs level may suddenly become motivated by security needs. Administrators must also be aware that their employees may all
be operating at different levels of needs and take this into consideration in
their style of management (Lewis et al., 2001).
Latting (1991) warns social work administrators against misinterpreting
how Maslow’s theory might influence their management style. Although
most social workers enter the field out of a desire to help others (which can
be construed as a higher order need), the lower order needs are also important to satisfy. Some social work managers may be quick to focus on the
higher order needs because they are easier to satisfy in human service agencies due to limited financial resources. Although the profession has
accepted and studied many of Maslow’s tenets in social work practice with
clients, the theory has yet to be tested empirically in social work management practice.
HERZBERG’S TWO–FACTOR OR MOTIVATOR–HYGIENE THEORY
The basic premise of this theory relies on the distinction between hygiene
and motivator factors. Hygiene factors are related to the work environment
and they are usually tied to dissatisfaction with work. Examples of hygiene
factors include salary, policies, security, relationship with supervisor and
coworkers, and working conditions. In other words, low salary, poor
relationships, and working conditions are connected to dissatisfaction. On
the other hand, motivator factors are related to personal growth and selfactualization and they are tied to satisfaction with work. Motivator factors
include the nature of the job itself, recognition, accomplishment, and
responsibility (Lewis et al., 2001). When they are present, satisfaction with
work is more evident.
Herzberg (1962) argued that people are motivated by self-actualization
more often than might be considered in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and
he believed in providing more self-actualization opportunities for workers.
352 E. A. Fisher
This theory may be especially relevant to the motivational needs of social
workers because it is not the hygiene factors that draw social workers to the
field. However, managers must be aware that it is not effective to focus only
on motivator factors because many social work agencies have more difficulty
providing hygiene factors due to budget restrictions and high caseloads.
Good supervision requires attention to both hygiene and motivator factors
(Herzberg; Latting, 1991) .
Two types of management that work within Herzberg’s theory
include job enrichment and job enlargement. Job enrichment includes
providing as many motivator factors as possible, such as providing staff
the opportunity to work through a whole client case rather than dividing
tasks up according to department (i.e., intake, case management, intensive, etc.); publicly acknowledging social work staff that complete timely
reports; or including exemplary staff biographies in agency newsletters.
Job enlargement is necessary when job enrichment is not possible, as
might be the case with repetitive or mechanical jobs. Job enlargement provides employees with as much variety as possible, even if the tasks are
repetitive (Weinbach, 1998).
HERZBERG’S THEORY AND EMPIRICAL LITERATURE IN SOCIAL WORK MANAGEMENT
Sluyter and Mukherjee (1986) utilized Herzberg’s theory to develop a job
satisfaction instrument for residential-care employees. They developed this
scale because they believed the scales developed for job satisfaction in the
business world were not as applicable to human service organizations. The
scale included 24 items related to six hygiene factors and six motivator factors. The tool they developed could help administrators understand their
employees’ specific hygiene and motivator needs in relation to job satisfaction and whether these needs are being met. The results of their study validated their instrument, the Job Satisfaction Survey, as a potential means for
measuring job satisfaction among residential-care employees.
MCCLELLAND’S TRICHOTOMY OF NEEDS
McClelland hypothesized that people are motivated by three needs—for
power, for affiliation, and for achievement (Weinbach, 1998). McClelland’s
needs are not a hierarchy as in Maslow’s theory. Workers are influenced
by all three of these needs, but are usually strongly motivated by one of
the three types. Effective managers need to be aware of which type of
need most strongly motivates their individual workers (Lewis et al., 2001;
Weinbach).
Workers who are primarily motivated by power will perform better when
given opportunities for control and influence over others and often have outspoken personalities. Two types of power may be influential—personalized
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 353
and socialized. Personalized power motivates people to increase individual
power, without regard to organizational goals. Socialized power includes
influencing others for the improvement of the organization (Lewis et al.,
2001). Opportunities to lead teams, such as those needed for special event
planning, can help satisfy the need for power. Those who are motivated by
affiliation needs will perform best when given opportunities to feel
accepted and avoid rejection. These workers are usually friendly, nonjudgmental, and uncomfortable with conflict. A social worker with an affiliation
need may be motivated most effectively by ensuring they feel included in
social gatherings. Workers who are achievement needing are motivated by
the possibility of success and fear failure. Although highly self-motivated,
they may have unattainable ideals so it would be important for managers to
help this type of social worker acknowledge small successes with clients
(Weinbach, 1998).
Process Theories of Motivation
EQUITY OR SOCIAL COMPARISON THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
According to equity theory, employees compare their own efforts to both
internal standards and others’ standards. This comparison serves as the basis
of motivation (Weiner, 1991). Employees are likely to look toward their peers
for direction on how to do their jobs. This may be especially true in social
work agencies, where the environment is often described as turbulent. Attention should be given to how workers relate to each other in addition to policies and instructions that guide employees’ practice (Latting, 1991).
Open salary scales and performance structures permit workers to compare and can be important in managing effectively, but social work managers may have a difficult time disclosing this information. This may be due to
the profession’s emphasis on individual value (rather than pre-set performance criteria) and a hesitancy to publicize the power (i.e., salary) differentials between management and line staff (Latting, 1991).
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AS MOTIVATIONAL THEORY
Weiner (1991) describes goal setting theory as, “employees and organizations both set goals that influence individual and organizational behavior.
The degree to which these two sets of goals are congruent determines the
level of effort by employees to achieve organizational goals” (p. 304).
Management by objectives (MBO) is a model based on goal-setting theory
and is sometimes used in nonprofit administration. MBO begins with setting
organizational goals and then tailoring these goals to each level of the
organization, by department, team, and/or worker. Ideally, these smaller
level goals help to contribute to reaching the overarching organizational
354 E. A. Fisher
goals. Introducing MBO to an agency requires careful planning with stakeholders in order to ensure buy-in (Lewis et al., 2001).
Latting (1991) identifies several challenges to incorporating MBO into
nonprofit administration. First, some managers do not develop appropriate
measures of performance before implementing a goal-setting approach.
Second, some managers may get too wrapped up in the “structures, process, and paperwork” of the approach (p. 59). Finally, managers may punish staff if they do not meet their goals, even when these goals are set
high on purpose. These challenges are surmountable with intentional
planning and thoughtfulness.
Perhaps one of the most cited authors on management who has also contributed specifically to nonprofit management is Peter F. Drucker. His work can
be applied to both motivating employees and models of leadership. His 1990
book, Managing the Non-Profit Organization, sets forth several key principles.
He introduces the importance of the organizational mission and the leader’s
role in fulfilling the mission. Drucker also discusses strategies for marketing,
innovation, and fund development. Performance measurement is discussed, as
well as the relationships the leader has with the staff, board, volunteers, and
community. Finally, Drucker discusses leadership development.
A self-assessment tool is available for social work administrators based
on Drucker’s principles of management (Drucker, 1999). Participants who
complete the workbook answer questions about what the mission is, who
the customers are, what the customers’ value, what the organization’s
results are, and what the goals and plan of the organization are. Drucker
has continued his work in nonprofit management with the establishment of
the Leader to Leader Institute (formerly the Peter F. Drucker Foundation for
Nonprofit Management). The institute works from the premise that all three
sectors (public government sector, private business sector, and social service sector) must remain vital and effective. The institute provides services
around three main objectives: supporting social service leaders, aiding in
collaboration across sectors, and providing resources for leaders (Leader to
Leader Institute, 2002).
Motivation is one side of the relationship between managers and workers. Social work managers need to understand what motivates employees,
but they must also understand how to lead in order to inspire motivation.
Developing a leadership style is critical. Social work administrators should
attempt to choose a theory that suits and be intentional in how they lead.
The following section will help social workers in this pursuit.
LEADERSHIP THEORIES IN SOCIAL WORK MANAGEMENT
Discussions about leadership in social work have been recently revitalized by
the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) and its Leadership Initiative.
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 355
CSWE has recognized the need for leadership development both inside of
and external to social work education (Sheafor, 2006). When the organization commissioned an exploratory study to investigate leadership content in
social work curriculum only 74 syllabi were received from 36 different institutions, representing 6.8% of all accredited social work programs (Lazzari,
2007). Of the syllabi received, most were from MSW programs with a macro
concentration. The author recommends further study of leadership in the
social work curriculum and new models of developing social work leaders.
Bargal and Schmid (1989) provide social workers with an insight to
some of the trends in leadership research outside of the social work arena.
They identified several themes in leadership, including: “the leader as a creator of vision and a strategic architect” (p. 40); “the leader as the creator
(and changer) of organizational culture” (p. 41); “leadership and followership” (p. 42); and “transactional and transformational styles of leadership”
(p. 43). The authors applied these trends in leadership to three typical internal functions of social work administrators (goal setting, motivation and
development of human resources, and maintenance and administration)
and two of the external functions (resource mobilization and achievement
of legitimacy). The authors conclude by saying that the more recent
research and trends in leadership that emphasize the multiple complexities
of organizations, the ability to learn to be a leader, and the interdisciplinary
approach to leadership may help social workers in the realities of the
human service field.
Rank and Hutchison (2000) provided some empirical evidence
regarding social work leadership in their exploratory study of social work
leaders. They investigated the perceptions of leadership in practice and
academic arenas through telephone interviews with deans and directors of
accredited social work programs and NASW chapter executive directors
and presidents.
Results of the study indicated that respondents included five elements
in their conceptual definitions of leadership: proaction (thinking ahead),
values and ethics, empowerment, vision, and communication. Most respondents
(77%) believed that social work leadership is different than other professions for five common reasons: “commitment to the NASW Code of Ethics, a
systemic perspective, a participatory leadership style, altruism, and concern
about the public image of the profession” (Rank & Hutchison, 2000, p. 493).
When asked about the skills that respondents believed were necessary
for leaders, nine general areas were identified: community development
skills; communication and interpersonal skills; analytic skills; technological skills;
political skills; visioning skills; ethical reasoning skills; risk-taking skills; and
cultural competence/diversity skills. Respondents identified four main themes
as a mission for leaders in 21st century social work: political advocacy, a clear
definition for the profession itself and for the public, social reconstruction, and
vision. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that there should be leadership
356 E. A. Fisher
development at the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels of social work
education.
Overall, this study provides evidence that social work leaders see leadership development as essential for social workers and the profession as a
whole, and that this area may be overlooked. The authors recommend
future research regarding “outcomes of social work leaders and their styles
of leadership” (p. 500).
Glisson (1989) found that social workers evaluate leaders on maturity, power, and intelligence. Further, he found that there is a strong
relationship between these three dimensions and both organizational
commitment and job satisfaction of social workers. This finding gives
further credence to the importance of leadership and worker performance. Glisson reports that leadership development is missing in the
social work curricula.
In the next section, several theories of leadership are described. For a
summary of these leadership theories and brief, practical illustrations, see
Table 2.
McGregor’s Theory X – Theory Y
Douglas McGregor developed the ideas of Theory X and Theory Y based on
the assumption that managers’ styles depend on what they believe motivates human behavior. A social work manager may believe that people are
motivated by the concepts of Theory X or Theory Y, and then the manager’s
actions are in accordance. In reality, most people fluctuate somewhere
between the two theories (Weinbach, 1998).
Those who subscribe to Theory X believe that humans have distaste for
work in general and are not responsible by nature. The only motivations to
work are based on self-interest or coercive methods. A manager who
believes people operate in this manner is more likely to use rewards and
punishments as motivators and create many rules and procedures for
compliance. These types of managers are always looking for mistakes
because they do not trust subordinates. It is a “we versus they” environment
(Weinbach, 1998).
Theory Y puts forth a very different view. Work is natural for humans
and it is something that they generally want to do. Theory Y espouses that
humans are creative, can solve problems, and are more motivated by selfactualization needs than rewards or punishments. A manager working from
this premise trusts and believes in subordinates and attempts to create a
“we and they” environment where growth and creativity are possible
(Weinbach, 1998).
By nature, social worker managers probably lean more towards Theory Y
because it is more congruent with how they are trained to view clients.
However, there has been no empirical research to determine if the core
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 357
TABLE 2 Leadership Theories
Theory
Basic tenets of the theory
or model Example
McGregor’s
Theory X –
Theory Y
Managers generally believe that
workers either have a natural
inclination to dislike work
(Theory X) or natural
inclination to be creative and
productive (Theory Y).
The director of the local child welfare
agency takes a moment to assess
whether she believes people operate
under Theory X or Theory Y and then
compares this to what is actually
going on in her department. She
realizes that although she did not
think people liked coming to work,
there is evidence to the contrary.
Likert’s System
1 – System 4
Organizations fall under one of
four types (System 1, 2, 3, or 4).
The lowest producing
organizations are typically
System 1 (traditional
bureaucracies) and the highest
producing and goal for all
organizations is System 4.
System 4 leaders work with their
employees to solve problems.
A social work manager completes
Likert’s tool for assessing her
organization and realizes they are
operating at about a System 2 level.
She then is able to see where the
largest weaknesses are and work
to move towards a System 3, and
eventually System 4.
Blake &
Mouton’s
Managerial
Grid
Using a grid system, managers
can self-rate their
performance in relation
to task and relationship
behaviors, yielding
a two-number score (i.e. 1,9).
Employees can then also rate
the manager and the results
can be compared. Blake and
Mouton provide descriptions
of the types of leaders to
understand more.
The social services director at a large
nursing home rates herself on task
and relationship behaviors using the
managerial grid. She finds that her
self-rating yields a score of 5,5. This
score connotes that she places equal
emphasis on tasks and relationships
and perhaps does not push her
employees to work harder than
would be within their comfort range.
Her employees complete the same
assessment and she finds that she has
an overall score of 7,3, which
indicates that they believe she is more
task oriented than relationship
oriented. She presents these results to
employees so they can discuss how to
be more effective working together.
Hersey &
Blanchard’s
Situational
Leadership
Workers’ willingness and ability
are assessed in order for the
leader to understand which of
4 styles of leadership will work
best. The most mature workers
(high on willingness and
ability) are best managed with
a delegating style while the
least mature (low on
willingness and ability) are best
managed with a telling style.
Selling and participating styles
are best for those workers
average in maturity.
The house manager of a home for
adolescent girls takes a moment after
performance reviews to consider the
maturity level of each of her five
social workers. After assessing their
maturity level, she reviews the types
of leadership that are most effective
with each and begins to try to
incorporate this style in her
management approach.
(Continued)
358 E. A. Fisher
principles that social workers follow with clients are transferred to their
work as managers. The utility of Theory X and Theory Y is that it allows
managers to assess their underlying assumptions so that they can compare
their beliefs to what actually seems to be happening in their workplace. It is
more important to assess what is really going on and what truly motivates
employees than to manage based on perhaps false assumptions (Weinbach,
1998).
Likert’s System 1 – System 4
Rensis Likert (1967) developed a model of understanding leadership and
the performance characteristics of organizations. To utilize his model,
administrators and subordinates complete a Likert-type scale that rates the
leadership processes used and the character of motivational forces, communication processes, interaction-influence processes, decision-making processes, goal setting, and control processes. Based on how these different
aspects are rated, an organization might be characterized as System 1,
System 2, System 3, or System 4. Respondents consider two types of departments or units in the organization for their ratings—the highest performing
and the lowest performing. The respondent can then look at where the
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Theory
Basic tenets of the theory
or model Example
Atwater & Bass’
Transformational
Leadership
Effective leadership is based on
the four I’s: idealized
influence, intellectual
stimulation, individual
consideration, and
inspirational motivation,
Realizing that she was operating from a
reward and punishment system that
was not working, the leader of a
team to develop an outcomes
measurement framework reviews the
tenets of transformational leadership
and begins trying to incorporate
some of these relationship building
techniques.
Senge’s Learning
Organizations
Learning organizations are
continually self reflective and
are created by careful
attention to five key
components: systems
thinking, personal mastery,
identifying and assessing
mental models, building a
shared vision, and team
learning. These types of
organizations may be the
most open to change and
adaptable in a sometimes
turbulent social services
environment.
The director of the local department of
aging sees change coming in the
agency because of several reforms to
Medicare benefits. She has been
attempting to learn more about how
to create a learning organization and
feels that now is the time to share
these ideas with her employees and
develop a plan for becoming more
adaptable to change.
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 359
highest performing groups fall on the scale and where the lowest performing groups fall.
Likert (1967) found that although the highest producing groups’ scores
varied, most of the lowest producing groups were categorized under System 1.
System 1 organizations are more like rigid, inflexible, traditional bureaucratic organizations, while System 4 organizations are more likely to be flexible. The goal of System 1 organizations should be to become more like
System 4 organizations, which requires leadership direction. However, the
process will first include movement through Systems 2 and 3. System 1 leaders incorporate more of a telling command. System 2 leaders utilize selling
techniques to engage workers. System 3 leaders consult with employees.
Finally, System 4 leaders join with employees. The most satisfied employees
are found in System 4 organizations.
Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid
The managerial grid is a model developed during the 1950s for understanding how managers lead. As the title suggests, it is based on a grid, with two
axes. The horizontal axis represents the degree to which managers are concerned with production or results. The vertical axis represents the degree to
which managers are concerned for people. Managers score between 1 and 9
on each axis, which produces a combination score. One represents the least
concern and 9 represents the maximum concern. For example, a manager
may have a score of 1,9 or 5,5 (notice they are not added together, but
remain separate scores). The first number (i.e., 1) represents the concern for
production and the second number (i.e., 9) is concern for people. (Blake &
Mouton, 1964).
Blake and Mouton (1964) provided descriptions of some of the more
common managerial styles. For example, the 9,1 leader is more of a taskmaster and attempts to minimize the human side of work (feelings and
attitudes). On the other hand, a 1,9 leader wants to make a comfortable
work environment for people, only pushing them to work as hard as it is
comfortable. The 5,5 leader does not go to either extreme and realizes that
some push for production is necessary, but only enough that will keep people generally satisfied. This type of leader manages from a perspective of
steady progress and will manage work based on traditionally yielded satisfactory results. The 9,9 style is perhaps the ideal. This type of leader does
not assume that there is a conflict between organizational and worker
needs. The style of management is creative and works with subordinates to
find the best solution to problems.
The usefulness of the managerial grid relates to understanding more
about how a leader perceives herself and how her subordinates see her.
The leader can rank her style according to the grid and subordinates can do
the same, offering an opportunity to compare what the leader thinks she is
360 E. A. Fisher
doing with what subordinates perceive she is doing. However, it does not
provide much direction in how to develop as a leader (Weinbach, 1998).
The managerial grid approach to management suggests that equal emphasis
on task and relationship factors are important, regardless of the employee.
Latting (1986) describes Blake and Mouton’s grid as congruent with
social work principles because of its emphasis on the interaction between
both task and relationship behavior, reminiscent of social work’s emphasis
on the interaction between people and their environments. Emphasis on
tasks and relationships and their interactions can result in a desired behavior. Emphasis on the person and her or his environment and their interaction can result in desired behavior.
Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership
Hersey and Blanchard (1972) proposed that leadership is not the result of
genetic traits or acquired abilities. Instead, effective leadership requires
behaviors that match the situation. This theory of leadership goes against
traditional grains of believing that leadership is based on certain personality
traits and is not readily learned. Situational leadership calls on managers to
utilize the most effective style, depending on the situation or employee.
Whether a leader should be more focused on tasks or relationships depends
on the situation and readiness of the subordinates (Lewis et al., 2001).
The first step in situational leadership includes understanding the level
of the worker’s maturity. Maturity can be defined as “the worker’s willingness and ability to assume responsibility for the task at hand” (Latting, 1986,
p. 16). The two key factors then are willingness and ability. The employee’s
maturity level is assessed and then the manager chooses the best managerial
style for the situation. The four styles (first identified by Blake and Mouton,
1964) include telling, selling, participating, and delegating.
These four styles are applied depending on the maturity of the worker.
Immature workers, who lack willingness and ability, are best dealt with in a
telling manner with strong direction and a high emphasis on tasks and a
lower emphasis on relationships. Workers who have the willingness but
lack the ability are best directed by selling types of management, which
included high task and relationship behaviors. For workers who have
ability, but lack willingness, a participating style is necessary. This style
emphasizes relationships, but places less emphasis on task behaviors.
Finally, the most mature workers, who have both the skills and are willing,
will best be managed with a delegating style. This style includes a low
emphasis on both task and relationship behaviors (Latting, 1986). Situational
leadership models vary the amount of emphasis placed on task and relationship factors based on the employee’s situation and maturity level.
Latting (1986) describes situational leadership as important because of
its emphasis on assessing the employee’s stage of development and then
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 361
selecting a leadership style. This may be reminiscent of social work’s
practice strategy of making individual assessments and then choosing intervention plans based on the situation.
SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE EMPIRICAL SOCIAL WORK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE
Situational leadership has been empirically tested in social service agencies
in two studies (Hastings & York, 1985; York, 1996). In the earlier study by
Hastings and York, 172 employees in three county social service departments were surveyed in North Carolina in 1979. They were surveyed
regarding whether task-oriented supervision is more appropriate than
person-oriented supervision for employees low on maturity and vice versa
for those high on maturity. Their findings did not support these assumptions.
Both task-oriented supervision and person-oriented supervision had similar
effects on performance for all levels of maturity.
York (1996) examined “the extent to which the propositions of the
situational leadership model are embraced by social workers, and to determine
whether adherence to this model varies with leadership position or work performance” (p. 6). A total of 101 NASW members from two states completed
questionnaires. The questionnaires were aimed at gathering information about
task behavior, support behavior, work performance, and demographic data.
Task behavior and support behavior were assessed by proposing hypothetical
situations to which the respondents provided answers to questions.
The findings, for the most part, did not support the hypotheses. First,
the author hypothesized that managers would have scores that indicated
higher compliance with the situational leadership model than clinicians.
However, there was only one significant difference and, although weak, it
was in the reverse direction, with clinicians scoring higher. Overall, managers and clinicians did not differ in their adherence to a situational leadership
model. The researcher also hypothesized that those respondents who had
higher work performance ratings would also have higher scores for compliance to the situational leadership model. However, this was also not significant (York, 1996).
The study did yield some interesting data regarding social workers and
situational leadership. Overall, social workers place emphasis on support of
workers, no matter the situation. Also, they generally follow the tenets of
the model related to task responsibility. So it seems that social workers
agree that subordinates with high task maturity should be delegated more
task responsibility and vice versa for those with low maturity. However,
rather than providing varying degrees of support, social workers believe
that support should be provided in all situations. The author states, “It
seems that the situational leadership model is merely a shell with a few
common sense propositions that are supported and a few that are not”
(York, 1996, p. 24). The author recommends further research.
362 E. A. Fisher
Atwater and Bass’s Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership goes beyond the traditional transactional leadership style that emphasizes exchanges among leaders and followers, the
requirements and conditions for rewards, and agreements between leaders
and followers (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Burns (1978, as cited in Packard, 2003)
was the first to distinguish between transactional and transformational leadership (as cited in Packard, 2003). Transactional leadership is based on rewards
(e.g., a positive performance review) in return for meeting the established conditions (e.g., turn in all of the client data on time; Packard). Transformational
leadership goes beyond the idea that workers are motivated by rewards and
punishments by considering other motivators for effective performance.
These ideas are conveyed through four central principles to transformational leadership, also known as the four I’s. The four I’s of transformational
leadership include idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, individual
consideration, and inspirational motivation (Bass, 1985).
Idealized influence can be thought of as charisma or the leader’s ability
to generate enthusiasm and draw people together around a vision through
self-confidence and emotional appeal (Bass & Avolio, 1997 as cited in
Gellis, 2001). Part of idealized influence includes being a role model and
acting in a way that incites admiration in followers, such as taking responsibility for actions, being passionate about organizational goals, and being
personally involved (Packard, 2003).
A leader can demonstrate intellectual stimulation through creative and
innovative problem solving with team members. The ability to get to know
team members and treat them with respect and concern is key to the concept
of individual consideration (Bass, 1985). It also includes coaching and mentoring. Team leaders need to regularly talk to the members about their goals,
create new opportunities that match members’ goals, and monitor progress.
This may also include knowing the type of leadership that will be most effective with individual members. Some may respond better occasionally to a
transactional style with rewards, while others may work best under leaders
who are highly interpersonal and work more as equals (Packard, 2003).
Finally, inspirational motivation moves team members toward action by
building their confidence levels and generating belief in a cause (Bass, 1985).
This can include drawing members around what the organization will look like
in the future and setting high expectations. Enthusiasm and encouragement are
also important. Transformational leaders might work best by asking questions
to promote motivation, rather than always providing answers (Packard, 2003).
TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND SOCIAL WORK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE
Research on transformational leadership has been limited to only a few
studies in the social service literature (Arches, 1997; Gellis, 2001; Mary,
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 363
2005). Gellis found that transformational leadership factors were positively
related to the willingness of social workers to engage in requested activities,
satisfaction with their leader, and perceptions of leader effectiveness.
Arches found that effective social service supervisors were using principles
of transformational leadership, even if they were not identifying it as such.
Mary surveyed members of The National Network for Social Work Managers
and the Association of Community Organization and Social Administration
(ACOSA). She asked respondents to think of a leader they had worked with
and rate them on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Her
results showed that leaders were generally transformational in nature, and
transformational leadership qualities were correlated with successful leader
outcomes including effectiveness, extra effort, and satisfaction with the
leader. Also, successful leader outcomes were more often associated with
democratically styled organizations.
Transformational leadership has been discussed in some articles and
books related to social service management (Austin & Hopkins, 2004;
Bargal & Schmid, 1989; Fisher, 2005; Lewis et al., 2001). Despite the lack of
empirical evidence, the tenets of transformational leadership are conceptually congruent with many social work principles. Packard (2003) points out
that transformational leadership principles are compatible with social work
principles of valuing individuals and empowerment. Arches’ (1997) description of transformational leadership describes these values: “Transformational
leadership is empowering and participatory as it promotes input into
decision-making, delegation of tasks, and responsibility, and it fosters local
leadership” (p. 114). Further, social work’s emphasis on understanding systems is congruent with transformational leadership. This type of leadership
recognizes organizations as systems and understands that leaders cannot be
studied or considered independent of their organizations. The followers, or
group members, must be part of the process of studying and understanding
leadership styles (Arches). Bargal and Schmid (1989) argued that, “The
model of transformational leadership, whereby followers are motivated
through their exposure to intriguing ideas and intellectual discourse, could
certainly be adopted in human service organizations” (p. 49), especially
those organizations intent on or in need of change.
Learning Organizations
Senge (1990) discusses the idea of the learning organization and the transformative nature of leaders. There are five basic tenets, and the most basic
of these includes systems thinking. Social work is readily adaptable to this
mode of thinking given its focus on systems thinking with clients and their
environments at all levels of practice.
The second principle of the learning organization includes personal
mastery. By personal mastery, Senge (1990) is referring to proficiency and
364 E. A. Fisher
continual learning. These individual characteristics can be connected to the
organization because an effective learning organization includes members
who engage in personal mastery and are able to connect their own personal
learning to organizational learning.
A third component of a learning organization includes identifying and
assessing mental models. These mental models are “deeply ingrained
assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how
we understand the world and how we take action” (Senge, 1990, p. 8). In
social work, an example of a mental model in a public child welfare agency
might include an underlying assumption that clients do not want intervention. These mental models can be identified at both the individual and
organizational levels.
The fourth aspect of a learning organization includes building a shared
vision. This goes beyond the leader’s sole vision. A learning organization
and the leaders in it work hard to build a vision that people can share,
rather than putting forth personal visions or agendas. Dictated visions do
not work (Senge, 1990).
The final assumption in Senge’s (1990) model is team learning.
Teams are working effectively when not only the team is succeeding,
but the individual members also are “growing more rapidly than could
have occurred otherwise” (p. 10). One of the keys to a successful team
effort includes dialogue, which includes identifying and assessing
assumptions, and understanding the natural defenses that occur in team
situations. It goes beyond discussion, which can connote a winner and
loser in the conversation. Just as personal mastery is a building block for
organizational mastery, team learning is a stepping stone for organizational learning.
LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS AND EMPIRICAL SOCIAL WORK MANAGEMENT LITERATURE
Senge’s five principles of a learning organization have been applied to at
least one public social service setting. Carnochan and Austin (2002) conducted an exploratory, qualitative study using interviews of 10 agency
directors to identify challenges to implementing welfare reform and the
values that guided the change process. They then utilized Senge’s principles as a framework to understand their findings. Although the directors
may not have been cognitively aware of it, they were following many of
the principles of moving their agencies towards becoming learning organizations. The authors conclude by noting that even though continual
reflection and learning may be useful in promoting flexibility, they are yet
unsure whether the learning organization model is entirely appropriate for
public agencies. The researchers call for more research on the subject,
especially to evaluate if this model proves to be best for the clients who
are served.
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 365
CONCLUSION
The theories presented in this paper have been empirically tested in the
business management arena, but in most cases need more application and
testing in the social work field. Further research in motivation and
leadership for social work management seems pressing and is highly
recommended.
Given the recommendations and findings that managers are more
effective when working from a theory base, it seems important that social
work managers receive the necessary education to understand models of
motivation and leadership. This paper is one attempt to synthesize some of
the major theories, empirical literature, and implications that may be applicable to social work management and research. Social work administrators
are encouraged to be intentional in their efforts to learn about motivation
and leadership through continued education, practical testing of their practices, and publication of their results.
REFERENCES
Arches, J. L. (1997). Connecting to communities: Transformational leadership from
Africentric and feminist perspectives. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare,
24(4), 113–124.
Austin, M. J., & Hopkins, K. M. (2004). Supervision as collaboration in the human
services: Building a learning culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bargal, D., & Schmid, H. (1989). Recent themes in theory and research on leadership
and their implications for management of the human services. Administration in
Social Work, 13(3/4), 37–54.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York:
The Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through
transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
Carnochan, S., & Austin, M. J. (2002). Implementing welfare reform and guiding
organizational change. Administration in Social Work, 26(1), 61–77.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). The Drucker Foundation self-assessment tool: Participant
workbook. New York: The Drucker Foundation.
Fisher, E.A. (2005). Facing the challenges of outcomes measurement: The role of
transformational leadership. Administration in Social Work, 29(4), 35–49.
Gellis, Z. D. (2001). Social work perceptions of transformational and transactional
leadership in health care. Social Work Research, 25(1), 17–25.
Glisson, C. (1989). The effect of leadership on workers in human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 13(3–4), 99–116.
Hall, J., & Donnell, S. M. (1979). Managerial achievement: The personal side of
behavioral theory. Human Relations, 32(1), 77–101.
366 E. A. Fisher
Hastings, T., & York, R. O. (1985). Worker maturity and supervisory leadership
behavior. Administration in Social Work, 9(4), 37–47.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1972). Management of organizational behavior utilizing human resources (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Herzberg, F. (1962). Work and the nature of man. New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell Co.
Latting, J. K. (1986). Adaptive supervision: A theoretical model for social workers.
Administration in Social Work, 10(1), 15–23.
Latting, J. K. (1991). Eight myths on motivating social services workers: Theorybased perspectives. Administration in Social Work, 15(3), 49–66.
Latting, J. K., Beck, M. H., Slack, K. J., Tetrick, L. E., & Jones, A. P. (2004). Promoting service quality and client adherence to the service plan: The role of top
management’s support for innovation and learning. Administration in Social
Work, 28.
Lazzari, M. (2007). Final report on senior scholar activities related to the CSWE
leadership initiative. Unpublished manuscript. Council on Social Work
Education.
Leader to Leader Institute. (2002). 2002 in review.
Lewis, J. A., Lewis, M. D., Packard, T., & Souflee, F. (2001). Management of human
service programs (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and value. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mary, N. (2005). Transformational leadership in human service organizations.
Administration in Social Work, 29(2), 105–118.
Packard, T. (2003). The supervisor as transformational leader. In M. J. Austin &
K. M. Hopkins (Eds.), Supervision as collaboration in the human services:
Building a learning culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perlmutter, F. D. (2006). Ensuring social work administration. Administration in
Social Work, 30(2), 3–10.
Pearlmutter, S. (1998). Self-efficacy and organizational change leadership. Administration in Social Work, 22(3), 23–38.
Rank, M. G., & Hutchison, W. S. (2000). An analysis of leadership within the social
work profession. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(3), 487–502.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Sheafor, B. (2006, January 2). Leadership development initiative. Unpublished
manuscript. Council on Social Work Education.
Shin, J., & McClomb, G. E. (1998). Top executive leadership and organizational
innovation: An empirical investigation of nonprofit human service organizations (HSOs). Administration in Social Work, 22(3), 1–21.
Sluyter, G. V., & Mukherjee, A. K. (1986). Validation of a job satisfaction instrument
for residential-care employees. Mental Retardation, 24(4), 223–226.
Weinbach, R. W. (1998). The social worker as manager: A practical guide to success.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Weiner, M. E. (1991). Motivating employees to achieve. In R. L. Edwards & J. A.
Yankey (Eds.), Skills for effective human services management (pp. 302–316).
Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Motivation and Leadership in Social Work Administration 367
Wimpfheimer, S. (2004). Leadership and management competencies defined by
practicing social work managers: An overview of standards developed by the
National Network of Social Work Managers. Administration in Social Work,
28(1), 45–61.
York, R. O. (1996). Adherence to situational leadership theory among social workers.
Clinical Supervisor, 14(2), 5–24.