Suchergebnisse

Characteristics and correlates of higher-order need strength measure B of the Job Diagnostic Survey are examined. In particular, the following issues related to the measure are considered: (a) internal consistency reliability; (b) convergent and discriminant validity; (c) relationships to perceptions of task dimensions and a variety of affective responses; (d) correlations to indices of urbanization of area of socialization and adherence to Protestant Work Ethic ideals; and (e) demographic correlates. Data are considered for 516 employees in five dissimilar samples. Numerous significant relationships are isolated. Suggestions for future research are presented.

Meetings are occasions for the construction of social order between meeting participants. I Identify four pure types of meeting order or style that mix empirically: (1) the managerial style, which relies on the somewhat authoritarian management style of yesteryear, (2) the parliamentary style, with its cumbersome rules safeguarding formal-democratic decision-making, (3) the collective–egalitarian style of community-type meetings where anyone can speak anytime about anything, and (4) the facilitative style, in which a facilitator guides the meeting conversation with a firm hand such that all participants feel included and results are produced. The first three types are well-known and well-worn, while the fourth type, the facilitative style, holds promise for meetings of the future.

This article addresses the importance of rejecting the idea according to which every efficient institution is a consistent result of a centralized political power intentionality. This intentionality could allegedly change the history by means of artificial tools avoiding historical and evolutionary processes of the social order in a particular space and time. Moreover, different ends pursued by actors involved could be even antagonistic among them but, as a whole, they could even be producing harmony and benefits to actors involved although the result may differ with respect to different ends individually pursued. To this purpose some of the main works of the following authors are analyzed: Friedrich. A. Hayek, Michael Polanyi, Mantzavinos, North, and Shariq. Conclusions are presented at the end of the article ; Lo que pretende exponer este artículo tiene que ver con la importancia de descartar la idea de que toda institución eficiente es fruto de la intencionalidad de un poder político centralizado que puede cambiar la historia por medio de herramientas artificiales, desconociendo los procesos históricos y evolutivos del orden social, en un espacio-tiempo determinado. Además, los diferentes fines que persiguen los actores involucrados pueden ser incluso antagónicos entre sí, pero en conjunto pueden llegar a producir armonía y beneficios para los sujetos involucrados, aunque el resultado sea diferente al que buscaban individualmente. Para dicho propósito, se abordan en este artículo los siguientes autores: Friedrich. A. Hayek, Michael Polanyi, Mantzavinos, North & Shariq, entre otros, y al final se presentan unas conclusiones.

The future of strength based social work is both promising and precarious. In this article we seek to capture this uncertain state by sketching the evolution of the strengths approach and offering and offering a brief evaluation of its status today. There are any number of approaches to both theory and practice at present that profess to be strengths-based. It is imperative that we develop stable and concrete criteria for determining whether a given perspective if framework is, in fact, funded by strengths principles and practices. We offer six standards for making such a judgment. We also examine the future of the strengths model. Of course, writing on the future tempts one to make predictions. We have eschewed such folly. Instead, we offer four tasks that we believe would bolster the development of strengths-based social work in the future.

Abstract:The growing discourse on neoliberal ideas and the resulting new public management measures have an immense impact on the management and leadership models employed at social welfare organisations all over the world; and call for a critical theory beyond a deficits approach as an interpretative framework. In response, this article propounds a strengths perspective on supervision of social workers, which is a key element in a social development approach to social practice, and which also finds common ground with supervision in other contexts. The South African welfare context is presented as a best practice vignette of a strengths perspective on supervision employed at a welfare organisation. It is concluded that a strengths perspective has transformational potential; and as a proactive response to neoliberal global and local market demands, compels managers to employ strengths-based interpretative frameworks for assessments and personal development plans of those they supervise in order to develop a facilitative alternative management paradigm.

This paper attempts to unpack strengths-based practice in social welfare in order to reveal the location of social justice within such an approach. Firstly, this paper will briefly explore the origins of a strengths approach, including historical development of the approach, mentioning some specific practice theories. The paper will then investigate the concepts, using Jim Ife's (1998) model of a social justice perspective in community development to achieve this.The two approaches will then be discussed in terms of how they should be used together to support not only positive casework, but effective social action, using the work of UnitingCare Burnside as examples.