Social services agency, occupational well-being and goals attainment in social work Žalimien ė, Laimut ė Vilnius University, Lithuanian Social Research Centre 2 nd Joint World Conference on Social Work and Social Development Action and Impact Stokholm, 2012

Outline of presentation  Methodological frame of the research.  Main factors of occupational well-being (OWB) in state social services agencies.  Pecularities of OWB in state institutions.  Conclusions, implications for practice. H: employees of state (“old fashion”)social services institutions experience less friendly organisational environment than of municipal or private agencies. Research “Occupational well-being of social work practitioners in Lithuania” under support of the Research Council of Lithuania, implementing National Programme “Social Challenges for National Security” (Project No. SIN-02/2011).

Conceptualisation of occupational well-being

Groups of empirical indicators of OWB  Nature of work.  Social guarantees at work.  Stress at work.  Organization of work: functions, workplace, workload, leadership.  Power, control: participating in planning, control strategies, involvement in decision-making.  Organizational support: support of leaders and colleagues, supervision.  Professional growth: career, training, innovations.  Reconciliation family and work.  Professional prestige (to be proud of being a social worker)  General satisfaction at work, happiness at work.

Factors of OWB of different social services agencies SWS agencies Number of factors Explained variation % State772,1 Municipal 949,9% Private 660,6%

Factors of OWB in state social services Names of factors, explaine variations of OWB, % 1. Conditions for professional development, 13,8 2. Support of leaders and colleagues, Material conditions,IT, and reconciliation family and work, Organisational envinronment withoute conflicts, violance, discrimination, Professional identity - to be proud of being a social worker, Stress and burnout (how often suffers from stress, execrate a job), Sense of having state social guarantees and organisational commitment for performing work tasks, 6.1.

Occupational wellbeing in state institutions (1)  Stress at work: 10% suffers stress from disrespect of leaders (in non-state -2-4 %)  Psychological environment in organisation : 45% have mentioned as „well“ (in non state %.  Sharing information: between employees; managers- employees: 50% sad „well“ (in non-state - 70 %).  Employees’ involvement in strategic planning - very rare.  Support of leaders: more rare than in non-state institutions.

Occupational wellbeing in state institutions (2)  Conflicts between employees; between managers-employees: in state institutions twice more often than in non-state.  Culture of control: more frequently are used diverse penalties, requirements for very detailed daily work planning.  Power relationships: 20% have mentioned disrespectful behaviour of leaders towards employees (in non state 2- 5%).  Reconciliation family-work: in state institutions less satisfied.  Professional prestige, loyalty to organization: less are proud to be a SW or part of the organisation.

Eemployees of state institutions experience less friendly organisational environment than of municipal or private agencies:  More often suffer stress from disrespect of leaders.  Work in poorer psychological environment.  Experience more barriers in sharing information.  More often work in destructive environment.  More often experience direct control.  Are more powerless in organisation.  Receive less support of leaders.  Have less possibilities to reconcile family and work.  Are less loyal to organization ad social work profession.

Implications to social policy and administration Employees of state institutions experience less friendly organisational environment (thus, overall OWB). This could be an obstacle to a high quality performance, SW goals attainment (how to empower SW clients). Powerless social workers are not able to empower... What are the ways to change disciplinary culture, hierarchical relationships in state institutions?