Case Assignment

  

Case Analysis Guide

1.) Describe what is going on by noting:

a. Who are the key actors? What do we know about each of them?

b. What are the key systems involved? What do we know about each?

c. What does the problem seem to be? What are the underlying problems/issues?

d. What are the key sources of tension? What has lead up to this decision moment? What has changed to make this particular moment such a difficult one to negotiate?

2.) Explore the key sources of tension by considering:

a. What roles do different actors play in creating/sustaining a tension? 

i. How can you make sense of these roles? How does an actor’s background, attributes, culture, beliefs, etc., shape his/her perceptions? His/her behaviors? It may help spur your thinking to consider: How might things be different if a male actor were female? If a Black actor were white?

b. What roles do systems play in creating/sustaining a tension (issue/problem)?

i. How can you make sense of these roles? How does a system’s structure, organization, functionality, resources, location, rules, norms, expectations, etc., shape the kinds of experiences the key actors are having?

c. How do interactions among actors and systems relate to a tension?

3.) Assess how additional knowledge and/or theory could deepen your understanding of the key sources of tension, and integrate that additional knowledge:

a. What is known about people with the attributes of the key actors? (e.g. developmental stages, cultural differences, gender differences, life transitions, people experiencing particular types of stressors, etc.) – look for both theories and empirical evidence!

b. What is known about systems like those at the center of this case? (e.g. bureaucratic systems, hierarchical versus flat organizational structures, segregated neighborhoods, the impact of high job stress and low resources on worker productivity, strengths-based versus deficit-based service environments, etc.) – look for both theories and empirical evidence!

c. How does this additional knowledge shape your thinking about the key sources of tension?

4.) Develop a problem formulation that focuses attention on the central tension/issue that must be addressed if the decision-maker is to move things forward in a productive way, while clarifying the key individual and systems factors that are most salient to why/how this issue has come to be.

5.) Develop alternative strategies that the decision-maker could realistically use to address the central issue. Be sure that each strategy begins in the specific moment/situation in which the decision-maker finds him/herself – that is, if the decision-maker is in the midst of a heated argument, do not suggest a strategy that will start tomorrow, assuming that somehow he/she has gotten through the argument. Your strategy will often extend from the current moment into the near future, but you must articulate your strategy for getting from where things are right now, to a point where the key issue has been resolved enough to move forward productively.

6.) Look for evidence to support your strategies – what does the research literature tell us is likely to work? What does theory predict will happen if a particular strategy is selected? What does your own practice experience tell you about the pros and cons of each strategy?

7.) Choose the best strategy, and justify that choice.

Please make sure it is APA style and one thousand words or less.  Please make sure that you list 3 recommendations, which needs to be in numerical order.

The first 2 attachments are Case Analysis examples on how they should be done and the third is the actual case analysis that needs to be written on.

Sample Case Analysis for SOWK 718

1

CONFLICT ON THE HUMAN SERVICES COORDINATION TEAM
Terry A. Wolfer

Introduction

As Director of Field Services for the Human Services Coordination Team (HSCT) of the
State Services Department (SSD), Jerry Feldman supervises Arthur Harris, who he recently
promoted to Northeast Regional Director. In turn, Harris supervises Frances Carpenter, a former
peer and a specialist with the African American community. Feldman, the protagonist, is
meeting with Carpenter and Harris to discuss their conflict on the job.

Problem Statement

Shifting organizational priorities have resulted in some confusion, uncertainty, and
disagreement among HSCT staff. Feldman apparently selected Harris as a new regional director
to implement the new priorities, and this internal promotion and interpersonal differences
between staff members contributed to tensions resulting from the changes.

Contextual Analysis

The rather amorphous mission of HSCT is to promote citizen involvement with and
coordinate services provided by a variety of private and public agencies, including SSD itself.
The mission requires that staff use creativity and initiative in solving problems.

In the past, HSCT worked toward this mission by providing case management services
for individuals, intervening to improve coordination between agencies, and helping agencies
develop their own capacity for coordinating services. Based on Harris’ comments, it appears that
Feldman wants the team to focus more on organizational-level coordination and capacity
development. Nevertheless, their mission will no doubt continue to require a diverse set of
strategies, selected on a case-by-case basis. The case does not identify what efforts Feldman
made to educate and prepare the staff for the shift in strategy, and his response to Harris on this
point is vague. Indeed, it is not clear whether HSCT has job descriptions spelling out the new
staff roles, responsibilities, and intervention methods, and providing a written basis for
evaluation.

The expressed disagreement between Harris and Carpenter suggests that they are not
clear about the shifting priorities and associated strategies. To some extent, the changes seem a
better fit for Harris’ preference for organization-level interventions than Carpenter’s preference
for case-level interventions. But both have demonstrated previous skill in resolving problems
across systems levels. And it is not clear the Feldman is insisting on a complete change of
strategy; there will likely be continued opportunity and need for multiple approaches.

However, the underlying confusion and disagreement between staff members has been
worsened by differences in their cultural backgrounds. As suggested by a diversity perspective,
differences in how one manages stress, interpersonal interactions and methods of communication
in the workplace can create workplace conflict (Thomas & Eli, 2001). Harris is a youthful white
man with military experience and graduate education. In contrast, Carpenter is an African
American woman with children, college education, more work experience than Harris, and seven

Sample Case Analysis for SOWK 718

2

years older than Harris. Furthermore, under the stress of organizational change, these cultural
differences probably undermined their trust for each other.

Because they started at HSCT as peers only 1.5 years ago, the internal promotion likely
caused additional tension in their relationship. Not only was Harris a new and inexperienced
supervisor, he was younger and less experienced and asking Carpenter to adopt strategies with
which she was less comfortable and familiar. Her negative reactions provided severe challenge to
his nascent authority and shook his confidence.

In the midst of this transition, it will be important for Feldman to affirm Harris’
supervisory leadership but without encouraging rigidity and control on his part. If he does not,
this will undermine Harris’ ability to guide the northeast region team, in general, and Carpenter,
in particular. How Feldman handles the conflict between the two staff members will likely
influence their ability to accept and implement the organization’s new strategic priorities and
their future working relationship. He may unintentionally undermine a new supervisor’s
authority or alienate a competent, specialist employee.

Alternative Strategies

Upon returning to the meeting, Feldman has several immediate options for resolving the
underlying confusion and conflict.

1. Feldman could meet with Harris alone to review the preferred goals and strategies for
HSCT and to provide guidance for dealing constructively with Carpenter. Then, Feldman
could allow Harris to meet with Carpenter for supervision and then provide further
guidance as needed. This coaching approach could encourage Harris to assert appropriate
supervisory authority and, more importantly, help Harris to increase his supervisory
skills. However, it may delay resolution of the conflict and risks further alienating
Carpenter, especially because she is at the present meeting.

2. With both Harris and Carpenter, Feldman could explain the shifting organizational
priorities and strategies in an effort to clarify his changing expectations for their work.
This educational strategy could spell out what Feldman thinks needs to be done and how.
On the assumption this has not been sufficiently explicit before, doing so may produce
new understanding of their work (especially for Carpenter) and defuse the interpersonal
conflict. However, this joint approach may undermine Harris’ supervisory authority.

3. Feldman could invite Harris and Carpenter to articulate their individual understandings of
the agency’s mission and preferred strategies, and lead them in a mutual effort to resolve
their misunderstandings of the new approach and of each other. This more collaborative
problem solving approach would both model what Feldman wants them to do with other
agencies and may elicit both substantive contributions and buy-in from the two staff
members. As a result, they may reach a new and different agreement about the agency’s
goals and strategies for working with multiple constituencies. But this approach may take
longer (i.e., multiple sessions) and may end up in a different place than Feldman
intended.

Recommendation and Evaluation

I recommend the third alternative because it represents the most powerful effort to coach
both Harris and Carpenter in collaborative problem-solving and reflects a genuine openness to

Sample Case Analysis for SOWK 718

3

both their contributions. Specifically, it maintains openness to the possibility that Feldman’s
proposed approach for HSCT may not work well with the African American community and it
allows Carpenter to educate Harris and Feldman about that. Further, it affirms Harris’ leadership
without actually taking a side in the conflict.

This strategy would be considered successful if it restored working relationships within
the HSCT itself, helped Harris and Carpenter to grow professionally, and helped them to see past
their personal differences.

Rationale

My recommendation is based on experience with organizational change processes and the
conflict that often results.

Reference

Thomas, D. A., & Eli, R. J. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity

perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly.
Retrieved January 16, 2010, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4035/is_2_46/ai_79829822/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4035/is_2_46/ai_79829822/�

SOWK 718 Case Analysis Example

1

Conflict on the Human Services Coordination Team
Compiled by Melissa Reitmeier and Carl Maas

Summary

This case takes place in a meeting between employees of the Human Services
Coordination Team (HSCT). Jerry Feldman, Director of Field Services, manages the regional
offices. Arthur Harris, is director of the northeast regional office, a position he was recently
promoted to. Frances Carpenter, a caseworker at the northeast regional office, has been with the
unit for 1 ½ years, coming on board the same time as Author. She recently missed two staff
meetings, and “blew up” at Arthur when he confronted her about her absences. Arthur has
documented that Frances resists direction and fails to carry out assignments. At Author’s request,
Jerry is facilitating this meeting to address concerns about Frances.

Problem Statement

The management and direct practice workers view the same issues and the best way to
provide services differently. Francis and Arthur view the issues from separate cultural
perspectives. There are issues regarding staff training, discrimination (e.g. racial and gender),
and an unclear mission.

Contextual Analysis

Internal issues connected to the case include matters relative to both Arthur and Frances.
To begin with, Arthur is seven years younger than Frances, yet he was promoted to a supervisory
level. The promotion raises issues regarding the “glass ceiling” effect in management (Gibelman,
2003).

Another internal issue is education and experience. Arthur has a BA and one year of

graduate work in sociology; however, he has no previous supervisory experience. It is unknown
whether or not he has taken any management classes. His inexperience has contributed to the
difficulties with Frances. Rather than individually confronting her he attempted to use peer
pressure to address her performance. Direct one-to-one verbal reprimands are associated with
more effective communication regarding job expectations and performance (Weinbach, 2003).

Frances does appear to have interpersonal difficulties with everyone in the office. She
frequently gets into arguments and does not follow Arthur’s supervision. Social construction
theory suggests that differences in perception of events by Arthur and Frances may be a root
cause of the current tension (Hutchison, 1999). Arthur and Frances have different definitions of
their jobs, as well as experiences regarding community, racism, and sexism.

External issues relevant to the case are organizational, cultural, ethical, and legal. The

organization operates under bureaucratic management (Weinbach, 2003), with an emphasis on
vertical hierarchy, resulting in a strict division of labor. Frances and Arthur have conflicting
ideas about Frances’ job description which creates tension. Frances appears to see her job as
assisting individuals to access needed and existing services. Arthur sees her job as developing
and coordinating programs that proactively reach greater numbers of people. While Frances is

SOWK 718 Case Analysis Example

2

ensuring immediate access to services, she may be disempowering young mothers by not
providing them with important information and preventative services. In addition, Arthur
perceives that the unit’s performance is a reflection of him. Hence, he attempts to micro-manage
his staff, which Frances resents. Frances may also not fully understand Arthur’s job description.
Regardless, Frances is skirting insubordination by skipping weekly staff meetings, verbally
lashing out at Arthur, and failing to report to work.

Cultural issues also play a role in this case. Frances is tied closely to the African

American community. It affects this case because of her unwillingness to work outside of her
comfort zone with members of other ethnicities. She also believes she knows the community
better than Arthur. Arthur’s culture also plays a key role. Arthur is a white male in a white male
dominated society who doesn’t have to contend with racism. Whites are often oblivious to their
social and economic privileges that result from their racial position (McIntosh, 1988). Research
indicates that differences among people and their unique qualities can improve work
environments and organization effectiveness (Weinbach, 2003).

One ethical issue in the case is Jerry’s duty to provide his staff with appropriate

supervision, continuing education, and staff development. (NASW Code of Ethics, 1996). Jerry
has not provided Arthur with sufficient training or supervision. While Arthur is not a social
worker, it is Jerry’s responsibility to ensure that Arthur is competent in his area of practice,
especially since they work in a human services setting.

There are two important legal issues the case. First, Jerry has to ensure that the team

provides equal employment opportunities (P.L. 88-352, the Civil Rights Act of 1964). It is illegal
to discriminate in the workplace on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or sex, and failure to
comply can result in legal action. The agency must also comply with Public Law 102-166, Title
II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, also known as the “Glass Ceiling Act”. This act addresses
discrimination in promoting women and minorities in public agencies (Gibelman, 2003).

Three Alternative Strategies

One: Jerry could train his staff, specifically supervisory training for Arthur and cultural
diversity/sensitivity training for all employees. By providing the staff with needed information
and skills they could better accomplish the agency’s mission. Disadvantages are the training
costs, including a trainer and lost staff time.

Two: Jerry could transfer either Arthur or Frances to another region. A transfer would

immediately stop the conflict between the two co-workers. The disadvantages are that the
transfer doesn’t address the job descriptions and mission, and is unfair to the transferred staff.

Third: Jerry could meet with Arthur and Frances to review and explain their job

descriptions and his expectations of them. In subsequent meetings, the team would continue
resolve conflicts by clarifying the unit’s mission. The strategy’s advantage is that it aids in
resolving the immediate conflict and also allows Jerry to work at clarifying their job expectations
and the unit’s mission. A disadvantage of this is that it is a long term solution requiring more
time and energy than a transfer or training.

SOWK 718 Case Analysis Example

3

Recommendation and Evaluation Plan

Jerry should employ problem solving and a strengths perspective approach to diffuse staff

conflict and improve staff/unit performance (McMillen, Morris, Sherraden, 2004). Jerry must
work with Arthur and Frances to define their job descriptions (Gambrill, 1997). They have
constructed different perspectives of the work and how it should be evaluated. Once their jobs
are defined, Jerry must work with the unit team to clarify the mission. As senior management,
Jerry should lead this action. He is should set expectations of the unit and its staff (Allison &
Kaye, 2005).

Using the strengths perspective, Jerry should train Arthur on using staff’s strengths, as

well as Author’s own strengths to become a better supervisor. Using a combination of problem
solving and strengths based approaches, Jerry can resolve the current conflict and build the unit’s
and staff’s capacity.

By addressing the conflict using the problem-solving and strengths based perspective,

Jerry can teach the staff conflict resolution skills and increase their work capacity. The approach
addresses confusion about the unit’s mission and goals. In the longer term, further training may
be necessary for Arthur to enhance supervisory skills and for the entire staff to embrace and
respect cultural diversity.

References

Allison, M., & Kaye, J. (2005). Strategic planning for nonprofit organizations: A practical guide

and workbook (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley Press.
Gambrill, E. (1997). A problem-focused model based on critical inquiry. In Social work

practice: A critical thinker’s guide (pp. 96-124). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gibelman, M. (2003). Navigating human service organizations: Essential information for

thriving and surviving in agencies. Chicago: Lyceum Books, Inc.
Hutchison, E. D. (1999). Dimensions of human behavior: Person and environment. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
McIntosh, P. (1995). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see

correspondences through work in women studies. In M. Anderson & P. H. Collins (Eds.),
Race, class and gender: An anthology (2nd ed.) (pp. 76-87). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McMillen, J. C., Morris, L., & Sherraden, M. (2004). Ending social work’s grudge match:
Problems versus strengths. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Services, 85, 317-325.

National Association of Social Workers. (1996). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author.
Weinbach, R. W. (2003). The social worker as manager: A practical guide to success. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.