Eight myths on motivating social services workers: theory-based perspectives

A combination of factors has made formal motivational and reward systems rare in human service organizations generally and virtually non-existent in social service agencies. The author reviews eight of these myths by reference to eight motivational theories which refute them: need theory, expectancy theory, feedback theory, equity theory, reinforcement theory, cognitive evaluation theory, goal setting theory, and social influence theory. Although most of these theories have been developed and applied in the private sector, relevant research has also been conducted in social service agencies. The author concludes with a summary of guidelines suggested by the eight theories for motivating human service workers.     

A service tracking and referral form to monitor the receipt of services in a case management program

Too often, systematic recording procedures are not developed which describe and assess the delivery of social work--and, more specifically, case management--services. The authors report on the Service Tracking and Referral Form developed by California's Adolescent Family Life Evaluation Project to document the receipt of services by pregnant adolescent clients as a result of case management intervention. The rationale and process underlying the development and use of the project's Service Tracking and Referral Form are discussed. Data are presented to illustrate the kinds of information which can be generated from the form. Finally, the authors discuss the form's utility and the possible uses of these types of data for case management, supervisory, administrative, and evaluative purposes.     

The ranking assumption

This paper is an attempt to raise some general objections to the whole concept of making decisions on teleological principles. Its scope is finally the whole concept of how we rationally decide, on a teleological basis, to do any act at all. However the arguments developed here arise from the recent discussions about one particular species of teleological decision-making - utilitarianism. Therefore, while I hope that the paper has consequences that are important far beyond this one ethical theory, my objections are phrased in terms of direct arguments about utilitarianism. The recent lively debates on this topic make it easy to ask some interesting questions about this sort of goal-oriented theory. However, if my objections are correct, the scope of these questions is much wider than any one utilitarian theory (or cluster of theories) because my objections are about an assumption that is common to all teleological theories and not just to classical utilitarianism.     

The utilitarian contract: A generalization of Rawls' theory of justice

In a series of major papers culminating in A Theory of Justice, John Rawls constructs an alternative to utilitarianism by developing a social contract theory of moral and political philosophy. Unfortunately, Rawls formulates the two basic principles upon which the theory rests in such a way as to restrict (unduly) the contract theory's applicability (see Section I). In this paper we present a more general discussion of the theory of justice that avoids the problems of Rawls' formulation and yet retains the important idea of justice as fairness and the contractarian approach (Section II). Later it is argued that this more general theory constitutes a bridge between the pure utilitarian theories and the social contract doctrines (Sections V and VI). The theory's advantages are demonstrated by applying it to a problem discussed by Rawls, intergenerational equity, and comparing the two solutions (Section III). Further comparisons are made and inferences drawn in the concluding three sections.Without implicating them, we would like to thank James M. Buchanan and David Lyons for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

---

     

Young People's Images of Self and Others

In an analysis of the validity of popular stereotypes of youthful conflict with adult society, based upon surveys carried out in Melbourne, the attitudes of young people are compared with the attitudes which they impute to their friends, parents and teachers. The results indicate that young people are influenced in their estimate of the friends' attitudes by the popular stereotype of young people which may in turn, influence their own attitudes. This interpretation explains the distribution of responses along the conservative-innovative continuum, except in regard to opposition to de-humanization where the respondents are more likely to attribute innovative responses to themselves than to their friends. Most young people perceive their interpersonal environment to be supportive of their own attitudes.