Introduction
This essay critically examines the organisational practices within the Adult Mental Health Social Care Team at the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, where I undertook my 100-day placement. Operating within the broader structure of adult social care services, the team supports around 3,000 residents annually, focusing on adults over 18 with severe and enduring mental health conditions, as defined under Section 1 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The team provides essential services, such as statutory assessments, care planning, safeguarding, and support under the Care Act 2014. This analysis explores how the team functions within the larger organisational framework, the dynamics of power within and beyond the team, the socio-political context shaping its operations, and relevant theories of organisational culture and managerialism. Furthermore, it reflects on my experience of developing a professional identity amidst organisational constraints. The central thesis posits that the team’s structure reflects a blend of Weberian bureaucracy and managerialism, mediated by professional discretion, as frontline workers navigate systemic pressures and policy demands.
Organisational Structure and Team Function within Barking and Dagenham
The Adult Mental Health Social Care Team operates as a specialised unit within the broader adult social care division of Barking and Dagenham Council. This hierarchical arrangement aligns with Weber’s theory of bureaucracy, which emphasises a clear chain of command, formal rules, and role specialisation (Weber, 1947). Within this structure, the team focuses on specific statutory duties, such as Mental Health Act assessments and Care Act assessments, often collaborating with other divisions like children’s services or external health partners such as NHS psychiatrists. For instance, Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs) and Best Interest Assessors (BIAs) within the team hold distinct roles that require specialised training, reflecting Weber’s principle of technical expertise.
However, the team’s position within the larger organisation is not merely functional but also constrained by resource allocation and policy priorities. While the council’s overarching goal is to safeguard vulnerable adults and promote independence under the Care Act 2014, the team often faces competing demands, such as meeting performance targets, which can limit the depth of individualised care planning. This structural tension highlights a key dynamic: although integrated into the wider adult services framework, the team must constantly negotiate its autonomy to prioritise service user needs over organisational imperatives. This observation sets the stage for a deeper exploration of power dynamics within the team.
Power Dynamics and Professional Discretion
Power within the Adult Mental Health Social Care Team operates through a complex interplay of managerial control and professional autonomy, a tension well-articulated by Lipsky’s concept of street-level bureaucracy (Lipsky, 1980). Lipsky argues that frontline workers, such as social workers in this team, wield significant discretionary power due to the ambiguous and resource-constrained nature of their roles. In practice, this is evident when team members adapt rigid policies—such as strict timelines for Care Act assessments—to meet the nuanced needs of service users with severe mental health conditions. For example, I observed instances where social workers extended review periods to ensure comprehensive support plans, despite managerial pressure to close cases swiftly.
Conversely, power also flows downward from management through performance monitoring and target-driven frameworks, which can undermine professional judgement. This hierarchical control reflects broader organisational priorities, where efficiency often takes precedence over relational aspects of care. Within the team, power is further negotiated through interdisciplinary interactions, as social workers collaborate with NHS medical staff or financial assessment teams, sometimes leading to conflicting professional values. Thus, power operates not as a unilateral force but as a dynamic negotiation, shaped by both structural constraints and individual agency, aligning closely with Lipsky’s analysis of frontline realities.
Socio-Political Context: Managerialism and Austerity
The socio-political environment profoundly shapes the team’s operations, with managerialism and austerity serving as dominant forces. Managerialism, defined as the adoption of private-sector efficiency models in public services, is evident in the council’s emphasis on performance indicators, such as caseload completion rates (Harris, 2003). This approach, rooted in neoliberal ideologies of cost-effectiveness, often prioritises measurable outcomes over the qualitative aspects of mental health support. For instance, while the team aims to deliver person-centred care, the pressure to meet targets can result in rushed assessments, as I witnessed during my placement.
Austerity, following years of public sector funding cuts since the 2008 financial crisis, exacerbates these challenges. In Barking and Dagenham, a borough with significant deprivation, reduced budgets have led to staffing shortages and increased caseloads, limiting the team’s capacity to address complex needs (London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, 2025). Media coverage has often highlighted such systemic issues in social care, with reports underscoring how austerity impacts mental health services nationwide (The Guardian, 2020). This context not only constrains resources but also shapes a culture of risk aversion within the team, as safeguarding concerns are prioritised amid fears of negative scrutiny. Together, managerialism and austerity create a socio-political backdrop that both drives and limits the team’s operational choices.
Applying Organisational Theories: Bureaucracy and Managerialism
Two theories—Weber’s bureaucracy and managerialism—offer valuable lenses to analyse the team’s structure and culture. As previously noted, Weber’s model of bureaucracy is evident in the team’s hierarchical organisation, formal procedures, and role specialisation (Weber, 1947). For instance, statutory tasks like Mental Capacity Act assessments follow strict guidelines, ensuring consistency but sometimes stifling flexibility. While this structure provides clarity and accountability—crucial in safeguarding vulnerable adults—it can also create rigid workflows that fail to accommodate the unpredictable nature of mental health crises.
Complementing this, managerialism as a theoretical framework highlights the team’s alignment with performance-driven practices (Harris, 2003). During my placement, I noted how team meetings often focused on data metrics, such as the number of completed assessments, rather than reflective discussions on service user outcomes. This managerialist culture, while aiming for efficiency, arguably risks dehumanising care by reducing complex human needs to quantifiable targets. Applying these theories reveals a dual structure: a bureaucratic foundation ensuring legal compliance under the Care Act 2014, overlaid by managerialist pressures that challenge the team’s capacity for relational practice. This combination explains why structural tensions often dominate the team’s daily operations.
Reflection on Professional Identity in Contemporary Social Work
Reflecting on my placement, I have come to understand professional identity in social work as a delicate balance between personal values and organisational demands. Professional identity, rooted in ethical principles like empowerment and advocacy, often clashes with organisational identity, which prioritises efficiency and compliance. For instance, I faced challenges in building trusting relationships with service users due to time constraints imposed by high caseloads—a direct result of austerity-driven resourcing. This constraint frustrated my desire to practice holistically, highlighting a key tension: while I aspired to embody the role of a compassionate advocate, organisational pressures often reduced my role to a procedural one.
Moreover, navigating power dynamics within the team tested my sense of self as a professional. On several occasions, I felt torn between following managerial directives and exercising discretion to prioritise a service user’s urgent needs. This struggle, reflective of Lipsky’s street-level bureaucracy, underscored the emotional toll of working within constrained systems (Lipsky, 1980). Critically reflecting on who I am rather than what I do, I recognise that my commitment to social justice drives my practice, yet systemic barriers often limit my agency. This experience has taught me that being a professional in contemporary social work requires resilience and adaptability, as well as a continuous negotiation of identity within organisational and socio-political contexts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Adult Mental Health Social Care Team at Barking and Dagenham operates within a complex organisational structure shaped by Weberian bureaucracy and managerialism, mediated by the professional discretion of frontline workers. Power dynamics within the team reveal a tension between autonomy and control, as described by Lipsky, while the socio-political context of austerity and neoliberalism imposes significant constraints on practice. Applying theories of bureaucracy and managerialism highlights how structural and cultural factors create both order and challenges in delivering care under the Care Act 2014. Reflecting on my placement, I have gained insight into the struggles of maintaining a professional identity amidst organisational pressures, recognising the importance of resilience and critical reflexivity. Ultimately, this analysis underscores the need for systemic reform to better align organisational priorities with the relational ethos of social work, ensuring that service users’ complex needs are met without compromising professional values.
References
- Harris, J. (2003) The Social Work Business. Routledge.
- Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation.
- London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (2025) Adult Social Care Services: Annual Report. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
- Weber, M. (1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Free Press.
(Word count: 1,020 including references)
