competency. Social workers, in adhering to the requirements and standards of the profession will exercise expert power in their work with children, families, groups and communities.
Reward power
This form of power usually, but not always, comes from the ability to get others to do something for you for a fee or some form of reward. In social work, this is usually effective in situations where people engage in behaviour change for some reward – for example, adherence to parenting advice in child welfare or child protection cases to prevent further professional involvement.
Coercive power
This form of power is the opposite of reward power mentioned above, and is more punitive and works with threats and punishment. Using the same example as in reward power are a family who are threatened with the removal of a child for non-compliance with required changes to their parenting.
Legitimate power
This form of power comes from a vested recognition of the title or position of a person, which ultimately promotes trust and respect. It can be argued, however, that this trust and respect is perhaps not directed at the person but rather at the position and title that they occupy. Social work is legitimised by being a profession requiring registration and criminal clearance to practise in many parts of the world.
Informational power
This final and sixth form of power was included much later by Raven (1965) and refers to power which is gained as a result of having information that is needed by others. As a social worker, you will have enormous amounts of power by virtue of what you know (information) and that is why it is important to share information with service users so that they can make informed decisions. Withholding relevant information from service users is not in their best interest and is oppressive.
Modes of power
Although a useful categorisation of power by French and Raven (1959), there appears to be three modes through which power is operationalised. These are personal power, positional power and relational power, which will be discussed below.
By personal power, Smith (2010) is referring to power at a level consistent with identity and the self which manifest in domination of the ‘other’. The concept of ‘otherness’ is examined in more detail in Chapter 2; however, it is important that social workers understand the ways in which power works at a personal level.
The second way in which power is transmitted is through one’s position. Positional power therefore is vested in people in specific roles, job titles and responsibilities. Teachers, social workers, nurses and many other professionals have power vested in their roles. During collaborative, multi-agency work, it is important that you, as a social worker, fully understands that each profession will be using their own positional power as a means to propose interventions for service users and their families. Where there is a clash or disagreement of this power, service users are likely to be disadvantaged through decision making that may not be in their best interests or which may reflect the power struggles among the professionals. This is similar to expert power by French and Raven (1959).
The third mode of power by Smith (2010) is relational power, which is dynamic and fluid rather than fixed. Here, power is understood to be shaped by human interactions that shape every changing relationship.
Sites of power
It is important for social workers to understand how service users, carers and family members respond to a lack of power. Equally, it is vital that social workers acknowledge and reflect on their own use of power when working with the different groups of service users. The uses and abuses of power permeate all professional practice spheres and, as Gardner (2008, p50) stated, power can easily be abused, but exercising power is not intrinsically oppressive.
When we share power with the families and communities we work with, this can result in positive outcomes for all involved. It is, however, important to remember that the misuse of power at all levels (individual, organisational and systems) can impact negatively on the experiences and outcomes for service users.
In the following section, I will discuss the uses and abuses of power in the areas of child safeguarding, mental health and homelessness.
Child safeguarding
Child protection interventions are undertaken within power-laden contexts right from the beginning of social workers’ involvement and intervention, right through to closure and exit from the family. Consider the following telephone discussion between a social worker and a mother.
Case Study
Social worker Good morning, am I speaking to Jane Cornell?
Mother Yes, this is Jane.
Social worker My name is Gracie Loom and I am a Senior Practitioner in the Ellet Child Protection Team.
Mother Uh, hmmm.
Social worker We have received concerns about the safety and welfare of your children and we would like to come out to see you today to discuss these concerns.
Mother Today? I was planning to go and visit my father who is in a care home.
Social worker Well, I think you should rearrange that visit to the care home. This is very important.
Mother Sorry, who did you say shared their concerns?
Social worker We received an anonymous call from a concerned member of the public. Is 2pm this afternoon a good time to come, since the children are on school holidays?
Mother Um, yes.
Social worker OK, see you later. Ensure all children are home when I arrive. I would like to see and speak to them as part of my investigation.
Mother What investigation? You said it was a discussion.
Social worker I would rather not discuss the details over the phone. I will explain when I visit. Goodbye.
Commentary
The telephone discussion above between a social worker and a parent gives us the opportunity to reflect on the power game being played out here. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the social worker sends the message that she holds the power of disclosure – she cannot tell the mother about who made the referral. She then tells her to cancel her appointment to see her father in a care home and then drops the term ‘investigation’ into the conversation, which immediately causes the mother to become anxious. Finally, the social worker cautions the mother to ensure that the children are home when she arrives. This phone discussion is only one example of power displayed at the start of involvement with a family in the area of child protection. The formal investigation, assessment and intervention stages will carry varying levels of use of power by social workers, other professionals and, in some instances, service users and families. For example, Bernard and Greenwood (2019) found that there was a power differential when working with issues of neglect with affluent
