Professionals, Managers and Discretion: Critiquing Street-Level Bureaucracy
Abstract
Social workers are classic street-level bureaucrats. This article provides a critical examination of Michael Lipsky's account of discretion within street-level bureaucracies. While concurring with the main thrust of Lipsky's critique of management control of discretion, I argue that he gives insufficient attention to the role of professionalism in his analysis and the impact this has on the relationship between front line managers and workers and the nature of discretion. I employ a qualitative case study of adult social work within a local authority to illustrate and develop this argument. The study, which draws primarily on interviews with local managers and practitioners, suggests that the professional status of social workers influences both the nature of their discretion and the way in which this is managed. I conclude that Lipksy's work needs to be augmented by an understanding of the role of other perspectives, such as professionalism, in examining manager–worker relations and discretion in the street-level bureaucracies within which social workers practise.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Evans observed that managers had their own set of professional standards and values that were often sympathetic to ground-level workers.
“Evans (2011) also discusses this when studying street-level workers and observed that managers had their own set of professional standards and values that were often sympathetic to ground-level workers.”
From Museums and the ‘new museology’: theory, practice and organisational change (2014) · cites this paper as Evans (2011)
Cites
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Museums and the ‘new museology’: theory, practice and organisational change
McCall, V., & Gray, C. (2014) · Museum Management and Curatorship · doi:10.1080/09647775.2013.869852 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
“Evans (2011) also discusses this when studying street-level workers and observed that managers had their own set of professional standards and values that were often sympathetic to ground-level workers.”
BackgroundAI and the transformation of accountability and discretion in urban governance
Goldsmith, S., & Yang, J. (2026) · Urban Governance · doi:10.1016/j.ugj.2026.02.005 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“Second, managerial pressures for efficiency can conflict with practitioners’ commitment to client-centered service ( Evans, 2011 ; Wang et al., 2022 ).”
Influential
- Authors
- Evans, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Warwick (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Evans, T.
- ORCID
- Evans, T.
- Venue
- British Journal of Social Work
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-06-10
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 368-386
- ISSN
- 0045-3102 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-263X
- OpenAlex
- W2122887428
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 31.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The British Journal of Social Work (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Keywords
- street-level bureaucracy, discretion, Michael Lipsky, professionalism, social workers, adult social work, local government, management control, professional status
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review