Corrosion beneath the surface? The emotional navigation of managerialist regulation in German welfare organizations

Abstract

Purpose Regarding how the public regulation of human services is perceived within welfare organizations and how the latter cope with it, the role of emotions (as mediators between structure and agency) proves highly relevant while often being hidden beneath the surface. This article shows how a specific approach to such regulation – here: managerialism – may impact on “emotional regimes” at the organizational and individual level, affecting the attainment of organizational goals and workers' health. Design/methodology/approach The article primarily draws on multiple qualitative case studies across two welfare sectors (four organizations) in Germany (continuing education/active inclusion; long-term care). The study research was conducted between 2020 and 2022 and based on 36 interviews with caseworkers and managers, focus group interviews and expert dialogues at industry level. Findings The results suggest that the managerialist regulation of welfare services breeds complex and ambiguous emotional regimes. Business-like management techniques elicit various emotions, affecting the motivational basis of human service work. While the experience of hard challenges may raise positive feelings, coping patterns often put strain on organizations and staff alike. In the short run, related emotional regimes tend to make service delivery proceed smoothly, yet in the long run they may have corrosive effects and problematic repercussions on macro-level developments. Originality/value The study highlights the role of emotions in publicly regulated human service settings by intermingling macro- and micro-level processes and thereby broadens the perspective of welfare state research as it reveals the impact of (managerialist) regulation on the dynamic organizational chemistry of such settings.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.