The logic of relations and the logic of management.
Small, steady direct-support teams can protect warm client relationships from bureaucratic overload.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Buntinx (2008) wrote a position paper about disability services. The paper asked how to keep real, warm relationships when rules and forms pile up.
The author looked at two big ideas: microsystems and quality-of-life frameworks. Microsystems are small, steady teams that serve the same clients every day.
What they found
The paper argues that tiny, stable teams can act like a shield. They keep the heart-to-heart care safe from cold bureaucracy.
When the team stays small, staff know the client’s story. Paperwork still happens, but it no longer drives the relationship.
How this fits with other research
Kelley et al. (2018) extends the same shield idea to hospitals. They say value-based pay opens the door for BCBAs to use OBM tools and keep care human there, too.
Busch et al. (2010) give six performance truths to spot bottlenecks. Their truths line up with W’s call: fix the system, not just the person.
Belisle et al. (2022) speak from the clinical side. They urge BCBAs to treat relational framing as alive and flexible, matching W’s plea to put relationships first.
Why it matters
You can test a microsystem next week. Pick one client, lock in the same three staff for a month, and track relationship quality with simple daily smile or stress ratings. If warmth goes up and paperwork still gets done, you have proof that small teams beat big systems.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Assign the same three staff to one client for the next four weeks and graph daily relationship quality.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing emphasis on financial and administrative control processes is affecting service culture in support organisations for persons with intellectual disability. This phenomenon is currently obvious in Dutch service organisations that find themselves in transition towards more community care and at the same time under pressure from new administrative and funding managerial bureaucracy. As a result, the logic of management is becoming more dominant in direct support settings and risk to overshadow the logic of relationships between staff and clients. METHOD: The article presents a reflection on this phenomenon, starting from a description of service team characteristics as found in the literature. Next, findings about direct support staff (DSS) continuity are summarised from four Dutch studies. Following up these findings, the concept of 'microsystems' is explored as a possible answer to the organisational challenges demonstrated in the studies. RESULTS: Team characteristics, especially team size and membership continuity for DSS, appear relevant factors for assuring supportive relationships and service quality in direct support teams. The structure of the primary support team shows to be of special interest. The organisational concept of 'microsystems' is explored with respect to transcending the present conflict between bureaucratic managerial pressure and the need for supportive relationships. CONCLUSION: Service organisations need to create structural conditions for the efficacy of direct support teams in terms of client relationships and relevant client outcomes. At the same time, the need for administrative and control processes can not be denied. The concept of 'microsystems', application of a Quality of Life framework and the use of new instruments, such as the Supports Intensity Scale, can contribute to an organisational solution for the present conflicting logic of relations and management.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2008 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2008.01067.x