Uncertainty and (Moral) Decision-Making of Czech Social Workers

Abstract

Summary

Social workers face many uncertainties and challenges in providing quality services to clients. The aim of this study is to analyze what uncertainty is from the perspective of social workers, and how social workers reflect on its presence in their (moral) decision-making. Data collected through an online questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Findings

Conclusions were drawn regarding the diversity of conceptions and evaluations of uncertainty and its forms at the micro (individual), meso (organizational), and macro (supra-organizational) levels that permeate social workers’ moral decision-making and actions.

Applications

We conclude by considering implications for education and practice to prepare students and practitioners for (moral) uncertainty and to develop strategies for coping with it.

Introduction

The understanding and content of social work is always contextualized by society. Contemporary society can be characterized as a risk-posing society of late modernity (Beck, 1992) or liquid modernity (Bauman, 2005), in which individuals are forced to consider what is transitory rather than permanent, immediate rather than long-term, while the responsibility for increasing social uncertainty and risks is individualized. The events of the COVID-19 pandemic confirmed ideas of the changeability of events, and the uncertainty and anxiety of clients and even social workers, when quick decisions were required. Quick decisions are an inherent requirement of social work based on the logic of economic efficiency and profit. Even in a situation where social workers practice social work as a value-oriented profession (Banks, 2021), they experience moral uncertainty caused by value pluralism, and individualization and fragmentation of society (Hugman, 2023). Thus, uncertainty is a widespread phenomenon that can occur in private, professional, organizational, political, social, and other contexts. Despite its importance for moral judgement, decision-making and conduct of social work professionals, the subject of moral uncertainty remains ambiguous and under-researched in social work ethics.

The aim of the study is to analyze what uncertainty is from the perspective of social workers and how social workers reflect on its presence in their (moral) decision-making. The contribution of our study is to deepen insight into how social workers practice their professional agency in the face of multiple uncertainties and challenges of providing quality services to clients. Understanding uncertainty is, therefore, integral to enhancing practice in clients’ complex cases.

Although the research is anchored in the perspective of Czech social workers, the phenomenon of uncertainty is a universal phenomenon of our times, and thus, the research results are beneficial for the international professional community.

Moral Decision-Making and Uncertainty

Multidimensional decision-making is usually presented as a process involving the following steps: identify the problem, consider and evaluate the options, including means, reach a conclusion, implement the action, and evaluate the results. Moral reasoning and decision-making differ from other forms because it is guided by morally relevant values, norms, and knowledge. Although an individual value system consists of a unique combination of socially recognized values, the so-called protected, sacred values—embedded in a deep conviction, beliefs (and faith) of the individual—have a specific place in it. Sacred values are treated as having transcendental significance (e.g., human life as a protected value). They are not a subject of trade-offs for other values. They are applied regardless of the consequences, so they are absolute in this sense (Baron, 2017). The clash of values is often the reason for moral uncertainty (Makins, 2021).

There is a growing volume of philosophical literature on what moral uncertainty is and how to deal with it, for example, Lockhart (2000), who considers moral uncertainty as a doubt or lack of confidence or clarity regarding one's moral judgement of a certain act.

Moral uncertainty can occur at any stage of moral decision-making: when defining a moral problem due to a lack of moral sensitivity and attentiveness or because of stress, when defining a moral goal due to unclear consequences, when evaluating facts from a moral point of view, when evaluating options and means due to a lack of information or ignorance of basic empirical facts, or due to normative conflicts as well as a lack of skill in applying one's moral views to a particular situation (Eriksson & Francén Olinder, 2016), or uncertainty regarding ethical arguments, and so on. In this context, Theisen and German (2024) claim that moral uncertainty may involve empirical uncertainty or normative uncertainty.

Moral uncertainty can vary depending on a wide range of moral scenarios that are underpinned by different ethical theories and approaches, for example, the moral virtues of a decision-maker (virtue ethics), the adherence to norms by an autonomous or heteronomous moral individual (deontology), or the consequences of moral action (utilitarianism), and so on. An individual may, without realizing it, incline towards one of the above approaches and apply it in one's decision-making.

Although uncertainty is an inevitable aspect of social work, insufficient research exists about the way it affects practitioners. In previous years, the topic of uncertainty in (moral) decision-making has not been a focus of attention by social work theorists and/or uncertainty has been conceptualized primarily negatively—“unsurpassable uncertainty where everything is alienating, hopeless and ambiguous” (Parton, 2003, p. 8)—as a phenomenon that threatens moral decision-making and conduct both in terms of setting goals and anticipating possible consequences. A similar approach can be encountered in the contemporary literature, for example, Morley (2022). Texts emphasizing the importance and value of uncertainty as a positive opportunity for creativity, innovation, and flexibility were rather sporadic (Fook, 2013; Taylor & White, 2006). We consider the events of the COVID-19 pandemic as a certain turning point, when uncertainty and unpredictability in their exacerbated form became part of everyday professional life. The theme of preparing for decision-making and acting in a context of uncertainty and unpredictability has been raised. Despite the rich literature on the development of moral decision-making skills (Banks, 2021; Barsky, 2019; Clark, 2011; Clifford & Burke, 2009; Congress, 2000; Reamer, 2006; etc.), the topic of uncertainty in moral decision-making tends to be neglected or appears implicitly within other topics, such as moral distress (Fantus et al., 2017; Strom-Gottfried, 2019), and so on.

Given that we advocate for a relational perspective on (moral) decision-making and action, which focuses on “the networks of relations and interdependencies … in which interactants and their joint actions are embedded” (Burkitt, 2016, p. 323), we will focus on individual, contextual and situational forms of uncertainty in (moral) decision-making of social workers. There are no independent social workers in Czechia. All are employees of different types of organizations.

Methodology

The submitted research aimed to understand what uncertainty is from the perspective of social workers is and how social workers reflect on its presence in their (moral) decision-making. The research was part of more extensive research, which aimed to understand the normative and situational aspects of moral decision-making of Czech social workers and to identify areas for skill development. The initial research was carried out using a mix of quantitative and qualitative research strategies that allowed the attainment of deeper insight and increased its validity. The first step of initial research involved data collection provided through online survey responses consisting of 12 fixed-choice and eight open-ended questions about participants’ experiences using ethical codes and decision-making, and six questions on their characteristics (n = 96 respondents). The research target group was practitioners working with families, because this is a group: (i) that works with a universal social work target group and (ii) that may be most affected by the possible insecurity and uncertainty resulting from working with minors as the most vulnerable clients, who are meanwhile the most protected by laws and regulations. The average length of respondents’ experience was 8 years.

The second step of research employed one-on-one interviews with 10 interviewees, followed by an in-depth focus group involving five participants. The selected participants followed the criteria of: (i) active practice; (ii) minimum 12-month experience in social work with families; and (iii) voluntary involvement in research. The interviewees represented different positions in 10 organizations from four administrative regions. The semi-structured interviews lasted ∼45 min; the thematic framework included questions on personal and professional values, descriptions of work situations in which decision-making is required, uncertainty in such situations, reflection on the everyday actions of the participants, ways in which social workers identify the right decision, and finally their ability to reflect on morals values and norms. The focus group was semi-structured with questions based on inductive thematic analysis of an open-ended online survey, interview questions and findings from quantitative data. The length of the focus group was over 90 min. The interviews and focus group discussions were recorded and then literally transcribed.

The submitted research conducted thematic analysis as a process for identifying patterns or themes from data collected in open-ended questions of online survey [SR], interviews [P#], and focus group [FG] content (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Braun and Clarke (2019, p. 81) noted that “the philosophical underpinnings of thematic analysis are crucial, and that different philosophical and theoretical approaches to knowledge construction can lead to different procedures for conducting thematic analysis.” Our thematic analysis was developed from a constructivist perspective, which focuses on the participant's subjective interpretation of meanings and how they are constructed.

To ensure the reliability of the results, the analysis followed principles of methodological integrity in qualitative research. Priority was given to participants’ data over researchers’ theoretical assumptions, which were used only in later interpretation. To mitigate respondents’ perspectivism and social desirability bias, repeated questioning and a focus group as a validation interview were used. Researchers also addressed their own perspectivism through independent coding, cyclical reflection (Bradbury-Jones, 2007), and multiple readings of interview transcripts. Data interpretation was co-constructed and grounded in consensus, ensuring attention to detail and fidelity to participants’ meanings. This research complies with the ethical principles of the American Psychological Association (2017).

Data Analysis

As a result of the six-step thematic analysis, three themes involving subthemes were identified:

uncertainty at the individual level [uncertainty of beginners, uncertainty as a tension of personal and professional moral identity, in the strategies of moral decision-making];

uncertainty of the organizational environment [i.e., in the context of (i) networks of interpersonal relations and interdependencies and (ii) structural context, routine practices, defining duties and roles related to the responsibility; and

uncertainty of the supra-organizational environment [(i) understanding of profession, (ii) social uncertainty involving socio-economic and political dimensions]. The different forms of uncertainty are dynamic and intertwined.

The issue of (moral) uncertainty was described in varying, often ambivalent meanings, encompassing neutral, negative and positive interpretations. The origins of these meanings, though experienced as exclusively personal, can be found in the socio-cultural and political dimensions.

Uncertainty at the Individual Level

The theme of uncertainty, although not the main theme of the participants’ narratives, was a recurring one. It emerged as a reflection of the changing state of professional uncertainty over time. “As I was … the first year, … I would say that the uncertainty was … how to do the job correctly …” (P6). “Only after school … I started learning and understand what my work is about” (P10). Uncertainty is understood here as a lack of practical experience and skills to apply knowledge and one's moral views to a specific situation. Participants seemed to argue for practice validity rather than mere academic legitimacy as a touchstone of knowledge useful in practice. While participants described their initial (moral) uncertainty—“how to do the job correctly”—as a value-neutral phenomenon from their current perspective, these statements revealed a hidden tension in the relationship between knowledge and skills acquired prior to “entering the field” and those resulting from field experience.

The character, conscience—“Personally, I have my professional awareness and conscience” (P4)—personal understanding of right and wrong, attitudes, and (un)conscious biases and stereotypes of the decision-maker give rise to moral choices and actions. In the opinion of the group of participants, their own personality, for example, faith, values, moral principles, and lived experience becomes a part of their professional identity—“My code of ethics, which is largely in line with the work code, is based on my Christian faith” (P2, SR)—and vice versa, professional experience and internalized professional values become a part of their moral identity symbolically represented in their everyday agency. “I identify with it [JP—code] … as a set of internalised rules and beliefs … they are simply already a part of me” (SR). The theme of uncertainty emerged in cases of the difference between personal and professional sets of values and norms as an internal dilemma. Uncertainty as value conflicts usually occurred in moral dilemmas (Robinson & Steele, 2022). Statement “I mean … the topic of abortion I would provide, but the mission of the organisation is different. I hesitated … So, after consultation, I ended up not recommending it” (SR) is an example of the tension between the principle of freedom of choice as a prerequisite for moral decision-making and the sacred value of human life in Christianity. The other case is the conflict of social work values, for example, “self-determination” and “goodness” for the client: “We have to let the client make decisions even in situations where we are not sure that the client has the competence to make decisions” (SR).

Social workers described different strategies of moral decision-making and conduct corresponding to: (i) ethics of virtue (“… my professional awareness and conscience …” (P4)); (ii) deontological approach, for example, making decisions according to the codes of ethics (“I always try to follow the code of ethics and when I have a dilemma I discuss it with my supervisor” (SR)) and to the procedures of organization as a crucial, often mentioned factor (“my decisions are primarily influenced by the practices of the agency I work for” (SR)); and (iii) teleological approach (goals and their consequences), for example, “the client should always come first, under all circumstances, not the interests of the public or the institution” or contrary “correctness for the employing organisation” (FG) and “acceptance by management” (SR).

The strategies were associated with diverse forms of uncertainty arising, for example, from the lack of information or from ignoring of empirical facts: “the fact that I have to look up everything myself, I don’t get this information from my employer even in training, as I am not sent to such topics. At the same time, however, I do not have the time, due to my work obligations, to independently look up information to the extent that would be necessary” (SR); from insufficient knowledge of codes and manuals (“Who hesitates about principles … must make do with an informal consultation within the department” (SR)); or from insufficient skills to apply one's moral views to a specific situation or ethical arguments (“Sometimes I hesitate … how to do it [persuade the client-JP]” (FG). Uncertainty about an individual's ability to meet relevant moral obligations causes moral stress that makes moral decision-making difficult. Moral stress may result in decreased moral awareness (Reynolds et al., 2012). There have also been narratives demonstrating a lack of moral sensitivity and attentiveness among social workers who were uncertain about how to evaluate facts from a moral perspective.

The group of practitioners perceiving uncertainty as a positive element of moral decision-making requires special attention: “the basic error is too much certainty, the absence of reflexivity” (P6), that is, reflexivity and uncertainty are interconnected. Uncertainty in thinking and reasoning is crucial in allowing professionals to engage with the complexities of practice (Heron & Black, 2023). “I reflect on the course of the day and my decisions, whether I made the right decision and what a different decision would mean” (P2). “I was aware of my personal biases and tried to keep them from unduly influencing the outcome” (P4). An individual's self-critical approach (D’Cruz et al., 2007) and reflection on “the right decision” correspond to the ability to recognize the moral content of the problem as a key function in moral decision-making. Moral sensitivity, creating new interpretations of specific decision-making scenarios to consider the participants’ perspectives and to resolve possible conflicts of values, are the hallmarks of moral imagination (Caldwell & Moberg, 2007). Moral imagination is connected with the cyclic, nonlinear, iterative character of decision-making (Clark, 2011).

Participants’ narratives revealed their practice wisdom: “It's necessary to search for different views, doubt right solutions and learn through it” (P1). Practice wisdom was seen as a process of continuous creation and transformation of knowledge and values through reflection on direct practical experience.

In their narratives, the participants reflected not only on the personality of the social worker, their values, knowledge and experience, but also on the structures and processes that surround them. The interplay between these strongly influences the way moral decisions are made and how uncertainty is experienced.

Uncertainty of the Organizational Environment

In our analysis, this theme involved two subthemes: (a) networks of interpersonal relations and interdependencies; and (b) structural context, primarily rules, routine practices, defining duties, and roles related to responsibility. As mentioned above, the meaning of uncertainty includes both positive and negative connotations.

One of the key actors entering the social workers’ moral decision-making was their clients, colleagues, and managers, that is, moral decision-making assumes a self-and-others relational basis. The theme of uncertainty appeared in several codes: (i) the ambiguity of the perception of the client's, colleague's or manager's personality; (ii) the associated responsibility of both the social worker and/or the client for decisions; (iii) the diversity of clients’ life situations and the awareness of the limited factual insight into the situation; (iv) the limited applicability of general rules, including codes of ethics and established procedures, to each specific case; as well as (v) the clarity/ambiguity in the delineation of responsibilities; (vi) the limited possibilities to influence the client's situation; and (vii) the ambiguity associated with the possibility to predict and influence the decision-making consequences in a constantly changing social reality.

The statement “the client should always come first, under all circumstances” (SR) corresponded both to consequentialist and deontological approaches in the social workers’ moral decision-making and practice. The client was conceived as the target value of the work effort, the meaningfulness and correctness of which was measured by the consequences for the client, which corresponds to the requirements of the Minimum Standard of Education in Social Work (2021) and the Code of Ethics for Social Workers of the Czech Republic (2006). The image of the client as a partner in moral decision-making was reflected: “My own code of ethics is based on truth, a partnership approach to the client, respect” (SR). But in the statement “I don’t understand this connection [JP—factors that influence social workers’ decision-making] … I don’t make decisions, I’m the client's guide, I try to activate the client, but I don’t make decisions in their affairs” (SR), the client-professional relationship was not considered as dialogical, that is, “relationship between the two partners engaging in … a joint decision which is based upon mutual trust” (Árnason, 2000, p. 17), which reinforces the uncertainty in the social worker's anticipation of the consequences of client's decision-making.

And the ambiguity in the perception of the client's personality introduced a moment of negative uncertainty in the (moral) decision-making of social workers. Was the moral obligation to the client the same if the interviewees narrated that “we have to fight … to defend the client's rights” (P3) as opposed to the statement “he [a client—JP] keeps lying and breaking our agreements” (FG)? A negative attitude toward another that was caused by doubt, distrust, and ambiguity about the other person's moral judgment and actions indicated moral uncertainty [cf. Lockhart's (2000) principle that we should perform actions that we are maximally certain are morally permissible].

Similarly, the aforementioned self-and-others relational basis included colleagues, who were associated with both a negative form (e.g., cases of ambiguity in the perception of a colleague's personality, hostile workplace relations, and an atmosphere of mistrust) and a positive form of moral insecurity: “A ten-minute consultation with my colleague is more than 5 hours of supervision” (SR). It was in responding to colleagues’ questions that practitioners experienced uncertainty, prompting them to re-analyze the case and to overcome possible limits to their thinking and decision-making (Heron & Black, 2023). Interpersonal relations occurred as either supportive or hindering factors influencing moral decision-making (Resende et al., 2024).

“Depending on the case, decision-making in the area of ethical problems is further influenced by institutional and systemic contexts and barriers” (SR). A frequently cited cause of moral uncertainty in decision-making was the awareness of the diversity of clients’ life situations and the limited or ambiguous factual insight into the situation. Participants developed the topic of ambiguity associated with the possibility to predict and influence the decision-making consequences in a constantly changing social reality. They reported a high-pressure, time-limited environment: “Every case is different … sometimes I have to study [JP—case, literature] … I can’t keep up at work …” (P5) as typical for their organizations. Others pointed to ignorance of basic empirical facts withheld by the client, or lack of information, lack of time to think—“overload of social workers leads to routinisation of tasks and decision-making” (SR)—and dealing with complex situations they encountered. Although moral uncertainty varied at the individual level, most participants shared the view that uncertainty about empirical facts tends to reduce the certainty of moral decision-making (cf. Theisen & German, 2024).

In their narratives, some participants pointed out that established procedures, normative documents (including codes and manuals) were not sufficient to address the different life situations of clients. The richness of practice became an incentive for uncertainty. And uncertainty gave rise to different individual strategies of moral decision-making and action that were developed in a particular organizational setting. In the organizational environment oriented towards performance and optimization of task-solving procedures, the uncertainty induced by the lack of elaboration of procedures—not covering the full richness of practice—led to demands for their elaboration rather than to the development of employees’ decision-making skills leading to their greater autonomy and independence. The request for refinement of the manuals came from both managers and social workers themselves, who, due to the established practice of the organization, lacked experience with autonomous decision-making by staff. Another group of participants, on the other hand, pointed to the overload of various manuals—“jungle of regulations,” the limiting role of various regulations, including codes of ethics: “They cannot be followed in all situations. I take an individual approach” (P4). They defended their professional autonomy, knowledge and prior experience activated by the situational context. Some of them experienced the insecurity associated with the non-recognition of their role as autonomous decision-makers. For others, uncertainty was seen as a challenge.

In analyzing and interpreting data related to uncertainty associated with the clarity and ambiguity of responsibilities, we identified several ideal types of relationships between social workers’ opportunities for moral action (with moral autonomy as a key criterion) and the (non)supportive environment for the exercise and development of moral decision-making skills, including skills for managing uncertainty: (a) an organizational environment that supported moral decision-making and practitioners’ moral autonomy, for whom ethics became “everyday ethics” (Banks, 2016); (b) organizational environments characterized by declared systems of regulations, including codes, but which did not facilitate for social workers’ moral action, with threats to autonomy as a criterion; (c) organizations characterized by “forgotten ethics” and the absence of systems for developing social workers’ moral decision-making skills, as well as a disconnection from professional values. Each type presented a particular understanding of social work professionalism at the organizational level. Within each ideal type, we identified additional features:

Organizational System Supporting Moral Autonomy: An organizational system of ethics that operated as a facilitator of moral behavior, encouraging individuals to act morally and to align their own professional identity with a professional moral identity: “Ethics is actually intertwined here not only with our service, but with the overall concept [organisation X]” (P7). “My superior does not interfere with my decision-making and work procedures” (SR). The ethically based organizational culture provided information on what should be considered good or bad, right or wrong, and facilitated social workers in how implement core professional values, with all the ambivalence of their meanings in specific contexts, for example, through supervision, discussion, formal and informal training explicitly reflecting the moral dimension of professional conduct. “There is a supportive system of supervision and training in my job … procedures are reviewed in line with the values and code” (SR). Participants presented a “positive error culture” (Munro, 2019), which aims to improve decision-making by framing mistakes as opportunities for learning rather than blame: “So, I’m open to the opinions of others, if someone comes up with the idea that it should have been different, then usually the defensive phase starts there first (laughs), but then, yeah …” (P2) or “I accept learning from mistakes” (P3). In this way, the organization contributed to the building of autonomous moral identities of the practitioners, for whom ethics is embodied in everyday practice. Practitioners were considered mature enough to recognize moral problem sensitively, initiate a process of abstraction, activate their moral imagination and practice wisdom, and interconnect theory with practice through critical self-reflection (Banks, 2016). Uncertainty arising from clients’ changing situations and the variable context of moral decision-making was transformed into positive uncertainty, increasing ethical sensitivity and attentiveness of practitioners, and inspiring reflective practice.

Organizational Environment With Declared Regulations: An organizational environment, particularly one characterized by a formally declared system of regulations, including ethical codes, did not facilitate autonomous moral behavior of employees: “The management, in accordance with applicable legislation and the code of ethics, decides how to proceed in a given case …” (SR). Although relationships between practitioners and managers varied across organizations, such an approach may pose the risk that managerialism will have a widespread impact on social service organizations. In this context, ethics may be reduced to a tool of employees’ regulation and control. Pratchett (2000) identifies this as a fundamental moral problem. The institutionalization of moral decision-making may, in principle, be interpreted as an immoral phenomenon, as organizations that provide ethical framework for employees’ conduct may simultaneously “exempt them from moral and ethical responsibility for their behaviour” (Pratchett, 2000, p. 123). In such organizational environments, uncertainty cannot be experienced as a stimulus for the development of morally autonomous and reflective professionals.

Organizations with Forgotten Ethics: Organizations characterized by “forgotten ethics” were marked by the absence of systems for developing social workers’ moral decision-making skills, for example, “the employer does not deal with the issue [JP—means code of ethics] very much. He focuses his attention more on operational matters” (SR). In these organizations, practitioners encountered a disconnect in professional values, for example, “On the contrary, we must fight with our management to defend the rights of our clients” (P3), that is, the client was considered a protected value at the individual professional level, despite an unfavorable organizational environment. Pressure on performance, individualized social work, financial and existential insecurity of social services—“I felt there were few opportunities in the field of social work practice to advocate for e.g., social change, to be openly critical of social arrangements, and to strive for social justice, as these activities could be potentially threatening” (SR)—prevailed. In the organizations stressing the importance of measurable outputs, targets, and cost-effectiveness, socio-structural factors operated as impediments to moral behavior. Under managerial pressure to reduce expenses—“economic pressures i.e., no money, we won’t do it, etc.”; “We do not use supervision or other options for consultation due to the lack of funds,” “not taking care of finances every year—to meet the client's needs” (SR)—social workers developed strategies such as rapid intervention, shortcuts in complex processes and routinization (Timor-Shlevin & Benjamin, 2021). Their moral uncertainty was linked to limited possibilities to influence clients’ situations and to anticipate the consequences of decision-making. This output measurement generated significant anxiety and unwanted uncertainty, despite the presence of numerous guidelines, norms, and regulations aimed at increasing effectiveness. Clearly, environments characterized by forgotten ethics posed a serious challenge to professionals’ moral autonomy and deepened their moral uncertainty.

Uncertainty of the Supra-Organizational Environment

Reflection on supra-organizational framework that caused uncertainty and interfered with moral decision-making was represented by opinions pointing to the lack of funds in the social sector, conflicting legislation—“Legislation is more against aid” (SR) or “Social work is insufficiently covered by legislation” (SR)—the inactivity or different internal procedures of interconnected organizations (“organisations we network with … every office has its own unwritten standards …”), political tensions and new social challenges: “There are new phenomena and dilemmas where we have to think about whether we are violating the code in our practice” (P3). The interviewees could also respond to the status of the National Code of Ethics (2006), which predates the Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles (2018) and does not yet reflect more recent trends: a shift from the concept of social work focused on working with the individual to the collective responsibility for rights, focus on macro-level inequalities and social workers’ roles in addressing structural issues (Nečasová, 2020).

The participants reflected on the very concept of social work and its role in society: “Low awareness, generally low status of social work, many people and social workers themselves take the field of social work unprofessionally … with low … expectations, still like some kind of philanthropy, charity where you have to follow your heart or desire to help” (P1). The interviewees pointed to the danger of reducing social work to “individualised social work, without understanding its structural context” (P3). Czech social work has accepted the care management way of working, including the tendency to reduce the role of the social worker to individual client care manager (Musil, 2010). “Limited competence of social workers on the labour market as a result of insufficient qualification training, and personal prerequisites as critical thinking, self-reflection, and conscience, commitment, and maturity” (SR), were seen as possible reasons of social work undervaluation and professional uncertainty.

At the same time, the uncertainty resulting from the ambiguous understanding of professionalism also contained positive elements related to defining the ideal of the profession: “Social work is working with people—not focusing on performance and bureaucracy” (SR). “It is about values of humanity, equality, and justice” (SR). For some interviewees, uncertainty was seen as a necessary part of their professional life: “the basic mistake is too much certainty, lack of reflexivity” (P6), because in a pluralistic society there can never be such a thing as completely standardized and uniform moral behavior of a social worker. In a process-oriented way of viewing ethics, the morally autonomous individual assumes all responsibility and is thus exposed to the pitfalls and challenges of uncertainty. Critical voices (e.g., the lack of funds in social sector, conflicting legislation, etc.) revealed the role of some social workers as possible policy actors who made policy choices instead of merely implementing policy (van der Tier et al., 2022).

Discussion of Findings

According to our findings, moral uncertainty links to complex issues and therefore requires a broad contextualized understanding. Although the perception of uncertainty stems from the individual's experience, its meanings are constructed in specific interpersonal, organizational, and broader socio-cultural contexts. Therefore, we draw conclusions about various forms of uncertainty at the micro, meso and macro levels that permeate the moral decision-making and actions of social workers. The issue of moral uncertainty was mentioned in different meanings, balanced with neutral, negative, and positive valence.

The uncertainty associated with the beginning of individual practice was perceived as a neutral memory. The beginning of a professional career was linked to the embodiment of the professional habitus, which, in the opinion of participants, often consisted of stereotyping and routinization of decisions and actions. An essential factor of habitus formation—leading to the development of different (moral) decision-making strategies (e.g., stereotyping)—is the organizational environment (Stewart & Fielding, 2021).

The seemingly neutral description of initial moral uncertainty—“how to do the job correctly,” that is, uncertainty caused by a lack of practical experience and skills to apply knowledge and one's moral views to a specific situation—revealed a hidden and unconscious tension in the relationship between knowledge and skills acquired prior to “entering the field” and knowledge and skills resulting from field practice. Notwithstanding, decision-making skills, knowledge, and the ability to apply the Code of Ethics (Code of Ethics of the Society of Social Workers in Czechia, 2006) are integral to the Minimum Standard shared by the National Association of Social Work Educators – NASWE-CZ. The tension between theory and practice as a source of uncertainty was presented by the participants in the context of reflecting on their “own way of working,” which was primarily related to their field experience and its reflection, that is, their understanding of social work was based on practice and rooted in their own “little theories” about partial aspects of social work developed through inductive generalization of field experience. The limitations of this approach, when the experiences are seen as something “more than theory” (SR)—including ethical theories and codes—may be indicative of intrinsic tensions concerning the deprofessionalization of social work (Echegaray, 2018).

In the opinion of participants, uncertainty was mostly viewed as negative, at the individual level connected with a self-and-others relational basis. It was related to fundamental moral uncertainty, that is, uncertainty about what is morally good or morally right (Robinson & Steele, 2022), and to value conflicts between personal and professional sets of values and norms that usually occurred in moral dilemmas (Makins, 2021). Social workers described different strategies for moral decision-making and action, with an emphasis on different forms of empirical and normative moral uncertainty (Theisen & German, 2024). There have also been narratives demonstrating a lack of moral sensitivity and attentiveness among social workers who were uncertain about the identification of moral problems and the evaluation of facts from the perspective of morality. Some participants presented low levels of expressing moral uncertainty in difficult and complex client cases, which is problematic as it reflects limitations in the thoughts and actions of professionals (Heron & Black, 2023). Uncertainty was also experienced because of interpersonal problems and conflicts, caused by ambiguous perceptions of the other's personality, conflicting personal values and an atmosphere of mistrust (De Cremer & Moore, 2020; Resende et al., 2024; etc.).

The negatively perceived organizational context of uncertainty was related to the tension between organizational values, demands, and responsibilities, on the one hand, and substantive aspects of social work on the other (Morley, 2022), workload and pressure to make quick decisions according to guidelines, that is, applying mainly linear, analytical-rational procedures, stress (Reynolds et al., 2012), lack of time to reflect on the specific client situation, the absence of a system for building social workers’ moral decision-making skills and strategies for coping with different forms of uncertainty, and the unstable financial situation of organizations. In cases of uncertainty caused by ambiguous situations, facts and criteria, social workers also referred to heuristic, intuitive decision-making procedures—“I just feel it and I know it's right”—even though a principle-based approach, that is, analytical reasoning, was dominant in their narratives. Intuitive decision-making can be compromised by personal biases and the limits of individual professional experience (Croskerry, 2009).

Some participants described the organizational environment that declared a system of regulations (including codes) but did not facilitate social workers’ moral action nor support their development as autonomous moral professionals. Moreover, there were organizations characterized by “forgotten ethics” and the absence of systems to develop social workers’ moral decision-making skills, and by a disconnect of professional values. As Fantus et al. (2017) and Strom-Gottfried (2019) point out, when exacerbated, the conflict between personal, professional, and organizational values can result in moral distress as an experience that threatens personal integrity. Moral stress impacts moral awareness by decreasing the individual's ability to recognize the moral aspects of the situation (Reynolds et al., 2012). Socio-economic and political uncertainty, that is, the supra-organizational context interfering with moral decision-making, was also described negatively. In the narratives of social workers, the feeling of not being very much in control of their professional present was presented, and therefore, they experienced uncertainty caused by, for example, restructuring of the welfare state and reduction of social security (cf. Wills, 2019, p. 378: “Austerity strips back the ethical decision-making of social workers and agencies, increasingly monetising the value of care …. Decision-making has become a changing comparative, cynical calculation”), including the risk of unemployment, oppression, and experiences of violence (Lucas Casanova et al., 2019).

Some participants reported using both self-study and consultation with colleagues or supervision to manage uncertainty. However, as participants mentioned above, interpersonal relationships, supervision opportunities and opportunities to participate in further education—such as those offered by the NASWE-CZ and other educational institutions (cf. according to the Social Services Act, the employer is obliged to provide social workers with further training of at least 48 hr over two consecutive calendar years as part of their professional development)—are significantly influenced by organizational culture and the objective, primarily financial, capabilities of organizations.

In the interpretation of research findings, special attention was paid to positively perceived moral uncertainty. At the individual level, that is, “uncertainty as a challenge for growth” (P1), uncertainty was seen as taking a stance of informed not-knowing; as a source of moral imagination (Caldwell & Moberg, 2007; Clark, 2011); and as a part of practice wisdom and reflective practice (D’Cruz et al., 2007). In the opinion of Taylor and White (2006), social workers need to “stay uncertain for longer” to more fully consider the evidence and ensure that alternative options are considered. The interviewees emphasized the importance of an individual's moral virtues, experience, and situational context as the main factors in moral decision-making. A virtue-based approach opens up space for partial positioning of the social worker and tends to be more specific, contextual, and relationship-oriented, especially in terms of acting in ways that meet clients’ needs. A group of participants shared the opinion that, in the context of the uncertain and unpredictable nature of society, ethics cannot be legislated, and instead must be based on “spontaneous moral impulses and … individual responsibility for the Other” (Bauman, 1994, p. 44). Such an understanding requires an iterative search and dialogue to reconcile the particularities of the case with evolving (sometimes competing) moral values and imperatives, that is, conceptual frameworks used to identify and analyze moral problems. In a process-oriented way of viewing ethics, the morally autonomous individual assumes all responsibility and is thus exposed to the challenges of uncertainty.

At the organizational level, uncertainty was seen as a challenge for building a professional environment of autonomous moral practitioners for whom ethics is embedded and embodied in everyday practice and becomes “everyday ethics.” We consider the concepts of humanistic management (Dierksmeier, 2016), and “ethics work” (Banks, 2016) to be inspiring, as they transcend the level of looking at ethics as a decision-making space to a much broader concept that focuses on the “doing” of ethics. As Strom-Gottfried (2019, p. 65) states: “Virtue and integrity, internalization of social work values and ethics, and the skills to create change and speak truth to power are necessary but insufficient ingredients for ethical action. Organisations’ leaders have a particular responsibility for establishing the culture, policies, and structures that foster integrity and ethical action.”

Notwithstanding the fact that the uncertainty of the supra-organizational environment—involving socio-economic and political dimensions beyond the control of professionals—was criticized by social workers, the uncertainty resulting from an ambiguous understanding of professionalism also contained positive elements associated with defining the ideal of the profession. Our findings confirm the existence of different tendencies in the concept of social work professionalism, for example, as a value-oriented profession focused on client's welfare and general welfare (Banks, 2021) and as the ability to follow the recommended procedures ensuring the effectiveness of activities in solving specific cases (e.g., Trappenburg & van Beek's critique of managerialism [2019] for its deskilling and flattening impact that leads to deprofessionalization). Although the Czech Republic is a country where neoliberal social policies are being expanded—leading to the routinization and de-skilling of social work—social workers often prioritize professional values over efficiency. Participants emphasized value-oriented practice, including “promoting social change, openly criticising the social order and striving for social justice” (SR), which reflects the citizen-agent model (van der Tier et al., 2022), although most of them do not consider themselves political actors.

Limitations

It is important to point out certain limitations of this study. The research was based on national data and requires a comparative analysis of other national environments. It was conducted within a qualitative research strategy and faced its limitations, which were reflected in the methodological part of the study. It does not allow for generalization of the results. The strength of the study was its deep insight into the phenomenon under study, which made it possible to reveal its complex nature—ensured, among other things, by the triangulation of data collection, its scope and depth. Lastly, drawing on national data, this article provides a perspective beyond local boundaries and identifies a research area that may enhance ethical practice in contexts shaped by expanding neoliberal policies. Its findings are thus relevant for global social work.

Conclusion

The uncertainties that people face are both grounded in individual experience and socially constructs; therefore, the particular importance of the micro, meso and macro contexts of how people experience, perceive and cope with moral uncertainty needs to be emphasized (cf. Lucas Casanova et al., 2019). This means that there should be individual, interpersonal, organizational, structural and social strategies for coping with moral uncertainty, as well as individual, organizational, and so on, responsibilities. For competent practice at an individual level, self-development using available literature and online resources is essential, as is self-care that reduces uncertainty and stress. A system of professional peer support must be in place in social service organizations, which includes supervision to help reduce uncertainty and moral distress. Supervisors who are not prepared to address the needs of supervisees should be given the necessary training. The issue of (moral) uncertainty needs to be incorporated into continuing education and training in social work, drawing on the rich tradition of developing moral decision-making skills (Petrucijová et al., 2021). However, we must state that, unlike other educational systems (cf. Afrouz [2021], who approaches uncertainty as an opportunity to explore new possibilities, collaborations and innovations in social work education), in the Czech educational environment there are still no strategies and courses aimed at the developing the skills of social work students and practitioners for coping with uncertainty. It's a challenge for the NASWE-CZ, which defines its goal as increasing the quality of social work education and improving the supply and performance of social work services in the country. Social work education in ethics should play a key role in formulating and developing knowledge and skills to respond to uncertain circumstances.

The development of the ethical culture of the organization and the moral decision-making skills of social workers is not a priority in some organizations. This presents a challenging goal that may start through an ethics audit in institutions, including educational institutions. Uncertainty should become a stimulus for change and development, both in terms of the moral development of professionals and changes in the organizational environment.