Freedman, Ethan
9/16/25
Columbia University School for Social Work, New York
Submitted in partial fulfillment as Assignment One within the requirements for Columbia's School for Social Work program and Prof. Jeanette Takamura's Macro Community Practice class.
Acknowledgements
I would also like to acknowledge Professor Prof. Jeanette Takamura and their facilitation of SOCWT7124. With Prof. Takamura's lecturers, recommended readings, and my additional thoughts – this piece took form. Moreover, all my peers in class who contributed to discussions and building ideas that related to the present topic. With these acknowledgements, I present my following work.
Through reviewing Social Intervention Group (SIG) at Columbia University School for Social Work, a lab that conducts research and develops interventions around HIV/AIDS, Substance Use, Violence, and Social Justice, the capacity to conduct research at an institutional and traditionally academic level reveals itself to have competencies and vulnerabilities (Social Intervention Group, n.d.). In tandem with Bolman and Deal's (2021) Four Frames Theory emphasizing lenses for analyzing institutions like SIG for their structural, human resource, political, and symbolic capacities, SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, Threats) provides additional assistance in systematic evaluation of organizations (Keela, n.d.). SIG is discussed with leadership and other organizational assessment models to envelope a process of systematic examination capable of being intuitively and deliberately mapped onto any program.
SIG's Structure: Strength in Systems and Fragile Funding
Examining SIG through Bolman and Deal's (2021) structural frame highlights how an organization's ability to function depends on systems, roles, and policies that shape it. A research enterprise similar to Columbia University's SIG benefits from clearly defined hierarchies. Faculty directors and principal investigators supervise graduate research assistants and administrative staff to enable SIG in exploring topics within the realm of HIV/AIDs, substance use, and violence prevention. This structure provides academic credibility reliant on grant accountabilities and alignment with Columbia's institutional standards, ensuring that the lab's work remains recognized within both scholarly and policy making communities.
That being said, structural simplicities rooted in hierarchies and research boundaries come with vulnerabilities as SIG's operations rely heavily on external grants. The organization depends on funding cycles and federal research policies, something Keela (n.d.) acknowledges is prominent within a lot of federally or privately funded institutions. This creates instability for stakeholders in Columbia by limiting guaranteed sustainability of certain projects. Opportunities that come with SIG's structure, considering its affiliation with Columbia, are associated with a vast network of resources across disciplines that enable collaborations with other departments and momentum of a global reputation that can support large grants. Leveraging these advantages expands the reach of the lab, supports more interventions, and broader dissemination of findings. The bureaucratic policies associated with a university system can create constraints that render stagnant processes of curiosity, require multiple levels of approval for research protocols, hiring, or budget allocations, and may diminish the capacity to respond to community needs (David, 2020). SIG's structural health depends on its ability to balance institutional requirements with its mission to advance social justice.
Human Resource: A Group of People With Power to Work Under Pressure
Through human resource perspectives, SIG's strengths are the people that sustain it. Faculty, staff, students, and community partners bring expert and embodied leadership through collaboration that makes SIG a leader in its realm. This creates opportunities for mentorship and interdisciplinary collectivity that reinforce SIG's role in training future social workers. Reliance on grant funding creates workforce instability and the risk of burnout in emotionally demanding research areas – especially social work. Drucker (2005) stresses that sustainable contribution requires an awareness of self and alignment of values, while Goleman (2015) centers emotional intelligence as essential for leadership and team cohesion. At SIG, these points emphasize the importance of supporting staff wellbeing and fostering a culture of collaboration.
As an organization, SIG also could strengthen its approach to human resources through leadership development and ethical practices. While Kirk (2024) argues that respect, accountability, and justice build inclusive cultures, Block (2004) warns of the risk of centralizing authority in organizations driven by missions. For SIG, sustaining impact will depend on cultivating emotionally intelligent leaders rooted in institutionally guarded ethics for social work research, and reducing the uncertainty tied to grant based employment.
Politics of Research: Power as Determinants of Resources
SIG operates politically in a landscape shaped by power, resources, and competing interests. Its credibility and track record in research influence policy and funding networks, positioning a unique strength that enables the group to secure grants and maintain visibility. However, reliance on federal funding makes SIG vulnerable to shifts in political priorities and research competition. Both Bolman & Deal (2021 and Keela (n.d.) note that funding dependencies often represent a critical organizational weakness as external and internal politics shape funding dependent on political positioning. Without political alignment and stakeholder support, the most stable and innovative organizations can struggle (Kraemer et al., 2009).
Reputation, Resonance, Risks: SIG's Symbolic Capital
SIG symbolically represents and embodies Columbia University School of Social Work's commitment to social justice and innovation in public health research. Its reputation provides legitimacy and attracts partners, students, and funders, establishing symbolic credibility. However, symbolism is lacking in other areas as SIG risks being perceived as an academic body removed from community realities. This can weaken synchronicity with SIG and the populations it serves, something Jaffe et al. (1993) emphasize alongside the notion that vision and values must translate into action. Leaders who can emotionally connect with stakeholders to ensure resonance informs SIG's symbolic leadership and create space for equity driven and culturally grounded interventions (Goleman, 2013). Despite threats from evolving narratives of social justice movements SIG's symbolic fervor depends on linking rigorous research with values of justice, including, and community trust.
SWOT Analysis: Synthesizing SIG
The four lenses offered by Bolman and Deal (2021) collectively clarify Social Intervention Group's strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in a way that emphasizes both academic prowess and vulnerabilities. SIG's strengths are evident in the organization's structural clarity and symbolic reputation, benefiting from affiliations with Columbia University resources, credibility, and access to extensive professional networks. Its reputation as a leader in social justice research reinforces legitimacy in both academic and policy arenas. The organization draws on human resource strengths with a diverse and skilled faculty, staff, and students who collectively produce to the ethical standards of interventions and scholarship (Drucker, 2005).
SIG's reliance on grant funding can generate uncertainty in human resource domains of staffing and limits the sustainability of many university funded research projects. These vulnerabilities lead to turnover and burnout from agents engaged in emotionally demanding research at SIG (Goleman, 2015). In tangent, the group navigates pervasive federal boundaries tied to university based research, and compounded with the present U.S. governing bodies. SIG responds to research audits and ultimately contributes to federal research agendas.
SIG can structurally leverage Columbia's interdisciplinary networks to broaden scopes for interventions within the confines of negotiated research agendas, while the development of human resources can enable investing in leadership training, mentorship, and strategies to retain credible staff capable of informing future generations to reinforce organizational resilience. SIG is capable of adapting its research domain because it is a leader in research rooted in equity that highlights cultural responsiveness and community impact. Despite the potential energy in an organization like SIG, political shifts at federal, state, or university levels can reduce available funding or redirect attention to competing areas. Competition from peer institutions pose risks to both funding streams and symbolic visibility (Kraemer et al., 2009). While bureaucratic and institutional constraints within Columbia may limit flexibility, community skepticism could affect trust if research is not perceived as accessible or relevant.
Holding it Together: SIG's Leadership, Alignment, and Resilience in Research
Individuals sustain impact by managing themselves through clear recognition of strengths, values, and contributions (Drucker, 2005). Goleman (2015, 2013) underscores emotional intelligence and resonance as essential for leaders seeking to create trust and connection, something evident in SIG's leadership training methods. Human centered equitable practices at the center of SIG's methodology supports Kirk (2024), and reminds that ethical leadership is essential to creating inclusive cultures to reinforce SIG's symbolic identity as a justice centered lab. While Jaffe et al. (1993) emphasizes linking values, missions, and visions with daily practices at an organizational level, David (2020) emphasizes concise mission statements. When synthesized, these perspectives demonstrate that SIG's strengths will only translate into sustainable practices if its structures, people, strategies, and identity remains aligned and adaptive.
The integration of Bolman and Deal's (2021) four frames with SWOT analysis (Keela, n.d.) illustrates that SIG's organizational health cannot be reduced to a single dimension. It structurally benefits from hierarchies and institutional affiliation, yet remains vulnerable to grant related boundaries. Human resource lenses focus on the expertise of staff and the uncertainty tied to employment instability, while political frames show that SIG's influence depends on its ability to navigate shifting federal priorities and competitive funding landscapes. SIG has a strong reputation, but must ensure its work resonates beyond academia to maintain legitimacy with community stakeholders.
Bibliography
Block, S. R. (2004). Founder's syndrome. In Why nonprofits fail: Overcoming founder's syndrome, blurring lines of authority, and other obstacles to success (pp. 135–151). Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2021). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (7th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
David, F. (2020). Analysis of vision and mission statements characteristics and their association with organizational performance: A guide to writing effective vision and mission statements. Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce (APSTRACT), 14(1–2), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.19041/APSTRACT/20201-2/11
Drucker, P. F. (2005). Managing oneself. Harvard Business Review, 83(1), 100–109. https://hbr.org/2005/01/managing-oneself
Goleman, D. (2013). The neuroanatomy of leadership. In Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence (pp. 33–52). Harvard Business Review Press.
Goleman, D. (2015). What makes a leader? In HBR's 10 must reads on emotional intelligence (pp. 1–21). Harvard Business Review Press. (Original work published 1996)
Jaffe, D. T., Tobe, G., & Tobe, G. (1993). Organizational vision, values and mission. Course Technology Crisp.
Keela. (n.d.). SWOT analysis for nonprofit: A how-to guide, example, and template. Keela. https://www.keela.co/blog
Kirk, V. (2024, April 18). What is ethical leadership and why is it important? Harvard Division of Continuing Education Professional & Executive Development blog. Retrieved August 1, 2025, from https://professional.dce.harvard.edu/blog/what-is-ethical-leadership-and-why-is-it-important/
Kraemer, K. L., Dedrick, J., & Sharma, P. (2009). One laptop per child: Vision vs. reality. Communications of the ACM, 52(6), 66–73. https://cacm.acm.org/research/one-laptop-per-child-vision-vs-reality/
Social Intervention Group. (n.d.). Columbia University School of Social Work. Retrieved September 12, 2025, from https://sig.columbia.edu/